THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED TEACHER EMPOWERMENT  
AND PRINCIPAL USE OF POWER 
 
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this 
dissertation is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This 
dissertation does not include proprietary or classified information. 
 
 
 
______________________________________________ 
Jackie Daniel Lintner 
 
 
 
Certificate of Approval: 
 
 
 
    
William A. Spencer  Cynthia J. Reed, Chair 
Professor  Associate Professor 
Educational Foundations, Leadership  Educational Foundations, Leadership 
and Technology  and Technology 
 
 
 
 
    
Frances K. Kochan  Joe F. Pittman 
Professor                                                               Interim Dean 
Educational Foundations, Leadership                   Graduate School                 
and Technology                                       
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED TEACHER EMPOWERMENT  
AND PRINCIPAL USE OF POWER 
Jackie Daniel Lintner 
 
A Dissertation 
Submitted to 
the Graduate Faculty of 
Auburn University 
in Partial Fulfillment of the  
Requirements for the  
Degree of 
Doctor of Education 
 
 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
May 10, 2008 
 
 iii 
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED TEACHER EMPOWERMENT  
AND PRINCIPAL USE OF POWER 
 
Jackie Daniel Lintner 
 
 
Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this dissertation at its 
discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions at their expense. The author 
reserves all publication rights.  
 
 
      
Signature of Author   
 
      
Date of Graduation    
 
 iv 
VITA 
 
Jackie Daniel Lintner, daughter of Jacqueline Stover Daniel and Melvyn Daniel, 
was born June 17, 1969, in Columbus Georgia. She graduated from Pacelli High School 
in 1987. She attended the University of Georgia and graduated in 1992 with a Bachelor of 
Science degree in Early Childhood Education. After graduation, she moved to Woodland, 
Georgia and taught first grade at Pine Ridge Elementary School in Ellerslie, Georgia. She 
then attended Columbus State University and graduated in 1994 with a Master of 
Education degree in Elementary Education. After teaching for several years, she attended 
Troy State University and graduated with a Specialist of Education degree in Elementary 
Education in 1998. In 2001, she began her doctoral studies at Auburn University. She 
married Chris Lintner on September 4, 2007. She has two daughters, Grace Elizabeth 
Metsinger and Kathryn Lane Metsinger and one step-son, James Lintner. 
 
 v 
DISSERTATION ABSTRACT 
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED TEACHER EMPOWERMENT 
 AND PRINCIPAL USE OF POWER 
  
 Jackie Daniel Lintner 
 
Doctor of Education, May 10, 2008 
(Ed.S, Troy State University, 1998) 
(M.Ed., Columbus State University, 1995) 
(B.S., University of Georgia, 1992)  
 
179 Typed Pages 
 
Directed by Cynthia J. Reed 
 
 
 
This study addresses the relationship between perceived teacher empowerment 
and principal use of power. The continual cycle of education reform movements suggest 
that there is a need for principals to evaluate and re-define their leadership roles on a 
continuous basis. The expanded expectations and responsibilities placed on schools have 
seemingly created a need for school leadership to be shared or distributed among teachers 
and principals.  
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between perceived 
teacher empowerment and principal use of power. The study sought to identify the power 
bases teachers perceived their principals as operating from.  It also sought to identify 
teachers? perceived levels of empowerment and possible hindrances and facilitators to 
 
 vi 
their empowerment. The six attributes of teacher empowerment are decision-making, 
professional growth, status, self-efficacy, autonomy, and teacher impact. The five power 
bases are reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, and expert.  
Three school districts in Alabama participated in this study. Three types of data 
were collected. First, the Rahim Leader Power Inventory was used measure teachers? 
perceptions of the type of power base used by principals. Second, the School Participant 
Empowerment Scale was used to measure teachers? perceptions of their level of 
empowerment. Third, answers to open-ended questions were used to identify hindrances 
and facilitating factors of teacher empowerment not addressed on the School Participant 
Empowerment Scale and the Rahim Leader Power Inventory. 
The data suggest that most teachers from the participating counties perceive their 
principals as operating from a legitimate power base. Many teachers reported perceiving 
that their principals did not operate from a reward power base. Of the six subscales of 
teacher empowerment, it appears that the principal use of expert power and referent 
power have the highest relationship with teacher empowerment. Coercive and reward 
power bases are the least likely power bases to have significant impact on teacher 
empowerment. Themes that emerged from teacher feedback about empowerment were 
poor quality of administrative staff, standards, lack of communication, societal issues, 
and non-teaching duties. Teachers offered many insightful comments about how they 
view principal use of power. However, there were no themes that surfaced from their 
responses.  
 
 vii 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
 First, I would like to express how thankful I am to my mother, Jacqueline Stover 
Daniel, who instilled in me the importance of education at a young age. I also thank my 
dad, Melvyn Daniel and step-mother, Joyce Daniel for being my constant support system. 
I want my daughters, Grace and Kathryn, to know how grateful I am for their patience 
while I attended class, completed school assignments, and wrote this manuscript. My 
children are my inspiration and I hope that by watching me go through this process they 
too will be encouraged to seek higher education and never give up on reaching their 
goals. 
 I offer a special note of appreciation to Dr. Cynthia Reed for serving as my 
committee chairperson. Without her guidance, time, and constant support I could not 
have completed this project. I also thank Dr. William Spencer and Dr. Frances Kochan 
for their time serving on my committee. Their support and kindness made this project one 
of my best learning experiences. In addition, I wish to thank my outside reader, Dr. Mary 
Rudisill and Ms. Altamese Stroud-Hill for formatting this manuscript. 
 In conclusion, I want to thank my husband, Chris Lintner, who has been a 
constant source of encouragement, help and support. I thank him for helping me feel 
secure and loved as I worked through a sometimes lonely and isolating process. 
 
 viii 
 Style manual or journal used:  Publication Manual of the American Psychological  
Association (5
th
 ed.)           
 Computer software used: Microsoft Word 2003,       
             
 
 ix 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................... xv 
 
I. NATURE OF THE STUDY .......................................................................... 1 
 
 Introduction to the Study ............................................................................... 1 
 Background of the Study ............................................................................... 1 
 Statement of the Problem............................................................................... 10 
 Research Questions........................................................................................ 11 
 Setting ............................................................................................................ 12 
 Methodology.................................................................................................. 12 
 Significance of the Study............................................................................... 13 
 Limitations of the Study................................................................................. 15 
 Conceptual/Operational Definitions .............................................................. 16 
 Summary........................................................................................................ 17 
 
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................ 18 
 
 Introduction.................................................................................................... 18 
 Theoretical Framework.................................................................................. 19 
 
  Social Cognitive Theory .................................................................... 19 
  Motivational Theory .......................................................................... 26 
  Trust and Hope................................................................................... 29 
  Shared Governance ............................................................................ 32 
  School Climate................................................................................... 34 
  School Culture ................................................................................... 36 
  Schools as Communities.................................................................... 39 
  Schools as Living Systems................................................................. 42 
 
 Proposed Models of Educational Leadership ................................................ 44 
 
  Instructional Leadership..................................................................... 47 
  Transformational Leadership............................................................. 50 
  Moral Leadership............................................................................... 55 
  Participative Leadership..................................................................... 57 
 
 x 
  Site-Based Management .................................................................... 58 
  Managerial Leadership....................................................................... 59 
  Contingent Leadership....................................................................... 59 
 
 Leadership Belief Paradigms ......................................................................... 60 
 
  J?rgen Habermas? Three Paradigms .................................................. 61 
  Senge?s Four Key Competencies....................................................... 65 
  Structural, Human, Political and Symbolic Frames........................... 66 
 
 The Conceptualization of Power Theory ....................................................... 67 
 
  Principals? Use of Power ................................................................... 70 
 
 Empowerment................................................................................................ 74 
 Teacher Empowerment .................................................................................. 76 
 
  Dimensions of Teacher Empowerment.............................................. 79 
 
   Decision-Making.................................................................... 80 
   Impact .................................................................................... 81 
   Status...................................................................................... 81 
   Autonomy .............................................................................. 82 
                                    Professional Growth???????????????... 83 
                                    Self-Efficacy??????????????????... 84 
 
  Teacher Leadership............................................................................ 84 
 
 Reasons for Teacher Empowerment .............................................................. 85 
 Barriers to Teacher Empowerment ................................................................ 87 
 Facilitating Factors of Empowerment............................................................ 89 
 Summary........................................................................................................ 91 
 
III. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 93 
 
 Introduction.................................................................................................... 93 
 
  Ethical Issues ..................................................................................... 93 
  Design ................................................................................................ 94 
 
 Theoretical Framework.................................................................................. 98 
 Attributes of Empowerment........................................................................... 99 
 
  Decision-making................................................................................ 100 
  Teacher-Impact .................................................................................. 100 
 
 xi 
  Autonomy .......................................................................................... 100 
  Status.................................................................................................. 101 
  Professional Growth........................................................................... 101 
  Self-Efficacy ...................................................................................... 101 
 
 Principals? Use of Power ............................................................................... 101 
 Participants..................................................................................................... 102 
 Data Collection Procedures............................................................................ 103 
 Analysis.......................................................................................................... 104 
 Summary........................................................................................................ 104 
 
IV. FINDINGS..................................................................................................... 106 
 
 Teachers? Perceptions of the Types of Power Used by Their Principals....... 106 
 
  The Relationship between Levels of Principal Power  
   as Perceived by Teachers and Perceived Level of  
   Teacher Empowerment .......................................................... 108 
  Teachers? Perceptions about Limitations and  
   Facilitating Factors of Teacher Empowerment...................... 110 
  Decision-Making................................................................................ 110 
  Impact ................................................................................................ 112 
  Status.................................................................................................. 112 
  Autonomy .......................................................................................... 113 
  Professional Growth........................................................................... 115 
  Self-Efficacy ...................................................................................... 116 
  Other Dimensions of Teacher Empowerment.................................... 116 
  Poor Quality of Administrative Staff................................................. 117 
  Standards............................................................................................ 117 
  Lack of Communication .................................................................... 118 
  Societal Issues.................................................................................... 118 
  Non-Teaching Duties......................................................................... 119 
  Lack of Time...................................................................................... 119 
  Appropriate Discipline....................................................................... 120 
  Coercive Power.................................................................................. 120 
  Reward Power.................................................................................... 121 
  Legitimate Power............................................................................... 122 
  Expert Power...................................................................................... 122 
  Referent Power................................................................................... 123 
  Other Dimensions of Principal Power ............................................... 123 
  Fairness .............................................................................................. 123 
  Discipline ........................................................................................... 124 
  Decision-making................................................................................ 125 
  Consistency........................................................................................ 125 
 
 
 xii 
 Summary........................................................................................................ 126 
 
V. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 128 
 
 Synthesis of Key Findings ............................................................................. 128 
 Discussion of the Findings............................................................................. 130 
 Implications of the Study............................................................................... 134 
 Recommendations for Principals, Principal Preparation 
  Programs, and Policy Makers ............................................................ 137 
 
  Recommendations for Principals ....................................................... 137 
  Recommendations for Teachers......................................................... 138 
  Recommendations for Principal and Teacher Preparation Programs  139 
  Recommendations for Policy Makers................................................ 140 
 
 Limitations of the Study................................................................................. 140 
 Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Study ................................. 142 
 Summary........................................................................................................ 143 
 
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 145 
 
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 158 
 
 Appendix A: School Participant Empowerment Scale, Rahim  
   Leader Power Inventory, and Open-Ended Questions........... 159 
 Appendix B: Auburn University Institutional Review Board (IRB) 
   Approval Letter and Information Sheet ................................. 163 
 
 
 
 xiii 
LIST OF TABLES 
 
Table 1 Habermas? Cognitive Interests and Educational Applications ................ 63 
 
Table 2 Administration Focus and Habermas? Human Interests .......................... 64 
 
Table 3 Recoded Coercive Power Base ................................................................ 107 
 
Table 4 Summary of First Canonical Root for Teacher  
 Empowerment and Principle Power Bases .............................................. 108 
 
 
 1
I. NATURE OF THE STUDY 
 
Introduction to the Study 
 This study investigates the relationship between principal use of power and 
perceptions about teacher empowerment. This chapter provides background information 
about the study and information about the theoretical constructs used to frame the study. 
The purpose of the study, its significance, and research questions are also presented. A 
brief description of the methodology used in this study, its limitations, and a list of 
working definitions is provided. 
 
Background of the Study 
 Society continually looks to the education system for guidance, answers and 
solutions to problems that affect the nation (Barth, 1990; Dipaola & Tschannen-Moran, 
2003; Ferrandino, 2001; Sergiovanni, 1992). As a result, through the last quarter of the 
20
th
 century school systems have increased in complexity (Barth, 1990; Dipaola & 
Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Ferrandino, 2001; Sergiovanni, 1992). In response to the 
increased expectations placed on schools, there are two policy stances that have been 
developed-those that support standardization, accountability, and assessment and policies 
that support building capacity in educators and enabling good practice (Lieberman & 
Miller, 2004). Policies aimed at accountability and standardization arrived on the 
 
 2
educational scene with the successful launching of Sputnik in 1957, making school 
reform a significant concern in the United States (Lieberman & Miller, 2004). Some 
people feared the nation?s public schools were not adequately preparing children to 
compete in the international marketplace (Briley, 2004; Eisner, 1992; Flynn, 1995; 
Howey, 1988; Short & Greer, 1997; Zuckerman, 1992). One step toward recovery was a 
strong commitment to advance the nation?s public education system.  
Decades later, in the mid 1980s, the country saw a rush to setting standards and 
implementing high stakes testing when A Nation at Risk claimed declining student 
achievement, decreasing teacher knowledge, and lax academic and behavioral standards 
as risks to the nation?s economy and status in the world (Lieberman & Miller, 2004). The 
publication of A Nation at Risk reemphasized the need for educational reform aimed at 
winning the war against mediocrity in the nation?s school system (National Commission 
on Excellence in Education, 1983). At the same time A Nation at Risk was circulating, A 
Nation Prepared: Teachers for the Twenty First Century argued imposing standards was 
not enough to transform school; rather, it called for the strengthening of the teaching 
profession (Lieberman & Miller, 2004). This report summoned teachers to become 
leaders in curriculum, instruction, school redesign, and professional development. The 
report emphasized that the real power to improve achievement lay with teachers who 
needed to be entrusted with the responsibility and accountability for change (Lieberman 
& Miller, 2004).  
The involvement of the federal government expanded greatly with the legislation 
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. This legislation provided another widespread 
reform movement that appeared to exert strong pressure on the states to enforce strict 
 
 3
accountability in the form of standardized test scores and other benchmarks that are used 
to determine the comparative status of all schools (Keefe & Amenta, 2005).  
The aspiration to reform schools has been a recurrent theme in American 
education (Eisner, 1992) as the nation looks to schools to best prepare students to meet 
the demands of modern-day society. These top-down types of reforms are among the 
most powerful influences on the education profession (Leithwood, 2001; Richardson, 
Lane & Flanigan, 1995). 
 In the aftermath of school improvement initiatives aimed at ?reform, 
restructuring, and reinvention? there has not been the great wave of school improvement 
expected (Pellicer, 2003, p. 138-139). Research informs us that there are several reasons 
for the lack of school improvement (Barth, 1990; Pellicer, 2003; Sergiovanni, 1992). 
First, in response to the reform movement brought on by A Nation at Risk educators and 
administrators simply did more of what they were already doing which created the same 
results (Pellicer, 2003). Second, society may be expecting too much from schools (Barth, 
1990; Pellicer, 2003; Sergiovanni, 1992). For example, today?s students will need to 
graduate from high school prepared for a multifaceted world of work and citizenry with a 
command of modern technology, the ability to think through and solve complex cognitive 
problems, and a readiness to be flexible and adaptive (Lieberman & Miller, 2004). In 
addition to rigorous academic standards for graduation from high school, our education 
system is beleaguered by social problems such as alcohol and drug abuse, teen 
pregnancy, juvenile violence, adolescent suicide, homelessness, and poverty (Pellicer, 
2003). ?If one considers the range of social problems facing our youth and then places 
 
 4
them in the context of the academic demands of an increasingly complex, modern 
society, then the enormity of the task begins to take form? (Pellicer, 2003, p. 142).  
Third, Barth (1990) contends that ?insufficient attention has been given to the important 
relationships among the adults within the school and to a consideration of how the 
abundant untapped energy, inventiveness, and idealism within the schoolhouse might be 
encouraged? (p. xiv). Only changes originating from within the school are expected to 
bring about sustained improvement (Barth, 1990). The key to improving schools from 
within is to build collegial relationships among teachers and between teachers and the 
principal (Barth, 1990).  
 The continual cycle of education reform movements have led to the 
conceptualization of schools as dynamic institutions that must constantly evolve to meet 
the demands of an ever-changing, complex world, making it necessary for principals to 
evaluate and re-define their leadership roles on a continuous basis (Archer, 2002; 
Ferrandino, 2001; Hallinger, 2003; Hager & Scarr, 1983; Senge, 2000; Sergiovanni & 
Starratt, 1971; Short, 1998). While the intent of the nation to improve its system of 
education has been creditable, age-old traditions governing teachers and teaching systems 
still stand as barriers to substantial reform (Richardson, Lane & Flanigan, 1995). In many 
cases, the changing demands of our educational system, as well as new technologies in 
education, have rendered ineffectual the old and more traditional approaches to education 
(Richardson, Lane & Flanigan, 1995). Sergiovanni (1992) states, ?The standard recipe 
(for leadership) does not quite work as well as it used to. The times are different, and the 
people are different? (p. 69). Society has changed drastically over the past 100 years, yet 
schools, for the most part, are operating on nineteenth-century bureaucratic, mechanistic 
 
 5
models that cast principals in the role of management and teachers in the role of labor 
(Pellicer, 2003). Bennis (1991) states, ?By paying attention to what is changing today, we 
know what we must do better tomorrow? (p. 22).  
Hierarchical, bureaucratic, and authoritative structures of education have been 
recounted throughout history in scholarly writing. For instance, John Dewey (1940) 
observed the educational structure was to have ?one expert dictating educational methods 
and subject matter to a body of passive recipient teachers? (p. 64). Dewey describes the 
general attitude toward teachers of his time period; ?It is asserted that the existing corps 
of teachers is unfit to have a voice in the settlement of educational matters? (p. 67). In 
addition, Theodore Sizer (1983) notes that school systems are arranged in, ?pyramid tiers, 
with governing boards and administrators at the peaks and the classrooms at the base?  
(p. 206). The Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession echoes the same points; 
the bureaucratic management of schools denies teachers the opportunities for their voices 
to be heard in educational matters (Text of the Carnegie Report, 1986). Teachers are 
authority figures in the classroom and responsible for student instruction and 
achievement, yet some believe that in the larger educational hierarchy they are rarely 
trusted with the selection of teaching texts and programs and remain isolated and 
powerless (Kreisberg, 1992; Sizer, 1983).  
In addition to educational reform movements and increased expectations placed 
on schools, administrators of the 21
st
 century face complex challenges such as inadequate 
funding, high drop-out rates, unsafe school environments, student behavior problems, and 
increasing cultural diversity in schools and communities. Meeting these challenges is 
even more taxing in an atmosphere of intense pressure created by the need to meet 
 
 6
national and state standards measured typically by standardized test scores (Archer, 2002; 
DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Earl & Fullan, 2003; Ferrandino, 2001; Greenfield, 
1995; Lucas & Valentine, 2001Senge, 2000; Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1971; Short, 1998). 
In addition, schools are multifaceted because of the sophistication of their technology and 
the diversity of their mission (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1971). In a study of the changing 
face of the principalship in Alabama, Kochan, Spencer, and Mathews (1999) found that 
the role of principals in Alabama has become more complex and stressful mainly due to 
external pressures, particularly those related to state mandates, the budgeting system, and 
accountability measures. Research informs us that principals today face increased job 
complexity, rising standards, and greater demands than those of the industrial-age  
(DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Ferrando, 2001). However, despite reform 
initiatives, schools in general remain modeled after the industrial, mechanistic way of 
conducting business (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Senge, 2000).  
The expanded expectations and responsibilities placed on schools have created a 
need for school leadership to shift from a top-down style to shared or distributed 
leadership (Barth, 2001; Blas? & Blas?, 1994; Dipaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Earl 
& Fullan, 2003; Evans, 1996; Ferrandino, 2001; Kochan & Reed, 2004; Lambert, 2002; 
Lucas & Valentine, 2001; Short, 1998; Smith, 2001; Wynne, 2001). The expanded job 
responsibilities of principals today simply are not achievable by one person (DiPaola & 
Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Ferrandino, 2001). Schools need a much different kind of 
leadership than the autocratic dictatorship of the industrial age (Greenfield, 1995; Lucas 
& Valentine, 2001; Murphy, 1991; Senge, 1990, 2000; Sergiovanni, 2000). 
 
 7
By encouraging the development of the abilities and skills of students, parents, 
and teachers, principals can begin to build shared leadership (Darling-Hammond, 1993; 
DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Lucas & Valentine, 2001). Kochan, Spencer, and 
Mathews (1999) state that the stress principals feel may be minimized by reorganizing 
the tasks and responsibilities within the principalship, lessening the demands principals 
face so that leaders? energies may be used to improve instruction, enrich learning and 
teaching environments, and to build support for schools in the larger community. 
Therefore, a new style of leadership is needed that engages all school participants in 
problem solving, creating opportunities, and overcoming barriers to student learning 
(Short, 1998; Smith, 2004). Educational leaders are being asked to both relinquish and 
allocate power ?with? rather than holding power ?over? teachers in the belief that power 
sharing will release the potential of teachers to effect the improvement of schools and 
student achievement (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Gonzales & Short, 1996).  
 In a systematic effort to appropriately frame effective leadership and improve 
supervisory effectiveness, theories have been proposed that have been combined and 
related to concepts and ideas from other areas in the social sciences (Sergiovanni & 
Starratt, 1971). Dissatisfaction among scholars regarding progress in understanding 
leadership and in helping practitioners improve leadership ability is legendary 
(Sergiovanni & Corbally, 1984). However, many researchers hold constant that school 
success is dependent upon a positive relationship between the principal and teachers 
(Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Brewster & Railsback, 2003; Combs, Miser, & Whitaker, 1999; 
Hip, 1997; Short & Johnson, 1994).  
 
 8
The sharing of power with teachers is often seen as fundamental to the success of 
site-based management and shared decision-making. Schools that are successfully 
restructuring seem to be distinguished by high levels of administrator-teacher 
collaboration in leadership (Leithwood & Menzies, 1998). As a result, the relationship 
between principal use of power and teacher empowerment has become part of today?s 
rhetoric in education (Gonzalas & Short, 1996; Lightfoot, 1986; Short & Johnson, 1994).  
 Teacher empowerment is considered by some to be a basic element of school 
reform (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Gonzales & Short, 1996). Ironically, the issue of increased 
teacher monitoring has surfaced simultaneously with increasing pressure for 
accountability (Kreisberg, 1992). The National Education Association, the American 
Federation of Teachers, and the United Federation of Teachers support teacher 
empowerment as a local, state, and national goal (Blas? & Blas?, 2001). Principals are 
being asked to create conditions that will foster the empowerment of teachers to take 
advantage of the move toward site-based management and shared decision-making 
structures (Lucas & Valentine, 2001). Research indicates that there is an interest in how 
principals can foster the empowerment of teachers to assume various leadership roles in 
the school, thus lessening the burden on themselves to manage all school business (Blas? 
& Blas?, 2001; DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Gonzales & Short, 1996; Lieberman 
& Miller, 2004). As stated earlier, schools face complex issues requiring leaders to create 
school environments that enhance the capacity of teachers to take charge of their 
professional growth and to utilize opportunities for competencies to be developed and 
demonstrated; thus, lessening the burden on themselves to be ?superleaders? (DiPaola & 
Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Lucas & Valentine, 2001; Short, 1994).  
 
 9
Sergiovanni (1992) states: 
In schools, this means that, instead of worrying constantly about setting the 
direction and then engaging teachers and others in a successful march (often 
known as planning, organizing, leading, motivating, and controlling), the leader 
can focus more on removing obstacles, providing material and emotional support, 
taking care of the management details that make the journey easier, sharing in the 
comradeship of the march and in the celebration when the journey is completed, 
and identifying a new, worthwhile destination for the next march. (pp. 43-44) 
A key element in understanding how principals can build leadership capacity in teachers 
is to gain a better understanding of the relationship between perceived teacher 
empowerment and principal use of power (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Short, 1998). Taking an 
in-depth look at principal power and its relationship to teacher empowerment may lead to 
a better understanding of how to build successful, empowered, high-performance 
organizations, where principals share their power and ?distribute leadership out to the far 
reaches of the organization? (Wren, 1995, p. 459). Thus, principals and teachers together, 
can successfully maneuver the constant change and complexity of the nation?s public 
education system to bring about improved student achievement and competencies to meet 
the demands of the 21
st
 century workplace (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Gonzales & Short, 
1996; Lucas & Valentine, 2001; Short, 1994). 
 Without teachers and principals working together in an environment based on 
trust and respect, it seems that the most dedicated boards of education, restructuring 
initiatives, and reform movements will fail to improve school performance (Blas? & 
Blas?, 2003; Brouilette, 1997). According to Senge, ?any system of hierarchical control, 
 
 10
even if it has very good people, is subject to abuse? (2000, p. 45). Bureaucratically 
organized school environments deny teachers autonomy and control, thus negatively 
affecting principals? and teachers? productivity and commitment (Gonzales & Short, 
1996). With inappropriate use of administrative power comes a ripple effect that not only 
impacts teachers? relationships with colleagues and family, but also their sense of 
empowerment (Blas? & Blas?, 2003).  
 
Statement of the Problem 
 The mysteries of the interactions of power, authority, and teacher empowerment 
continue to intrigue social scientists (Sergiovanni, Bulingam, Coombs, & Thurston, 
1987). A review of the literature indicates that principal use of power influences teacher 
empowerment (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Gonzales & Short, 1996; Kreisberg, 1992; 
Richardson, Lane, & Flanigan, 1995; Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1998). Therefore, it is 
important to gain an understanding of the relationship between perceptions about 
principal use of power and teacher empowerment (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Gonzales & 
Short, 1996; Short & Moore, 1996). 
 A main force driving the empowerment movement in education is teacher 
effectiveness (Short & Johnson, 1994; Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1998). An important 
assumption is that teachers who design and control their educational services are more 
effective than teachers who feel isolated and powerless (Blas? & Blas?, 1994; Kanungo, 
1992; Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1998). 
Teacher empowerment encourages teacher effectiveness, which some claim leads 
to improved student learning (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Gonzales & Short, 1996; Karent, 
 
 11
1989). When teachers are more effective, student achievement, responsiveness to student 
conflict, teacher satisfaction, and the school environment are likely to improve (Short & 
Johnson, 1994). 
 In addition, according to some research, the outcomes of teacher empowerment 
are high energy levels, positive attitudes, high productivity and commitment to education 
(Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Gonzales & Short; 1996; Short, 1998). School environments 
prosper when teachers are active participants in school business and decision-making 
(Gonzales & Short, 1996). According to McGreal (1983), the relationship between a 
principal and teachers has a pivotal effect on instructional effectiveness. In their research 
on teacher empowerment and successful empowering principals, Blas? and Blas? (2001) 
reported that principal leadership is the largest contributor to teachers? sense of 
empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the relationship between 
principals? use of power and teachers? perceived levels of empowerment (Gonzales & 
Short, 1996).  
 
Research Questions 
The following research questions guide this study: 
1.  What are teachers? perceptions of their own level of empowerment as 
measured by the School Participant Empowerment Scale? 
2. What is the relationship between levels of principal power as perceived by 
teachers and their perceived level of teacher empowerment as measured by the School 
Participant Empowerment Scale and the Rahim Leader Power Inventory? 
 
 12
3. In addition to what is addressed on the School Participant Empowerment 
Scale and the Rahim Leader Power Inventory, what do teachers view as limitations and 
facilitating factors of teacher empowerment? 
 
Setting 
 This study was conducted in three school districts in Alabama. The first school 
system consisted of 2,415 students in 8 schools encompassing grades K?12. The school 
district had 94% of the student body eligible for free and reduced-price lunch. The second 
school system consisted of 3,389 students in 6 schools encompassing grades K?12. The 
school district had 50% of the student body eligible for free and reduced-price lunch. The 
third school district consisted of 10,213 students in 15 schools including grades PreK?12. 
The school district had 42% of the student body eligible for free and reduced-price lunch.  
 
Methodology  
This study investigated the relationship between principal use of power and 
teacher empowerment as perceived by teachers. Three school systems in Alabama agreed 
to participate in this study. The research packet which included the Rahim Leader Power 
Inventory (RLPI), The School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES), an invitation to 
participate in focused group interviews, and two open-ended questions were sent to each 
system?s county office. From the county offices the research packets were distributed to 
each school where they were placed in teachers? mailboxes.  
Three types of data were collected. First the Rahim Leader Power Inventory 
(RLPI) was used to measure teachers? perceptions of the type of power base used by 
 
 13
principals. Second, the School Participation Empowerment Scale (SPES) was used to 
measure teachers? perceptions of their level of empowerment. Third, open-ended 
questions were included in the survey packet to add richness to the data in the 
quantitative analysis. These questions asked teachers to further explain any hindrances or 
facilitators that impacted their perceptions about their levels of teacher empowerment in 
addition to the items addressed on the RLPI and the SPES. 
 
Significance of the Study 
 This study adds to the body of research about the relationship between principal 
use of power and teacher empowerment. Principal use of power and teacher 
empowerment have been the subjects of considerable educational research in recent years 
(Gonzales & Short, 1996; Kreisberg, 1992; Lightfoot, 1986; Richardson, Lane, & 
Flanigan, 1995; Short & Johnson, 1994), but the relationship between the two concepts 
has received limited empirical attention (Blas? & Blas?, 2001). This study explores the 
relationship between principal use of power and perceived teacher empowerment. In 
other words, this study identifies dimensions of principal power that are promoters and 
limiters of perceived teacher empowerment.  
Research indicates that principals, when leading in isolation, can no longer handle 
the demands of school leadership adequately (Barth, 2001; Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Earl & 
Fullan, 2003; Evans, 1996). As schools continually become more complex, it is apparent 
that the autocratic, bureaucratic models of schooling may not work effectively over the 
long term (Gonzales & Short, 1996).  
 
 14
Research informs us that when principals set the stage for teacher empowerment, 
teachers tend to be more effective and student achievement, responsiveness to student 
conflict, teacher satisfaction, and the school environment tends to improve (Blas? & 
Blas?, 2001; Gonzales & Short, 1996; Short & Johnson, 1994). Furthermore, the schools 
that are most successful in times of change and complexity are the ones where teachers 
feel empowered (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Sergiovanni, 2004; Short, 1998). However, the 
professional literature suggests failures in initiating active teacher involvement in 
decision making may be because principals lack the specific leadership skills and basic 
knowledge essential to planning and change in shared governance (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; 
Kreisberg, 1992). It is important to take an in-depth look at the relationship between 
principal use of power and perceived teacher empowerment in hopes of gaining a better 
understanding of the principal power bases teachers perceive as empowering.  
Short and Johnson (1994) conducted a study that explored the links among 
teacher empowerment, leader power, and conflict. A multiple regression analysis with 
Pillai?s criterion was conducted to check if the independent variables, the five power 
bases and three conflict scales, were significantly related to the dependent variable of 
teacher empowerment. Results from the analysis using a composite empowerment score 
for the dependent variable showed a significant change when each of the dependent 
variables (the subscales of teacher empowerment) was added to the equation. A positive 
Beta coefficient indicated a positive relationship between teacher empowerment and 
legitimate power. The principal?s legitimate power base was a significant predictor in 
three of the School Participant Empowerment Scale subscales of status, self-efficacy, and 
impact in the multiple regression analysis.  
 
 15
In addition, Gonzales and Short (1996) conducted a study that investigated the 
relationship between principal use of power and teacher empowerment in an urban school 
district in the south. The study consisted of 301 teachers from 6 elementary, 5 middle, 
and 3 high schools. Using a multiple regression analysis, Gonzales and Short (1996) 
found that expert, referent, and reward power bases made significant contributions to the 
variance in teachers? perceptions of their level of empowerment. Stimson and Appelbaum 
(1988) found that teachers normally view their principals as relying on personal power 
rather than positional power. Teachers in their study were more satisfied with principals 
who relied on personal power. This study which is an extension of the Gonzales and 
Short (1996) study, may add to the body of research about the relationship between 
principal power bases and teacher empowerment.  
 
Limitations of the Study 
 This was an exploratory study limited to three school districts in Alabama. 
Therefore, conclusions can not be generalized from the target population to other 
populations (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2002). This study also asked open-ended 
questions; therefore, the reader must consider that reliability is in the credibility of the 
researcher and the openness and honesty of the respondents when answering the open-
ended questions. In addition, all survey data were self-reported with results based on the 
assumptions that the participants were thoughtful, honest and worked independently 
when giving responses.  
 Initially, the research was designed to mail the research packets to each 
participant. However, there was a concern about giving out personal information to the 
 
 16
researcher. Jaeger (1984) names several disadvantages to surveys. First, respondents may 
contaminate the study because of their lack of interest in the topic. Second, surveys often 
have a low return rate. Third, sometimes it is unclear to participants who should answer 
the survey. Fourth, many times respondents do not open the survey because it appears to 
be junk mail. 
In order to counteract disadvantages of the mailed survey the following 
precautions were taken: 
1. A current list of full time faculty was obtained from the superintendents? 
offices upon their agreement to participate in the research project. 
2. The document was mailed in a high quality envelope. The researcher?s 
name was professionally printed on the return envelope. 
3. A short vita about the researcher, a self-addressed, stamped, return 
envelope, and a personal letter addressed to the respondent explaining the 
nature of the research was included in the packet along with the required 
letter of informed consent. 
 
Conceptual/Operational Definitions 
 For the purpose of this study, the following terms are described conceptually 
followed by operational definitions. Reference books, selected documents, and personal 
interpretation from the literature serve as the source for these definitions. 
 Principal Power Bases: Five types of influence and authority available to 
principals-reward, coercive, legitimate, connection, and expert power (French & Raven, 
1958). Principal use of power is operationally defined as the score on the Rahim Leader 
 
 17
Power Inventory (RLPI). The five types of power bases, as conceptualized by French and 
Raven (1959) and again by Raven (1992) are as follows: 
? Reward Power: Power based on the perceptions that the leader has the ability 
to provide tangible or intangible rewards; 
? Coercive Power: Power based on the perceptions that the leader has the ability 
to punish;  
? Legitimate Power: Power based on the perception that the leader has the right 
to influence compliancy; 
? Referent Power: Power based on the leader?s identification with or desires to 
be associated with followers; 
? Expert Power: Power based on the perceptions that the leader can provide 
special knowledge. 
 Teacher Empowerment: Process by whereby teachers develop the competence to 
take charge of their own growth, resolve their own problems, and to be given 
opportunities to display these competencies within the school (Short, 1994, 1998) in the 
pursuit of overall improvement in the educational process (Smith & Lotven, 1993). 
Teacher empowerment is operationally defined as the score on the School Participation 
Empowerment Scale (SPES). 
 
Summary 
  The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between principal use of 
power and teacher empowerment. Chapter I presented an overview of the study. Chapter 
II presents a review of literature on relevant topics informing this study including the 
 
 18
theoretical underpinnings of this study, proposed models of educational leadership, 
proposed models of principal power bases, belief paradigms, dimensions of teacher 
empowerment, and facilitating factors and barriers for teacher empowerment. 
 
 19
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 
 
Introduction 
 The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review of the literature that addresses 
the theoretical foundations of this study. Thus, this literature review is not meant to be an 
exhaustive examination of the literature related to this study, but rather, is intended to 
illustrate the research guiding the research design and interpretation of key findings. 
 This chapter is divided into five sections. The first section addresses the 
theoretical underpinnings of this study. The second section provides a brief description of 
proposed models for framing leadership practice. Section three addresses leadership 
belief paradigms. Section four summarizes the models of principal power bases. Section 
five discusses the dimensions of teacher empowerment. The researcher presents for 
consideration relevant concepts, theories, belief paradigms, and frameworks from the 
professional literature that should aid leaders and educators in critically examining 
approaches taken to promote teacher empowerment. It is believed that principals will 
improve ways of constructing meaningful teacher empowerment if they reflect critically 
about their leadership power using a knowledge base directly relevant to this challenge 
(Blas? & Blas?, 2001).  
 
 
 20
Theoretical Framework 
 In research there are many theoretical underpinnings for the study of principal 
power and teacher empowerment. This study builds upon assumptions addressed through 
social cognitive theory, motivational theory, aspects of trust and hope, shared-
governance, school culture and climate, schools as communities, and schools as living 
systems.  
Current research literature confirms that empowerment extends well beyond 
participation in decision-making. It requires teachers to feel like knowledgeable 
professionals motivated in an atmosphere of trust and respect where people work 
together. Having a knowledge base about the following theoretical frameworks may aid 
educational leaders as they build the foundation for teacher empowerment. 
Social Cognitive Theory 
 This research is theoretically grounded in teacher self-efficacy theory which is a 
significant part of Bandura?s Social Cognitive Theory. The purpose of this section is to 
offer a basic explanation of Social Cognitive Theory as it encompasses self-efficacy and 
its relationship to teacher self-efficacy and empowerment.  
Social cognitive theory distinguishes among three intentional influences on 
peoples? lives that Bandura (2002) refers to as modes of agency. The modes of agency 
are personal agency which is exercised individually; proxy agency in which people 
acquire desired outcomes by influencing others to act on their behalf; and collective 
agency in which people act in concert to shape their future (Bandura, 2002). In personal 
agency which is exercised individually, people have direct influence on themselves and 
their environment in managing their lives.  
 
 21
  When people do not have direct control over the social conditions and 
institutional practices that govern their everyday lives, they seek their well-being and 
desired life outcomes through the exercise of proxy agency. In proxy agency, people who 
have access to resources, expertise or who have influence and power are sought out when 
obtaining desired outcomes (Bandura, 2002). Many of the things people want are 
attainable only through socially interdependent efforts requiring people to pool their 
knowledge, skills, and resources; provide mutual support; form alliances; and work 
together to gain what cannot be accomplished independently (Bandura, 2002). Therefore, 
successful functioning requires a blend of the three different modes of agency (Bandura, 
2002).  
 Self-efficacy is a key construct in social cognitive theory. Among the mechanisms 
of human agency, none is more central or all-encompassing than the beliefs of self-
efficacy (Bandura, 2002). Beliefs of self or personal efficacy play an important role in 
work-related activities (Bandura, 1997, 2002). Influences and motivators are grounded in 
the fundamental belief that people have the power to bring about desired results by their 
actions. Self-efficacy beliefs regulate human performance through cognitive, 
motivational, affective, and decisional processes (Bandura, 2002). Therefore, self-
efficacy beliefs affect whether individuals think in self-enhancing or self-debilitating 
ways. Self-efficacy beliefs affect how well people motivate themselves and persevere in 
times of difficulties, as well as the quality of emotional life, and the choices people make 
that set the direction of their lives (Bandura, 2002).  
Bandura (1986) defined self-efficacy as, ?people?s judgments of their capabilities 
to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of 
 
 22
performances? (p. 391). Wood and Bandura (1989) expanded the definition of self-
efficacy, stating ?self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one?s capabilities to mobilize the 
motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet situational 
demands? (p. 408). The fundamental premise of self-efficacy is that behavior is strongly 
influenced by self-influence (Kanfer & Kanfer, 1991). Task-motivated behavior and level 
of performance are beneficial correlates related to self-efficacy (Harrison, Rainer & 
Kelly, 1997; Kruger, 1997). Therefore, the self-efficacy construct has a high degree of 
importance as a basic element of individual behavior and attitudes in the work 
environment (Bandura, 1978).  
 Bandura (1986, 1997) proposes four sources of efficacy expectations: mastery 
experiences, physiological and emotional states, vicarious experiences, and social 
persuasion. First, mastery experience has been identified as the most powerful source of 
efficacy information in that the perception of a successful performance typically raises 
self-efficacy while the perception of failure lowers self-efficacy (Milner, 2002). Second, 
emotional arousal, either through excitement or anxiety, adds to the feeling of mastery or 
incompetence (Milner, 2002). Third, vicarious or secondhand experiences are those in 
which someone else models the tasks in question. When a person with whom the 
observer identifies performs well, the efficacy of the observer is often enhanced. When 
the model performs poorly, the efficacy expectations of the observer decrease. In other 
words, we learn how to perform certain tasks and the consequences of performing these 
tasks by watching others. Fourth, social persuasion may involve a ?pep talk? or specific 
performance feedback. The influence of persuasion depends on the credibility, 
trustworthiness, and expertise of the persuader (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Milner, 2002). 
 
 23
Persuasory influences are those where others persuade a person to perform (Reames, 
1997). 
 In relation to this study, based on the basic premise of self-efficacy, it stands to 
reason teachers who have high levels of self-efficacy will also perceive themselves as 
empowered. In addition, teachers who have a positive sense of self-efficacy believe they 
can have a positive effect on student learning. Therefore, a teacher?s sense of efficacy is 
related to student motivation and achievement, teachers? adoption of new innovations, 
and classroom management strategies (Armor, 1984; Ashton, 1985; Midgley, Feldlaufer 
& Eccles, 1989; Woolfolk, Rossoff, & Hoy, 1990). On one level, empowerment is 
described as a psychological process connected with individuals? feelings of self-worth, 
self-confidence, and sense of efficacy (Kreisberg, 1992). Beliefs teachers have about their 
abilities influence their persistence, enthusiasm, and commitment to teaching (Milner, 
2002). Moreover, levels of satisfaction, commitment, and efficacy are higher when work 
is conceived as professional and lower when work is perceived as bureaucratic 
(Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2002). In addition, research links sense of efficacy with 
motivation and commitment to work as well as student achievement (Sergiovanni & 
Starratt, 2002). Combs (1962) states that efficacy is a term all teachers should know 
because highly successful teachers have a strong sense of efficacy toward their students 
and themselves; they believe their students are capable of succeeding at an advanced 
level, and that they are capable of high quality instruction.  
 Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) view self-efficacy as a multi-dimensional construct, 
consisting of two carefully specified aspects of general teaching efficacy and personal 
teaching efficacy. Personal teaching efficacy is the perceived ability to motivate even the 
 
 24
most demanding students (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). General teaching efficacy is the 
perceived ability to overcome the confines of students? home environment and family 
backgrounds (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). According to these researchers, the dimensions of 
institutional integrity, principal influence, and academic emphasis are especially 
important in supporting personal and general teaching efficacy, as well as institutional 
health.  
 Newman, Rutter, and Smith (1989) found that teacher efficacy was most strongly 
affected by the disciplined behavior of students in the school, a sense that innovation and 
experimentation are encouraged, and a belief that administrators are helpful and 
understanding. Teachers? sense of self-efficacy was also positively influenced when 
teachers and administrators share a common goal of encouraging social and academic 
development in students (Ashton, Webb, & Doda, 1983). Moreover, when teachers work 
in teams it creates a family-like structure where teachers take a positive approach to their 
profession (Ashton, Webb, & Doda, 1983). Leaders who are enablers may aid in the 
development of a spirit of efficacy among teachers and students signifying that teachers, 
both individually and collectively, believe there is no student beyond their reach and 
there is no pedagogical problem they cannot solve (Starratt, 2004). As a result, teachers 
lead students to develop an attitude of efficacy- a belief of ?I can do this? or ?we can do 
this? (Starratt, 2004, p. 102).  
Fuller, Wood, Rapport, and Dombusch (1982) provide a framework for relating 
teachers? sense of efficacy to school culture. They distinguish between organizational 
efficacy and performance efficacy. Organizational efficacy is having a sense of ability to 
gain rewards by influencing superiors within the school and performance efficacy is 
 
 25
perceived ability to perform one?s own work tasks. The Fuller model (1982) suggests that 
aspects of the school structure may have differing effects on these two kinds of efficacy. 
Performance efficacy is assumed to be enhanced when (a) the roles and tasks of teachers 
and administrators are highly differentiated, where teachers can demonstrate and improve 
their competencies; (b) teachers and administrators are committed to common goals and 
the means to achieve them; (c) warm, caring relationships between and among teachers 
and administrators encourage the exchange of necessary school resources; (d) teachers 
believe the measures which are used to evaluate them are sound; and (e) varied 
evaluation criteria are applied (Fuller, Wood, Rapport, & Dombusch, 1982). Furthermore, 
teachers? performance efficacy is supported when teachers are clear about their 
responsibilities and the means to accomplish them, have access to the resources they 
need, and are evaluated based on outcomes that seem important to them (Fuller et al., 
1982).  
 In summary, the self-efficacy component of social-cognitive theory serves as a 
primary determinant of task-motivated behavior and performance (Harrison, Allison, 
Rainer & Kelly, 1997). Hence, the self-efficacy construct has a high degree of importance 
as a basic element of individual behavior and attitudes in the work environment (Harrison 
et al., 1997). Self-efficacy is important in understanding human behavior, thus it is a vital 
factor in educational leadership as well as in teachers? perceptions of their level of 
teaching competence (Combs, Miser & Whitaker, 1999). As Arthur Combs (1999) wrote, 
?A positive sense of self is an enormous resource? (p. 65). 
 
 26
Motivational Theory 
 Motivation is what provides direction, intensity, and persistence to behavior. 
Further, motivation determines the chosen activity or task to engage in, establishes the 
level of effort to put forth, and determines the degree of persistence in completing the 
task (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 1995). According to Bandura (1986), motivation is 
determined by people?s judgments of the efficacy expectations, the competency to carry 
out a specific course of action, and their outcome expectations, the beliefs about the 
possible consequences of those actions.  
 It is important for leaders to become familiar with the major approaches to 
motivation which offer a variety of perspectives and ideas for influencing followers? 
decisions to choose, exert effort, or resist an activity (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 1995). 
Many times the motivational strategies leaders choose are based on the belief that the 
goals of teachers and principals are not the same (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2002). In 
bureaucratic structures it is typically assumed teachers do not care as much about school 
success as do supervisors (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2002). ?Thus, the basis for motivating 
teachers becomes a series of trades whereby the supervisors give to teachers things that 
they want in exchange for compliance with the supervisor?s requests and requirements? 
(Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2002, p. 294). In rethinking work motivation it is necessary to 
?rethink the practice of referring to teachers as professionals, yet considering their work 
as bureaucratic? (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2002, p. 294). Principals who consider 
themselves leaders of professionals realize that teachers ?create their practice as they 
practice? by being problem-solvers, researchers, decision-makers, and implementers 
(Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2002, p. 295). 
 
 27
Theories of motivation can be grouped into three categories (Sergiovanni & 
Starratt, 2002). The first category relies on extrinsic rewards in return for work 
completed. In this category it is assumed that teachers have needs that can be met at work 
and that leaders control the events and circumstances that allow these needs to be met 
(Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2002). Extrinsic rewards by themselves, Sergiovanni and Starratt 
(2002) contend are, ?neither powerful enough nor expansive enough to provide the kind 
of motivational climate needed in schools? (p. 300). Furthermore, relying totally on 
extrinsic rewards to motivate discourages people being self-managed and self-motivated 
(Sergiovanni, 1992). The second category relies on teachers finding intrinsic satisfaction 
in work. Motivational psychologist Frederick Herzberg believed jobs that provide 
opportunities for experiencing achievement and responsibility, interesting and 
challenging work, and opportunity for advancement have the greatest capacity to 
motivate from within (Herzberg, 1966). The importance of intrinsically satisfying work 
makes sense because it leads to higher levels of commitment and performance 
(Sergiovanni, 1992). The third category of motivation theory relies on moral judgment? 
what is considered good and just gets done (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2002). In summary, 
the three categories can be communicated in the form of three motivational rules 
(Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2002): 
1. What gets rewarded gets done. 
2. What is rewarding gets done. 
3. What is good gets done. 
In addition, one of the most referenced frameworks of motivational theory is 
Maslow?s Hierarchy of Needs (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2002). According to Maslow, 
 
 28
people are motivated to satisfy five basic needs- the need for survival, the need for 
security, the need for affiliation with other people, the need to feel self-esteem, and the 
need for self-actualization (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 1995). Maslow?s 
conceptualization of needs is usually arranged in a hierarchy. According to Maslow, any 
person?s behavior can be understood primarily as a directed effort to satisfy one 
particular level of need in the hierarchy. The level which happens to be motivating one?s 
behavior at any time depends on whether the needs below have been satisfied (Hughes, 
Ginnett, & Curphy, 1995). Maslow believes lower level needs must be satisfied before 
the next level becomes relevant (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 1995). In other words, 
higher-order needs, like those of self-esteem and self-actualization, would not be 
important until lower level needs are satisfied. Thus, leaders may only be successful in 
motivating follower behavior by taking into account whether the follower?s more basic 
needs are being met (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 1995). ?At all levels of the hierarchy, 
the leader should watch for mismatches between his motivational efforts and the 
followers? lowest unsatisfied needs? (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 1995, p. 331).  
 According to perceptual psychology, motivation is an internal matter of individual 
wants, desires, needs, fears, and aspirations. People motivate themselves by forming 
beliefs about what they can do, anticipating likely outcomes, setting goals, and planning 
courses of action (Bandura, 1997). People?s motivation is stronger when they believe 
they can attain goals. Self-efficacy beliefs determine the goals people set for themselves, 
how much effort they expend, how long they persevere, and how resilient they are in 
times of failure and setbacks (Bandura, 1997). It is important for educational leaders to 
realize that teachers are motivated; however, they may not always be motivated to do the 
 
 29
things others want them to do. The purpose of educational leadership is to facilitate 
learning and change to successfully achieve the goals of education (Combs, Miser & 
Whitaker, 1999). Motivation is linked to the views people have about their ability to 
accomplish a task, thus leaders desiring to create the conditions that will assist teachers to 
become empowered believe teachers are able and can accept the responsibility of shared 
decision-making. 
 Educational leaders should be keenly aware of how important self-concept is to 
others and help individuals seek ways to gain greater health and fulfillment (Combs, 
Miser & Whitaker, 1999). When educational leaders build teachers? self-concept in 
positive ways by trusting them to make decisions without controlling and manipulating 
them, they build motivation to accomplish school goals (Combs, Miser, & Whitaker, 
1997). Teachers need autonomy to make professional decisions affecting their work with 
students. Imposing controls on and reducing professional autonomy diminishes teachers? 
feelings of positive self-concept and motivation (Combs, Miser, & Whitaker, 1999). 
Sergiovanni (1992) states that deep down we know what motivates and inspires, but ?to 
tap these resources of motivation more fully we must embark on a journey to make 
school life more meaningful? and ?we must become more authentic with ourselves and 
others? (p. 28-29).  
Trust and Hope  
 Trust is the foundation for cooperation and effective communication; two 
essential aspects of teacher empowerment and shared governance (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; 
Johnson & Johnson, 1987). The combination of respect and dignity, which is only 
facilitated in a trusting environment, is the essence of empowerment (Blas? & Blas?, 
 
 30
2001). Trust has been defined as the knowledge that one person, deliberately or 
consciously, will not take unfair advantage of another person, and any harm caused is 
expected to be repaired (McGregor, 1967). Trust has also been described as the amount 
of ?safeness? we feel with others (Covey, 1989). In an atmosphere of trust, people are 
able to work together to identify and solve problems (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Covey, 1989). 
Blas? and Blas? (2001) believe that a trusting environment is one that shared governance 
oriented principals foster in schools to build teacher empowerment; however, for most 
members of school communities it is still an ideal, not a reality.  
 Johnson and Johnson (1987) described cooperative group work, essential to the 
success of schools, as encompassing both trusting behavior (openness and sharing) and 
trustworthy behavior (the expression of acceptance, support, and cooperative intentions). 
Blas? and Blas? (2001) stated that in effective shared governance, people recognize and 
strive to protect their trusting relationships.  
 For professionals to reach their full potential in the work place they must feel that 
they work in an environment of trust (Barth, 1990; Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Pellicer, 2003; 
Sergiovanni, 1992). Building trust in schools takes effort and sincerity (Blas? & Blas?, 
2001). Successful shared governance-oriented principals build trust by (a) encouraging 
openness, (b) facilitating effective communication, and (c) modeling understanding 
which is the cornerstone of trust (Blas? & Blas?, 2001). As principals strive to build trust, 
they keep three factors in mind; skills must be practiced, conflict is likely to occur, and 
teacher leaders must also be learners (Blas? & Blas?, 2001). In addition, Pellicer (2003) 
stated, ?If you care about the right things and demonstrate that caring to those around 
 
 31
you, then they will trust you enough to grant you the permission that you need to lead? 
(p. 33).  
 Shared governance-oriented principals consistently provide teachers training in 
group process skills and regularly involve teachers in democratic, collaborative activities 
that increase teachers? abilities and desires to cooperate in fulfilling the educational 
mission of the school (Blas? & Blas?, 2001). Collaboration, engagement in social 
responsibility and commitment enable teachers to realize the immense possibilities for 
their schools (Barth, 1990). Such involvement also allows teachers to be creative, to 
avoid standard solutions or bureaucratic approaches to complex problems, and to achieve 
personal and social freedom (Blas? & Blas?, 2001).  
 With teacher empowerment there is potential that values and beliefs will be 
revealed which may lead to the possibility for conflicts to arise (Rinehart, Short, & 
Johnson, 1994; Blas? & Blas?, 2001). It makes sense that in an open atmosphere 
characterized by interpersonal respect and trust, differences are naturally going to occur. 
Conflict is a positive force in schools when it is handled as an opportunity for growth and 
mutual support among professionals. In a trusting environment, where honest 
communication flourishes, teachers are able to delve into various solutions to issues to 
create better schools where all concerns, ideas, and needs are respected and all people 
strive to be their best (Barth, 1990; Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Pellicer, 2003; Sergiovanni, 
1992). 
Collegiality flourishes in an atmosphere of trust and hope. Collegiality among 
teachers is important for promoting exemplary working conditions and improving the 
practice of teaching (Barth, 1990; Sergiovanni, 1992). The more collegiality is 
 
 32
established in schools, the more ?natural connections among people become?, and the 
more people become self-driven and self-led, so that bureaucratic leadership becomes 
less necessary (Sergiovanni, 1992, p. 86). Barth (1990) believed that the secret for a good 
school setting is collegiality. ?Collegiality arises from the trust within a group; and trust 
is requisite when an institution ? a school ? depends on the honest expression of trust 
(Barth, 1990, p. xi). 
 Shared governance-oriented principals trust teachers to do what is best for 
children and a school?s success is attributed to the skills and attitudes of the professional 
staff, not merely the leadership capabilities of the principal (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; 
Kreisberg, 1992). Communicating trust to teachers as true professionals is a fundamental 
element in the empowering and trust building process (Barth, 1990; Blas? & Blas?, 2001; 
Kresiberg, 1992). Teachers consistently associate autonomy with professionalism and 
trust (Blas? & Blas?, 2001). When there is positive rapport, trust, and respect between 
teachers and the principal, the likelihood of improved pedagogy and increased student 
achievement is almost assured (Zimmerman, 2003).  
Shared-Governance 
 Shared governance, as it relates to this study, means teachers have control of and 
influence over events affecting themselves (Blas? & Blas?, 2001). ?The impact of 
principals? leadership on shared governance structures makes up a powerful and 
important characteristic of teacher empowerment? (Blas? & Blas?, 2001, p. 61). Through 
a shared governance structure, some of the major contributors of principals? leadership on 
teacher empowerment are as follows: 
 
 33
? Teacher Reflection ? Teachers become actively involved in considering their 
actions and the impacts of their actions on student learning and development. 
Teachers modify their instruction based on student outcomes and needs (Blas? 
& Blas?).  
? Teacher Motivation ? Teachers in shared governance schools have greater 
motivation and confidence (Blas? & Blas?, 2001). 
? A Sense of Team ? This refers to teachers? identification with school-based 
shared governance structures and processes as well as with other faculty and 
school administrators (Blas? & Blas?, 2001).  
? Ownership ? Ownership, a major component of teacher empowerment, 
resulted from principals? efforts to build school governance structures and 
refers to teachers? positive identification with and greater responsibility for 
shared governance structures and processes as well as the outcomes of these 
structures (Blas? & Blas?, 2001).  
? Commitment ? In shared governance structures teachers are dedicated and 
determined in the pursuit of educational improvement through group-level and 
individual-level empowerment.  
? Sense of Professionalism ? Teacher empowerment is associated with a 
greater sense of professionalism obtained from working with shared 
governance principals. Teacher professionalism refers to teachers who are 
trustworthy, and respectable individuals with the authority and the ability to 
make independent decisions and to participate responsible in school wide 
governance processes (Blas? & Blas?, 2001). 
 
 34
The concept of shared-governance fosters a culture in which faculty and others at the 
school feel empowered to have a voice (Reese, 2004). Effective school leadership is not 
the responsibility of one individual; rather, it should be a cooperative effort involving a 
number of individuals (Reese, 2004). The concept of shared governance can foster a 
culture in which all teachers feel empowered to have a voice (Kresiberg, 1992).  
School Climate 
An effective principal?s most important job may be to ensure superior student 
instruction but the principal also, to a great extent, shapes the climate of the school 
(Wendel, Kilgore, & Spurzem, 1991). Successful educational leaders have a 
responsibility to promote a positive school climate by being open to feedback and 
knowing how to use their influence and power at appropriate times (Blas? & Blas?, 
2001). ?Considerate principal behavior motivates solidarity and cooperative expressive 
standards among teachers? (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993, p. 359). In addition, researchers have 
noted effective leaders? efforts to establish institutional climates where ethical practices, 
justice and caring flourish (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Katz, Noddings, & Strike, 1999; 
Starratt, 1994). 
Woolfolk and Hoy (1993) prefer a health metaphor to describe school climate. 
The concept of health was developed to capture the nature of student, teacher and 
administrator interactions (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). The idea of a healthy school calls 
attention to factors that both facilitate and hinder the development of positive 
interpersonal relationships within schools (Hoy & Forsyth, 1985; Miles, 1969).  
?A healthy school is one where harmony pervades relationships among students, 
teachers, and administrators as the organization directs energies toward its mission? (Hoy 
 
 35
& Woolfolk, 1993, p. 356). Warm collegial relations and high academic expectations are 
also indicators of the health of a school and are associated with student achievement (Hoy 
& Woolfolk, 1993). Therefore, healthy schools appear to be high-achieving schools. Hoy 
and Woolfolk (1993) suspect that the relationship between efficacy and organization is 
reciprocal; climate affects a sense of efficacy, and efficacy affects perceptions of climate. 
 Woolfolk and Hoy (1993) identified six aspects of climate ? three that help the 
organization meet instrumental needs (institutional integrity, academic emphasis and 
resource support), two that support expressive or interpersonal relations needs (morale 
and principal consideration) and principal influence with the dual function of serving 
both expressive and instrumental needs. The six dimensions of school health (climate) 
are: 
? Institutional integrity is a school?s ability to cope with its environment in a 
way that maintains the educational integrity of its programs. Teachers are 
protected from unreasonable community and parental demands. 
? Principal influence is the principal?s ability to influence the actions of 
superiors. Being able to persuade superiors, get additional consideration, and 
be unrestricted by the administrative bureaucracy are necessary skills to be 
effective as a principal. 
? Consideration is principal behavior that is friendly, supportive, open, caring, 
and collegial. It represents an authentic concern of the principal for the 
wellbeing of the teachers. 
 
 36
? Resource support refers to a school where adequate classroom supplies and 
instructional materials are available and extra resources are easily supplied if 
requested. 
? Morale is a collective sense of friendliness, openness, enthusiasm, and trust 
among faculty members. Teachers like each other, like their jobs, and help 
each other; and they are proud of their school and feel a sense of 
accomplishment in their jobs. 
? Academic emphasis is the extent to which a school is driven by a mission for 
academic excellence. High, but achievable, academic goals are set for 
students, the learning environment is orderly, teachers believe in their 
students? ability to achieve; and students work hard and respect those who do 
well academically. 
School Culture 
 Research informs us that leaders and teachers do not operate apart from the 
organizational culture (Deal & Peterson, 1999; Drake & Roe, 1999; Sergiovanni & 
Starratt, 1998). All that happens in schools occurs in a cultural context (Drake & Roe, 
1999). A basic understanding of school culture is needed to make sense of the intricate 
relationship between principal power and teacher empowerment because school culture 
plays the dominant role in an organization?s performance (Deal & Peterson, 1999). Deal 
and Peterson (1999) state, ?highly respected organizations have evolved a shared system 
of informal folkways and traditions that infuse work with meaning, passion, and purpose? 
(p. 1).  
 
 37
 The concept of schools having distinctive cultures is not new in scholarly 
literature. School culture is extremely powerful yet undefined and is often left out of 
discussions about school improvement. Understanding the concept of school culture 
helps leaders better understand their school?s own unwritten rules and traditions, norms, 
expectations, the way people act, what they talk about, whether they seek out colleagues 
for help and how teachers feel about their work and students (Deal & Peterson,1999). 
Pfeifer and Baker (1986) conclude that effective school leaders are the ones who foster 
collaboration, shared decision making, and trust. An example of a school with a healthy 
culture is one where teachers and principals openly discuss classroom practices and 
pedagogy so that innovations can be embraced (Reames, 1997). 
 Of the many different conceptions of culture, none is universally accepted as the 
one best definition (Deal & Peterson, 1999). Schein (1985) provided a widely accepted 
definition naming culture ?a pattern of basic assumptions that the group learned as it 
solved its problems and that has worked well enough to be considered valid and 
therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive? (p. 12). Deal and 
Kennedy (1982) define it as the ?shared beliefs and values that closely interweave a 
community.? Others describe school cultures as ?complex webs of traditions?, symbols, 
norms, and rituals that have been built over time as teachers, students, parents, and 
administrators work together and deal with crises and accomplishments (Deal & 
Peterson, 1990; Drake & Roe, 1999; Schein, 1985). Deal and Peterson (1999) state, 
?Cultural patterns are highly enduring, have a powerful impact on performance, and 
shape the ways people think, act, and feel? (p. 4). Culture is the set of deep beliefs and 
 
 38
assumptions. It is ?the story? that develops over time (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & 
Smith, 1994, p. 21). 
  Numerous studies of school change have identified the organizational culture as 
critical to the successful improvement of teaching and learning (Fullan, 1998; Rossman, 
Corbett, & Firestone, 1988). Strong, positive, collaborative cultures have powerful effects 
on the following features of school: 
? Culture fosters school effectiveness and productivity that helps to build 
motivation among teachers to persevere and improve upon their teaching 
strategies and abilities (Levine & Lezotte, 1990; Newmann, 1996; Purkey & 
Smith, 1983).  
? Culture enhances collegial and collaborative activities that promote better 
communication and problem-solving practices (Little, 1982) 
? Culture encourages successful change and improvement efforts (Little, 1982; 
Louis & Miles, 1990).  
? Culture builds commitment and identification of staff, students, and 
administrators (Schein, 1985). 
? Culture strengthens the energy, motivation, and vitality of a school staff, 
students, and community (Schein, 1985). 
? Culture increases the focus of daily behavior and attention on what is 
important and valued (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Schein, 1985). 
Goodlad (1984) considered examining school culture an important endeavor because on 
the surface schools may look the same, but when closely examined they are very 
 
 39
different. These differences, as subtle as they are, can decide the fate of the school 
(Reames, 1997).  
Schools as Communities 
Virtually all discussions of empowerment emphasize the importance of 
community ? ?of support and shared struggle in the process of empowerment? 
(Kreisberg, 1992, p. 20). ?Community is the social matrix from which empowerment is 
nurtured and provides a base from which each person acts in the school? (Kreisburg, 
1992, p. 122).  
Individual empowerment is interwoven with community empowerment 
(Kreisberg, 1992). ?Thus, the empowerment of an individual teacher is tied to the 
empowerment of all teachers in his or her school community? (Kreisberg, 1992, p. 20). 
According to Kreisberg, empowerment, ?is often described as a process of individual and 
group transformation in which individuals and groups come to develop mastery of their 
lives and control of valued resources and to develop skills in interpersonal influence and 
participatory competence through group problem-solving and collective action? (p. 20).  
 The implications for school leaders are that people within the school community need to 
be part of a group working toward common goals, sharing a set of common values within 
the school (Drake & Roe, 1999). Often ?sense of community? is used to describe 
relationships among people and organizations. A school community is defined as a group 
of people who share common ideas about schooling and learning (Drake & Roe, 1999).  
Additionally, Sergiovanni (1992) emphasized that the metaphor for schools 
should be communities rather than hierarchical bound organizations where principals are 
thought to know more than teachers. Moreover, he maintained that for teachers to reach 
 
 40
their full potential, efforts must be made to create learning communities where teachers 
feel respected and driven by a common desire to provide quality education for students. 
Communities inspire ?commitment, devotion, and service that make schools unequaled in 
society?s institutions? (Sergiovanni, 1992, p. 16). Communities are defined by their 
centers, which are, according to Sergiovanni (1992), repositories of values, sentiments, 
and beliefs that unite people in a common cause. Centers govern the values of the school 
and provide norms that guide behavior and give meaning to school community life 
(Sergiovanni, 1992). 
 Teachers become more committed and self-managed when schools are true 
communities that free principals from the burden of trying to control people 
(Sergiovanni, 1992). He emphasized that when schools become communities rather than 
organizations, replacements for direct leadership are possible. The replacements are 
collective practice, professionalism, and collegiality (Sergiovanni, 1992). Further, these 
substitutions for direct leadership provide principals with more time for issues of 
substance such as finding the resources that teachers need, and ensuring moral, political, 
and managerial support for the school. As cited in Sergiovanni (1992) one principal 
states, ?My role became acknowledger, supporter, reinforcer, and facilitator? (p. 42).  
 As schools become communities, the practice of teaching becomes less of an 
individual effort and more of a collective practice where there is concern for all students, 
not just ?my class? or ?my kids? (Sergiovanni, 1992). As the community ideal is 
established in schools, it is no longer acceptable not to reach out to others who are 
experiencing difficulty, to have effective teaching strategies and not share them with 
others, or to define success by what happens in one classroom (Sergiovanni, 1992). Being 
 
 41
a community of learners is, ?a question of one for all and all for one? (Sergiovanni, 1992, 
p. 56). Further, in communities teachers who work collectively feel intrinsically obligated 
to do their best to make the school successful. Teachers follow a vision, not a person. 
Teachers are internally motivated which takes the pressure to motivate and manage off 
the principal. Bandura (1992) believed that a group operates through the behavior of its 
members. Bandura (1992) stated ?It is people acting in concert on a shared belief, not a 
disembodied group mind, that is doing the cognizing, aspiring, motivating, and 
regulating. There is no emergent entity that operates independently of the beliefs and 
actions of the individuals who make up a social system? (p. 271). People?s shared beliefs 
in their collective efficacy influence the type of futures they want to achieve through 
collective effort; how well they use their resources; how much effort they put into their 
group tasks; their willingness to stay the course when group endeavors fail to produce 
quick results; and their vulnerability to the discouragement that can be overwhelming 
when solving difficult social problems (Bandura, 1997, 2002).  
 A strong sense of personal efficacy is valued in school communities because it is 
essential for success regardless of whether it is achieved individually or by group 
members putting their personal capabilities to the best collective use (Bandura, 2002). 
Bandura suggests group loyalty creates a sense of strong personal obligation to do one?s 
best in the interest of the group; members are respected for their personal contributions to 
group accomplishments, and people with resilient efficacy and strong pro-social purpose 
often subordinate self-interest to the benefit of others.  
 Empowering schools must be communities united around a core of values guided 
by a sense of hope and possibility and grounded in the belief of justice and democracy 
 
 42
(Kreisburg, 1992). Kreisburg states, ?These communities must nourish the voices of all 
their members; they must provide contexts in which people can speak and listen, learn 
and grow, and let go of ideas in order to move on to better ideas? (p. 151).  
Schools as Living Systems 
 According to Peter Senge (2000), schools are not broken and in need of fixing; 
rather they are institutions under stress that need to evolve to meet the challenges of our 
ever-changing society. In the book, Schools That Learn, Senge states that schools are in 
need of a new guiding metaphor other than the industrial age, mechanistic way of 
conducting business; the emerging understanding of living systems can guide the 
thinking of schools for the future.  
 The industrial-age, bureaucratic model of schools necessitates the educational 
system be divided into distinct parts controlled by leaders who view their main job as 
maintaining control (Senge, 2000; Whitaker & Moses, 1990). One proposed alternative to 
the industrial-age, mechanistic concept is to frame schools as living systems where 
people are not merely employees with specific work-related duties, but are well-rounded, 
capable people who are the sum of their parts (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1971; Wren, 1995; 
Senge, 2000). As such, schools may be viewed as living organisms having a composite of 
characteristics much as people have a variety of personality traits (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 
1971). Sergiovanni (2004) refers to teachers and administrators working collectively as 
collegiality, which is possible in schools defined as communities rather than formal 
organizations. Sergiovanni (2004) states: 
The reason for concern is simple: It is organizational competence that makes 
schools smarter, and such competence is typically found to reside in the 
 
 43
relationships, norms, memories, habits, and collective skills of a network of 
people. Simply put, organizational competence is the sum of everything that 
everybody knows and uses that leads to increased learning. This competence is 
measured not only by what we know but also by how much of it we know, how 
widely what we know is distributed, how broad its source is, how much of it is 
applied in a collective manner; and how much of it is generated by cooperation 
with others. (p. 17) 
 In addition, schools, like living systems, grow and change over time (Senge, 
2000; Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1971). A living system framework for our education 
system calls for principals to elicit suggestions and decisions from others, namely 
teachers, thus fostering an atmosphere of trust and respect (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Senge, 
2000).  
Schools, framed as living systems, may be considered learning organizations that 
grow and prosper by adapting and regenerating in the face of change (Senge, 2000; Wren, 
1995). In learning organizations, principals have the ability to build shared vision and are 
responsible for building organizations where teachers can continually expand their 
capabilities (Wren, 1995). Thus, teachers are empowered to make professional decisions 
in the pursuit of improved student achievement. 
 Unlike the industrial-age thinking of schools, living systems-thinking is self-
made, continually growing and forming relationships, and has innate goals to exist and to 
re-create themselves. The living systems framework for schools starts with the assertion 
that the fundamental nature of reality is relationships, not things (Senge, 2000). When 
schools are viewed as living systems they are seen as always evolving. In addition, 
 
 44
framing schools as living systems supports teacher empowerment in that teachers are 
seen as knowledgeable professionals capable of making noteworthy decisions about their 
profession. Schools as living systems support principals sharing power and decision-
making with teachers because this framework encourages variety and embraces multiple 
and diverse thinking. Treating schools as living systems means constantly exploring the 
theories-in-use of all involved in the educational process and reintegrating education 
within the webs of social relationships that link schools to the community (Senge, 2000). 
In such an environment, schools become learning institutions for everyone. Principals 
view their job as creating an environment where teachers continually learn and are 
engaged in their own learning process which inevitably enables them to create optimal 
learning environments for students (Senge, 2000).  
 
Proposed Models of Educational Leadership 
 It has been a fundamental tenet of research and practice that principals make 
significant contributions to school effectiveness and improvement (Andrews & Soder, 
1987; Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee, 1982; Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Murphy & 
Hallinger, 1992). Researchers have examined the impact of school administrators, 
particularly school principals, on school improvement. Hallinger and Heck (1998) 
conducted an extensive review of empirical research between the years of 1980 and 1995 
in hopes of making sense of the pattern of findings on principal effects in schools. As a 
result, Hallinger and Heck maintain any attempt at concretely suggesting a coherent 
framework summarizing leadership issues is limited.  
 
 45
They do, however make the following proposals. First, the conceptualization of 
leadership is rapidly evolving to meet ever-changing societal demands. Second, in 
studying historical perspectives of leadership, there appears to be no universal theory or 
paradigm for examining leadership behavior that is valid in all societal constructs 
(Hallinger & Heck, 1998). Third, a variety of frames have been considered for studying 
school leadership (Hallinger & Heck, 1998).  
 Pitner (1988) offers a framework for conceptualizing and organizing studies on 
administrative effects. In conceptualizing the principal?s role in school effectiveness, 
Pitner identified a range of approaches that could be used to study administrator effects: 
direct-effects, antecedent-effects, mediated-effects, reciprocal-effects, and moderated 
effects models. These models are identified as a comprehensive set of different 
perspectives for viewing the effects of the school context on administrative behavior and 
the influence of administrative behavior on the school and its outcomes (Hallinger & 
Heck, 1998; Pitner, 1988). 
 The direct-effects model proposes that the leader?s practices can have effects on 
school outcomes. Prior to 1987 this approach represented the norm among principal 
effect studies (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). A mediated-effects framework hypothesizes that 
leaders achieve their effects on school outcomes through indirect paths. Leadership 
practices contribute to the outcomes desired by schools, but the contribution is almost 
always mediated by other people, events, and organizational factors such as teacher 
commitment, instructional practices, or school culture (Leithwood, 1994). This 
assumption is consistent with the proposition that leaders achieve their results primarily 
through other people.  
 
 46
Another model for understanding leadership effects is the reciprocal-effects 
model. Some researchers have proposed that relationships between the administrator and 
features of the school and its environment are interactive (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). This 
framework implies that leaders adapt to the organization in which they work, changing 
their thinking and behavior over time. Hallenger and Heck (1998) propose that principals 
establish leadership in the school through a stream of interactions over a period of time 
addressing important issues of the school such as the current and changing states of 
student outcomes or staff morale and commitment. Leaders may alternatively initiate 
changes in the school?s curriculum program or instructional practices causing changes in 
the conditions of the school and, in turn, producing feedback that causes reciprocal 
effects in leadership.  
Although a variety of conceptual models are applied to understand the dynamics 
of effective leadership, instructional leadership and transformational leadership are two 
approaches that have predominated the study of principal effects since the early 1980s 
(Leithwood & Duke, 1998). Since 1990, researchers have begun to shift their attention to 
leadership models that are more consistent with educational reform such as 
empowerment, shared leadership, and organizational learning with the understanding that 
the role of the principal evolves with the changing trends in educational reform 
(Leithwood & Duke, 1998). Leithwood and Duke (1998) identified school leadership 
models through analyses of a representative sample of literature about leadership in 
schools as far back as 1988. All of the leadership styles, qualities, and concepts studied 
by Leithwood and Duke were assigned to one of six broad categories referred to as 
models, clustering together leadership concepts along the same primary focus and key 
 
 47
assumptions. The six categories of leadership are instructional, transformational, moral, 
participative, managerial, and contingency. Below is a description of each of these 
leadership models.  
Instructional Leadership 
Studies from the early to late 1980s were dominated by an instructional view of 
leadership in schools (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). In the area of instructional leadership, all 
decisions are guided by the necessity to ensure that the quality of instruction is the most 
important activity occurring in the school (Daresh, 1991). ?As an instructional leader, the 
principal focuses less on doing things right and more on ?doing the right things?, the 
things we know can help improve student achievement? (Andrews, Basom & Basom, 
1991, p. 97). Foriska (1994) describes instructional leadership as, ?critical to the 
development and maintenance of an effective school? (p. 33). Principals, as instructional 
leaders, must influence others to combine appropriate instructional strategies with their 
knowledge of subject matter (Whitaker, 1997). In addition, instructional leaders are 
expected to provide the necessary resources teachers need to implement appropriate 
instructional activities. As a resource provider the principal, ?becomes the broker of 
people with resources that will help provide instruction? (Andrews, Basom & Basom, 
1991, p. 98).  
Niece (1983) found three major themes in his research on effective instructional 
leaders. First, effective instructional leaders are accessible and interact with the faculty 
and staff about day-to-day happenings in the school on a continuous basis (Niece, 1983). 
They do not stay isolated behind office doors. Second, effective instructional leaders 
 
 48
interact with a network of other principals. Third, they are active in mentoring 
relationships with other practitioners (Niece, 1983).  
Smith and Andrews (1989) proposed a framework for examining instructional 
leadership consisting of four supervisory activities that are thought to lead to higher 
levels of student achievement. The activities are presented in four broad areas: the 
principal as a resource provider, instructional resource, communicator, and visible 
presence. The framework described by Smith and Andrews (1989) is explained below: 
? Resource Provider ? The principal must recognize the teachers in the school 
as its greatest resource in providing exemplary teaching. The principal must 
know the strengths and weaknesses of the teachers and show genuine concern 
for their well-being and professional growth. This approach creates 
willingness in teachers to share exemplary teaching strategies and to learn 
from one another. 
? Instructional Resource ? The principal is knowledgeable of exemplary 
teaching practices and therefore can accurately assess teachers? effectiveness 
based on the criteria of good instruction. As a result, the principal can provide 
feedback to promote professional growth in order to enhance student 
achievement. Another important activity of the principal as an instructional 
resource is to disaggregate standardized test data to assess the schools? ability 
to meet curriculum goals.  
? Communicator ? An effective communicator must develop the skills needed 
to evaluate and deal effectively with others. The principal communicates 
fundamental beliefs about the school?s vision and sense of mission to teachers. 
 
 49
Moreover, the principal must communicate to everyone the essential belief 
that all children can experience success, success builds upon success, schools 
can enhance student success and student outcomes must be clearly defined to 
guide instructional programs and decisions. 
? Visible Presence ? The principal?s presence is felt in every area of the 
school?s activities. Informal communication is preferred by effective 
principals as a way to model behaviors consistent with the school?s vision and 
mission.  
Instructional leaders must be able to provide teachers with resources and 
incentives to keep their focus on student achievement (Whitaker, 1997). Principals must 
keep teachers up-to-date about educational tools and developments in the teaching 
profession and be able to critique these tools and teaching practices to determine their 
applicability to students (Andrews, Basom, & Basom, 1991; Whitaker, 1997). 
Caution must be taken with instructional leadership theory in that providing ?too 
much leadership discourages professionalism? (Sergiovanni, 1992, p. 67). For example, 
the principal who insists on being a strong instructional leader, even when teachers are 
capable of implementing exemplary teaching methods and strategies, forces teachers into 
dependent roles and removes opportunities and incentives for them to be self-guided and 
motivated. Sergiovanni (1992) stressed, ?? the more professionalism is emphasized, the 
less leadership is needed; the more leadership is emphasized, the less likely 
professionalism is to develop? (p. 67). Sergiovanni (1992) believed that instructional 
leadership has its place in schools where teachers are incompetent, indifferent, or 
disabled by certain circumstances. Acting in an instructional leadership role, principals 
 
 50
may build up the capacities of teachers so that direct leadership will no longer be needed 
(Sergiovanni, 1992). The point is not to get rid of leadership because leadership can add 
to the most professional of school settings, but ?direct leadership becomes less urgent and 
less intensive once the wheels of professionalism begin to turn by themselves? 
(Sergiovanni, 1992, p. 67). 
Transformational Leadership 
Many aspects of teacher empowerment are found to be consistent with the ideals 
of transformative leadership (Melenyzer, 1990). Transformational leadership, a term 
coined by James MacGregor Burns, calls for principals to elevate and motivate others; 
define values, offer vision, and creatively and initiate reform and innovative 
developments, when appropriate, in the face of opportunities and challenges (Adshire, 
2001). Transformational leaders know that past achievements can not become a place of 
rest (Adshire, 2001). The transformational leader sets the stage for followers to reach 
higher levels of achievement and motivation. The leader-follower relationship is 
transcending because it fosters heightened feelings of accomplishment and motivation in 
the workplace (Adshire, 2001). The leader and follower are bound together in a mutual 
pursuit of a higher purpose (Burns, 1978). Transformational leaders motivate 
subordinates to do more than they originally expected to do by: 
? Raising the followers? levels of consciousness about the importance and value 
of reaching designated goals; 
? Getting followers to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the team 
or organization; 
 
 51
? Raising followers? need levels to the higher-order needs, such as self-
actualization (Burns, 1978). 
The transformational leadership framework emphasizes that leaders inspire 
followers to go beyond self-interest, work toward values-driven and higher-level goals, 
contribute to shared decision making, and develop school-based solutions (Lucas & 
Valentine, 2001; Sergiovanni, 1992). Principals who are transformational leaders exhibit 
more flexible, versatile, and responsive leadership behavior (Duignan & McPherson, 
1993; Lucas & Valentine, 2001). Transformational leadership focuses on increasing the 
organization?s capacity to innovate (Adshire, 2001; Burns, 1978). American education in 
the twentieth century has witnessed a steady flow of changing goals, and desired forms of 
principal leadership (Beck & Murphy, 1992; Rothberg & Hill, 1992). Therefore, the last 
twenty years has been a time of rapid transition in the prevalent understanding of 
principal leadership, moving from managerial to instructional and now transformational 
forms of leadership (Beck & Murphy, 1992; Rothberg & Hill, 1992). Transformational 
leadership seeks to transform individuals and consequently build the organization?s 
capacity to select its purposes and goals (Beck & Murphy, 1992; Rothberg & Hill, 1992).  
In the transformational model the leader seeks to motivate teachers to formulate 
new goals for personal and professional development. Leithwood?s transformational 
model (1994) highlights the ?people effects? as a cornerstone of the transformational 
leadership model (p. 17). A major impact of principal efforts is to produce changes in 
people (Leithwood, 1994). Ogawa and Bossert (1995) suggest that social interaction 
among people within the school community is a primary building block of leadership. 
Leadership requires the use of personal resources of responsibility, cooperation, and 
 
 52
commitment (Leithwood, 1994; Ogawa & Bossert, 1995). Vision building and fostering 
commitment to goals are the strongest outcomes of transformational leadership. Silins 
(1994) characterized transformational leadership as actions aimed at providing support, 
challenging work, and a sense of vision and mission of the school.  
Within the transformational leadership model, Leithwood, Jantzi, Silins, and Dart 
(1993) found that principal vision, group goals, high expectations, and individual support 
have effects on goal formulation, school culture, teachers, policy implementation, and 
organizational change. Vision and goal cohesion are important elements within the 
school. Leithwood and his colleagues suggested that transformational leadership affects 
three psychological dispositions of teachers: their perceptions of a variety of school 
characteristics, their commitment to school change, and their capacity for professional 
development.  
Bennis (1983) in his book, The Chief, identified two main components of 
transformative power. The first component is the leader. Principals, acting in the realm of 
transformative leadership, view themselves as leaders not merely managers (Bennis, 
1983). Leaders are concerned with the organization?s basic purposes, why it exists, and 
its general direction. Thus, acting as leaders, principals are capable of ?transforming 
doubts into the psychological grounds of common purpose? (Bennis, 1983, p. 23). In 
short, Bennis reminds us that nothing serves an organization better than leadership that is 
confident in what it wants, communicates those intentions effectively, empowers others, 
and knows when and how to stay on course and when to change. 
In varying degrees, transformative leaders possess the following competencies 
(Bennis, 1983):  
 
 53
? Vision: The capacity to create and communicate a vision that clarifies the 
current situation and induces commitment to the future.  
? Communication and Alignment: The capacity to communicate vision in order 
to gain support of multiple constituencies.  
?  Persistence, Consistency, Focus: The capacity to maintain the organization?s 
direction, especially during difficult times.  
? Empowerment: The capacity to create environments that can tap and harness 
the energies and abilities necessary to bring about the desired results.  
? Organizational Learning: The capacity to find ways and means through which 
the organization can monitor its own performance, compare results with 
established objectives, have access to a continuously evolving data base 
against which to review past actions and base future ones, and decide how, if 
necessary, the organizational structure and key personnel must be rearranged 
when faced with new conditions.  
In addition, transformational leadership consists of four key components (Bennis, 1983): 
? Charisma: Developing a vision, engendering pride, respect and trust; 
? Inspiration: Motivating by creating high expectations, modeling appropriate 
behavior, and using symbols to focus efforts; 
? Individualized consideration: Giving personal attention to followers, respect, 
responsibility; and 
? Intellectual stimulation: Continually challenging followers with new ideas and 
approaches (Bass & Avolio, 1990). 
 
 54
The second component of transformational power is intention (Bennis, 1983). 
Transformative power implies a transaction between the leader and the followers thus 
creating a participative response. The expression of an intention is the ability of 
principals to lead the organization forward into the unknown (Bennis, 1983). The 
characteristics of intentions that successful leaders employ include (Bennis, 1983): 
? Simplicity: implies that each assumption in the organization is independent. 
The word ?simple? derives from the notion of oneness or unity. 
? Completeness: capability to incorporate tasks that need to be performed at the 
time it is set up should also be capable of adjusting to and assimilating new 
tasks as they arise. 
? Workability: requires that organizational goals are met or contributions are 
made to achieve the goals. 
? Communicability: requires clear concise understanding by the organization 
and to keep in mind the organization?s effectiveness is related to the mutual 
connections of its various contexts.  
 Hoy and Miskel (1996) state that transformational leaders: 1) Recognize the need 
for change; 2) Create new visions and commitments; 3) Concentrate on long-term goals; 
and 4) Inspire others to transcend their interests for organizational goals. Moreover, a 
transformational leader is one who attempts to: influence others through transmission of a 
vision to others in the organization, mold organizational members to fit the vision, and 
finally assume responsibility for building an organization where people continually 
expand their capabilities (Hoy & Miskel, 1996; Senge, 1996).  
 
 55
Kochan (2004) proposed a new dimension to the transformative trait of leadership 
? transcendent leadership. She claims transcendent leaders are people who have ?the 
perception, wisdom, and desire to lead others; to rise above what is to create what might 
be? (Kochan, 2004, p. 2). This transformative trait requires critique and open dialogue 
about policies, culture, children, teaching, and learning.  
Moral Leadership 
James MacGregor Burns set the stage for those who have come along in the past 
twenty years to define leadership using terms such as moral, servant, transformational, 
and even ?soulful? (Pellicer, 2003, p. 23). Sergiovanni (1992) contends that moral 
leadership can transform schools into communities and inspire commitment, devotion, 
and service that will sustain schools through changing times. Fullan (2002) defines moral 
leadership as ?moral purpose writ large? meaning that principal behavior is connected to 
something greater than ourselves that relates to human and social development. Fullan 
(2002) contends that the first order of moral leadership is to make a difference in the lives 
of students and transforming the working and learning conditions of others so that 
growth, commitment, engagement, and constant initiation of leadership in others is being 
encouraged. In addition, moral leadership is defined as ?the authority of felt obligations 
and duties derived from widely shared professional and community values, ideas, and 
ideals? (Sergiovanni, 1992, p. 42). Moral leadership is a source of authority that inspires 
teachers to become followers rather than having leadership imposed on them.  
  For supervision to be a moral action, ?the exchange between the supervisor and 
teacher must be trusting, open, and flexible in order to allow both persons to speak from 
their own sense of integrity and to encourage each person to respect the other?s integrity? 
 
 56
(Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2002, p. 56). Moral leadership answers what, why, and whom 
questions differently than traditional bureaucratic forms of leadership. In traditional 
leadership, ?whom? means the designated leader, ?what? is the leader?s vision, and the 
?why? is that the principal is able to manipulate compliance through interpersonal skill or 
clout. In contrast, moral leadership answers ?whom? as ourselves as a community of 
committed people, ?what? is the shared values and beliefs that define teachers and 
principals as a community of professionals, and ?why? is answered because it is morally 
right and community and professional membership are based morally understood duties 
and obligations (Sergiovanni, 1992). He further asserted that moral leadership is capable 
of tapping into the full range and depth of human capacity. Intrinsically motivated self-
management is the goal of moral leadership where teachers are followers not 
subordinates. ?If we want sustained and committed performance from teachers, then we 
must think about a leadership practice that helps teachers transcend subordination ? one 
that cultivates followership? (Sergiovanni, 1992, p. 70).  
Moral leadership calls principals to become authentic to those who are inspired to 
follow them because the things that leaders do reflect what both the leaders and the 
followers think, feel, and believe. ?In this way, a leader?s actions, decisions, and 
behaviors can more easily be understood, respected, and appreciated by those who follow 
resulting in a covenantal community that is more sacred in its nature than it is secular? 
(Pellicer, 2003, pp. 16?17). When a leader fails to show care and concern needed to 
sustain close contact with followers, the implied contract between the leader and follower 
is void (Pellicer, 2003). Moral leadership in schools is nurtured and sustained by a 
 
 57
common set of beliefs, values and dreams that create an organization more like a family 
than a public institution. 
Moral leadership is concerned with values as being a central part of all leadership 
and administrative practice (Bates, 1993; Evers & Lakomski, 1991; Greenfield, 1991). 
Moral leadership contends that the critical focus of leadership should be on the values 
and ethics of leaders themselves; leadership should be concerned with right and wrong, 
not attitudes, styles, or behaviors (Hodgkinson, 1991). Lees (1995) argued that leadership 
in a democratic society involves a moral imperative to ?promote democracy, 
empowerment, and social justice? (p. 225). Moral leadership places teachers and 
administrators in service to each other and to others (Sergiovanni, 1992). In addition, ?a 
moral perspective on leadership can help us stop playing school and start living school 
more authentically (Sergiovanni, 1992, p. 27).  
The issues of greatest concern to the moral concept of leadership are the nature of 
the values used by leaders in their decision-making, and how conflicts among values can 
be resolved (Leithwood & Duke, 1998). In addition, the perspective on moral leadership 
focuses on the nature of the relationships among those within the organization, and the 
distribution of power between the stakeholders of the school (Leithwood & Duke, 1998).  
Participative Leadership 
Participative leadership is a term that encompasses group, shared, and teacher 
leadership (Leithwood & Duke, 1998). The decision making processes of the group are 
the central focus of leaders in participative leadership (Leithwood & Duke, 1998). 
Participative leadership encompasses the belief that group decision making will enhance 
organizational effectiveness (Leithwood & Duke, 1998). In participative leadership, 
 
 58
authority and influence are available potentially to any legitimate stakeholders in the 
school based on their expert knowledge, their democratic right to choose, their critical 
role in implementing decisions, or a combination of the three (Leithwood & Duke, 1998).  
Site-Based Management 
Site-based management, a centerpiece in the majority of the past decade?s school 
restructuring initiatives, is the most fully developed and widely advocated conception of 
participatory leadership available (Leithwood & Duke, 1998). Site-based management 
and empowerment have been two promising outcomes of the education reform movement 
(Holloway, 2000). The site-based management movement grew out of research 
suggesting that school autonomy is associated with school effectiveness (Engvall, 1997). 
Schools are most effective when teachers feel a sense of ownership and responsibility for 
educational endeavors and decisions.  
Site-based management is defined in several different ways but typically 
incorporate the same components, which are a delegation of authority to individual 
schools, a shared decision-making model and facilitative leadership (Holloway, 2000). 
Engvall (1997) referred to decentralized decision-making or site-based management as 
empowerment in that this approach means to share authority. Site-based management 
must be a reality in schools in order for teachers to feel empowered (Engvall. 1997). 
Teachers, in order to practice their ?craft?, need some degree of autonomy.  
Proponents of teacher empowerment assert that school based management has the 
potential to improve employee morale, encourage employee loyalty, improve educational 
services, decrease turnover, and reduce absenteeism (Engvall, 1997). A message sent to 
school stakeholders is teachers, as professionals, are worthy of regard and respect.  
 
 59
Managerial Leadership 
Managerial leadership assumes the focus of leaders should be on functions, tasks, 
or behaviors, and if these functions are carried out competently the work of others in the 
organization will be facilitated (Leithwood & Duke, 1998). Much of a principal?s 
responsibility is management driven- schools need to comply with laws, establish 
consistent policies and procedures, and operate efficiently and on budget (Smith & Piele, 
1996). However, schools also need ?purpose, passion, and imagination? which are the 
products of leadership (Smith & Piele, 1996, p. 3). Many times principals have the dual 
responsibility of being leaders and managers. In simple terms, principals have the 
responsibility to ?manage things and lead people? (Smith & Piele, 1996, p. 1). 
Administrators also must understand change as well as manage it (Smith & Piele, 1996). 
The complex nature of the principalship requires competency in the area of management. 
In fact, Bennis (1989) identified four leadership competencies based on the ability to 
manage.  
First, management of attention enables people to attract others to them by 
demonstrating exceptional commitment. The second competency, management of 
meaning, allows leaders to communicate their vision. The third competency, management 
of trust, is fostered when leaders demonstrate reliability and consistency. The 
management of self, is the ability to know one?s skills and utilize them effectively 
(Bennis, 1989).  
Contingent Leadership 
Contemporary studies in the field of educational leadership highlight the 
importance of distributed leadership, constructivist leadership, value-centered leadership, 
 
 60
and emotional leadership (Blas? & Blas?, 2000; Harris, Day, & Hadfield, 2003). No 
single style of leadership used in isolation is appropriate for all schools (Smith & Piele, 
1996). Effective principals need to find a style of leadership which is most suited for their 
particular school (Coulon & Quaglia, 2001). Educational leaders need many leadership 
bases from which to pull. ?Leaders may, with good results, use any of a variety of styles 
and strategies of leadership including transformational and participative, depending on 
their reading of themselves, their followers, and the organizational context? (Smith & 
Piele, 1996, p. 3). 
 
Leadership Belief Paradigms  
 Shared governance sets the stage for teacher empowerment which requires 
educational leaders who consider their personal philosophy and leadership behaviors. 
Therefore, it is necessary to include in the literature review a comparison and summary of 
relevant leadership belief paradigms. 
 The interaction between values and beliefs and practices of educational leaders 
has been explored by several researchers (Anderson-Harper, Kochan & Robinson, 1996; 
Robbins & Alvy, 1995; Sergiovanni & Carver, 1973). Belief systems frame the decisions 
and actions made by effective leaders (Ackerman, Donaldson, & van de Bogart, 1996; 
Martin, 2003). Effective leaders have a clear understanding of how their belief systems 
affect their leadership style and the belief system is evident in their leadership practices 
(Donaldson & Marnik, 1995). Belief systems determine how information is processed 
thus determining subsequent actions (Kagan, 1992).  
 
 61
  Several highly regarded writers, researchers, and theorists have written about 
belief systems. Peter Senge (1990) in his book, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and 
Practice of the Learning Organization, used the term mental models to describe the way 
many individuals make sense of their world. Schubert (1986), in his book Curriculum: 
Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility, addressed how beliefs directly impact a leader?s 
decisions and actions. Decisions and actions that are made based upon the beliefs 
(assumptions) of the leader can affect all aspects of the school environment including the 
classrooms and the school culture (Martin, 2003).  
 Many theorists have attempted to frame beliefs by addressing them as paradigms. 
Paradigms provide a lens for individuals to better understand their origins and beliefs 
about the world (Martin, 2003). Schubert (1986) suggested that beliefs flow from one?s 
paradigm or view of the world. In addition, in 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Covey 
(1989) defined paradigms as how individuals understand, perceive and interpret the 
world. Barker (1987) defined a paradigm as ?A set of rules and regulations, written, or 
unwritten, that does two things: (1) establishes or defines boundaries; and (2) tells you 
how to behave inside the boundaries in order to be successful? (p. 32).  
Jurgen Habermas? Three Paradigms 
 Habermas, in his reconstruction of Critical Theory, distinguishes between two 
types of human activity: symbolic and communicative, and purposive-rational 
(Sergiovanni & Cobally, 1984). Purposive-rationality served the needs of what Habermas 
defines as three basic cognitive interests, the technical, the practical, and the 
emancipatory (Bernstein, 1976; Sergiovanni & Cobally, 1984). The cognitive interests 
 
 62
are grounded in one of the dimensions of human social existence: work, interaction, or 
power (Bernstein, 1976; Sergiovanni & Cobally, 1984). 
 Grundy (1987) used the work of Jurgen Habermas to address belief paradigms. 
These paradigms were defined as cognitive interests and labeled as technical, practical, 
and emancipatory. Habermas? cognitive interests are very similar to the three belief 
paradigms of Schubert (1986) technical, practical inquiry, and critical praxis. Melenyzer 
(1990) argues that the critical emancipatory perspective promotes strong concern for 
teacher empowerment.  
According to the emancipatory perspective, teachers are expected to confront 
?oppressive? societal forces through reflective political action. By comparison, the liberal 
view of teacher empowerment emphasizes the capacity of empowered teachers to 
improve conditions in their classrooms. Finally, the conservative view equates 
empowerment with professionalism; teachers are given new respect through the 
recognition and improvement of their work conditions (Melenyzer, 1990).  
 The technical interest is reflected in the desire to exert control. The practical 
interest reflects the need to establish a sense of community, shared communication, and 
understanding. The emancipatory interest is in the identification of the ideal human 
situation (Bernstein, 1976; Sergiovanni & Cobally, 1984).  
 Habermas? cognitive interests have been associated with educational applications. 
Table 1 outlines these applications as they relate to each cognitive interest (Martin, 
2003). 
 
 63
Table 1  
Habermas? Cognitive Interests and Educational Applications (Martin, 2003) 
Technical Practical Emancipatory 
Teacher directed Emphasis on student 
understanding 
Academic freedom of the 
learner 
Predetermined outcomes Student interaction with 
their environment 
Critical thinking and inquiry 
to acquire a better 
understanding 
Prescriptive Curriculum Reflective ? teacher acts as 
guide or advisor 
Teachers and students 
jointly set educational goals 
and curricular content 
External evaluation Internally evaluation Teacher and student have 
input into evaluation 
process 
 
Kochan (2002) has applied these beliefs to educational leadership. Her analysis is 
presented in Table 2. 
 
 64
Table 2 
Administration Focus and Habermas? Human Interests 
Aims Technical Efficiency Practical Interaction Emancipatory 
(Justice/Equity) 
Leadership Focus Management/Control Shared decision 
making?Consensus
Community 
Task Focus Immediate/ 
Crisis/Safety 
Situations 
Short term needs/ 
Goals 
Long-term needs 
Vision/Mission 
Administrative 
Focus 
Operations Communication, 
Interaction, Climate 
Culture 
Curricular Focus External Curricular 
constraints, content 
Content/ Materials, 
Process 
Teaching learning 
context 
Administrative 
Structure 
Rules and regulation Shared Governance Creating and 
evaluating 
structures for 
decision making 
Organizational 
Structure 
Hierarchical Shared Negotiated 
 
 
 
 65
Senge?s Four Key Competencies  
 In the book, Schools That Learn, Peter Senge (2000) advocates re-creating 
schools by taking a learning orientation meaning everyone in the school is involved in 
expressing their aspirations, building their awareness, and developing their capabilities 
together resulting in continual school improvement. In schools that learn principals do 
not lead as dictators but rather serve as facilitators and stewards who recognize the value 
of each person in the organization. In addition, principals in schools that learn, draw 
people together to a common purpose by laying the groundwork for teachers to feel 
empowered (Senge, 2000).  
 Beginning in 1995, Senge worked with a study group of school superintendents 
sponsored by the Danforth Foundation to formulate a new leadership model for public 
education. Senge and the study group focused on four key competencies that allow 
people to lead without having control which fosters teacher empowerment. The four key 
competencies are as follows: 
? Engagement: Engagement has two components. First is the capability to 
recognize an issue or situation that has no clear definition, no simple cause 
and no obvious answer (Senge, 2000). Second, is conversing with appropriate 
people to develop a plan to manage complex situations (Senge, 2000). 
? Systems Thinking: In learning organizations there is an ability to recognize the 
hidden dynamics of complex systems (Senge, 2000). In solving and dealing 
with complex situations, groups look to larger systems that may also be 
affected by the situation and involve this group in decision-making and 
problem-solving. 
 
 66
? Leading Learning: To lead learning means to model a learner-centered instead 
of an authority-centered approach to all problems, inside and outside the 
school (Senge, 2000). Learner-centered leadership means that learning and the 
acceptance of uncertainty are part of the culture of the system. ?Leaders 
expect themselves and others to be uncertain, inquiring, expectant, of surprise, 
and perhaps a bit joyful about confronting the unknown? (Senge, 2000, p. 
417). 
? Self-awareness: Leaders must be self-aware. They must know the impact they 
are having on people and the system and how that impact has changed over 
time. Self-awareness is a position of strength. To develop self-awareness 
leaders must take time to personally reflect and develop a trusting relationship 
with a mentor.  
Structural, Human, Political, and Symbolic Frames  
 Leaders who manage school business using the four frames espoused by Lee 
Bolman and Terrence Deal (1993) encourage teacher empowerment by reaching beyond 
office doors to listen to teachers and genuinely involve them in the day-to-day business of 
the school. By doing this, principals communicate to teachers that they are 
knowledgeable professionals who have valuable input. Bolman and Deal?s (19993) four 
frames are described below. 
? Structural Frame: This frame is important to keep in mind because of the 
ever-changing nature of the educational system. The structural frame 
encompasses the formal and informal ways that operations are defined in 
schools; these include policies, procedures, missions, goals, objectives, roles 
 
 67
and responsibilities as well as methods for measuring success. Groups need to 
know four things: what they are supposed to do, what authority they have, 
who they are accountable to, and what they are accountable for. 
? The Human Resource Frame: This frame highlights the idea that education is 
human intense; therefore, people?s needs and motives must be addressed. 
Organizations are more apt to run smoothly during challenging times when 
people feel they are part of a caring, trusting work environment. Concern is 
shown by enlisting participation in activities and decision-making from 
everyone not just a select few. The involvement of everyone builds the 
groundwork for commitment to the school?s mission and vision. 
? Political Frame: Schools are breeding grounds for power struggles. However, 
if handled properly struggles between groups can lead to new ideas, solutions, 
and be a source of energy that moves the organization forward. In the political 
frame, clear, respectful communication and an understanding of the 
importance of making effective, ethical, and efficient decisions are necessities. 
? Symbolic Frame: This frame encompasses the culture and climate of the 
school, the traditions, symbols, rituals, and beliefs that create emotional 
connections. The organization becomes a way of life not just a place of work.  
 
The Conceptualization of Power Theory 
 In seeking to conceptualize power it is useful to look at the root meanings of the 
word. The English word power derives from the Latin posse which means to be able. The 
first meaning of power in the Oxford English Dictionary is ?the ability to do or effect 
 
 68
something or anything, or to act upon a person or thing?. In Webster?s New World 
Dictionary power, ?denotes the inherent ability or the admitted right to rule, govern, or 
determine?.  
The concept of power; its nature, sources, and functions, has been and remains a 
central concern of social scientists, social activists, politicians, corporate leaders, and 
philosophers (Kreisberg, 1992). Different theorists find different dimensions of power 
interesting and worthy of study but there seems no common terminology. In seeking to 
understand power, most theorists have looked to its most pervasive and obvious 
expressions in our society. Most theories of power in the social sciences actually are 
grounded on theory dated back to Plato, Aristotle, and Thucydides (Kreisberg, 1992). 
Thomas Hobbes was among the first theorists to attempt an explicit definition of power 
sparked by thinkers such as Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, and Descartes (Kreisberg, 1992). 
Hobbe?s conception of power is defined by relations of cause and effect meaning power 
is the ability to cause those effects that will allow for the fulfillment of individual desires 
(Kresiberg, 1992). Hobbes argued that since individual desires inevitably conflict with 
the desires of others, power involves the ability to affect another, to cause another to act, 
think, or speak in a particular way (Kreisberg, 1992). In summary, power equals cause. 
Power is conceived as power over others.  
 Max Weber was another influential theorist on the concept of power. Weber 
(1945) defined power as, ?The chance of a man or of a number of men to realize their 
own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are participating 
in the action? (p. 180). In Weber?s definition coercion and threat of force are central 
themes (Kresiberg, 1992) According to Weber power involves conflict and competition 
 
 69
in which there are winners and losers and in which order is maintained through complex 
mechanisms of domination (Kresiberg, 1992).  
 An additional theorist mentioned in the literature on power is Bertrand Russell. 
Russell follows Hobbs and Weber in defining power as ?the production of intended 
effects? (Kresiberg, 1992, p. 40). For Russell, power is apparent in relationships in which 
humans have control over the world around them; it is defined by relationships of 
inequality and domination (Kreisberg, 1992; Richardson, Lane & Flanigan, 1995). 
Russell identifies three different ways an individual can exert power over another: by 
direct physical power (coercion), by rewards and punishments (inducement), and by 
influence over opinion (propaganda).  
 Lasswell and Kaplan (1950) defined power as participation in decision making. 
The degree of power is determined by the degree of participation in decision making, 
values, and the domain over persons who support or suffer from the power. These authors 
maintain that power is control over one or more of eight social values: power itself, 
respect, rectitude, affection, well-being, wealth, skill, and enlightenment (Richardson, 
Lane & Flanigan, 1995). Control over these values in the education system determines, to 
a great deal, what schools and classrooms will be like (Richardson, Lane & Flanigan, 
1995).  
 In addition, Nyberg (1988) maintained that power requires two parties; one claims 
power and exercises it and the other entity gives consent. Those that claim the power 
must have the intention to act and a plan of action that requires foresight, organization, 
and control of information (Richardson, Lane & Flanigan, 1995). Consent involves 
acceptance of organization, hierarchy, and delegation (Richardson, Lane & Flanigan, 
 
 70
1995). In other words, a leader may delegate tasks or roles to a group, and in return group 
members delegate, by their consent, power to the leader. In the end to relinquish control 
by allowing others to make decisions and solve problems actually enhances a principal?s 
power? (Sergiovanni, 1992, p. 44). 
Principals? Use of Power 
 Within an empowering setting, power means being heard, having your ideas taken 
seriously and taken into consideration when decisions are made (Kreisburg, 1992). 
Therefore, power is conceived as ?participation rather than imposition, as collaboration 
rather than control? (Kreisburg, 1992, p. 134).  
There are several classifications of power, however the bases of power typology 
suggested by French and Raven (1959) are still widely discussed in the literature and are 
popular in application in the social sciences (Rahim & Buntzman, 1988). French and 
Raven?s power taxonomy is clearly defined and accepted in fields such as social 
psychology and management (Agunis, Simonsen & Pierce, 1998). Because the construct 
of power is multi-dimensional, French and Raven (1959) proposed a taxonomy of power 
bases (Agunis, Simonsen & Pierce, 1998). The bases of power identified by French and 
Raven (1959) include: 
1. Coercive power is based on subordinates? perceptions that a superior has 
the ability to punish or threaten if there is failure to conform to the leader?s 
demands. 
2. Reward power is based on the perception of subordinates that a superior 
has the ability to reward them for desired behavior. 
 
 71
3. Legitimate power is based on the belief of subordinates that a superior has 
the authority to influence and control their behavior. 
4. Expert power is based on subordinates? belief that a superior has job 
experience and special knowledge or expertise in a given area. 
5. Referent power is based on subordinates? feelings or desires to identify 
with a superior because of their admiration or personal liking of the 
superior.  
Social psychologists have recognized that the effective use of power and the perceptions 
of power by subordinates, peers, and supervisors are critical in determining administrator 
success and organizational advancement (Agunis, Simonsen & Pierce, 1998).  
 Credibility is a sixth base that some researchers have incorporated into the French 
and Raven (1959) power base taxonomy (Agunis, Simonsen & Pierce, 1998). Credibility 
is defined as the objectively determined truthfulness, follow-through, and accuracy of a 
power source (Agunis, Simonsen & Pierce, 1998). Credibility is often considered an 
additional power base because researchers have concluded that it enhances a person?s 
ability to influence others (Agunis, Simonsen & Pierce, 1998). Managers viewed as 
having high levels of credibility were also seen as having referent, expert, legitimate, and 
reward power (Agunis, Simonsen & Pierce, 1998). 
 Drake and Roe (1999) contend that in modern day schools none of the French and 
Raven?s Power Bases provides a full measure of power. For example, few principals have 
the means to provide tangent rewards for teachers. Reward by special praise and 
recognition has been the main source of praise used by principals (Drake & Roe, 1999). 
In addition, coercive power is reduced by tenure and grievance procedures. Legitimate 
 
 72
power is lessened by the professional role of teachers because schools? main functions 
are carried out in the classroom by the teachers- the chief executives of the classrooms 
(Drake & Roe, 1999). Therefore, few teachers stand in awe of principals? legitimate 
power. Teachers, due to collective bargaining procedures in many states with strong 
unions, do not wish to identify with an autocratic or bureaucratic principal (Drake & Roe, 
1999). Drake and Roe do maintain that of all the power bases, expert power holds the 
greatest promise when leaders realize that the expertise put forth should be to assist 
others to grow in their professional undertakings. Principals using expert power remove 
barriers, create opportunities, and provide resources to aid teachers in their endeavors. 
Furthermore, schools that rate the principal as having expert power received high scores 
for teacher morale, teacher satisfaction, and teacher performance (Drake & Roe, 1999). 
 Professional growth for principals involves acquiring the skills needed to perform 
roles effectively in the transition to shared decision making and in setting the stage for 
teacher empowerment. Power used by the principal can fall into two broad categories: 
positional power and personal power (Richardson, Lane & Flanigan, 1995). Stimsom and 
Applebaum (1988) defined these two types of power as: 
? Positional power tends to be hierarchical in nature, frequently combative, and 
to produce winners and losers. 
? Personal power is derived from the personal characteristics of individuals. It 
relies heavily on the relationship between colleagues and it tends to be 
horizontal in nature and cooperative and sharing in orientation. 
Expert power is on type of personal power, which is based on the subordinates? 
perception of the special expertise or knowledge of the leader (Stimson & Applebaum, 
 
 73
1988). When the principal demonstrates expertise in a given area, teachers tend to 
cooperate on the basis of their appreciation of his or her skills or knowledge rather than 
on the basis of position in the hierarchy of power (Stimson & Applebaum, 1988).  
Principals who use personal power are basing their leadership on discretionary effort 
(Blanton, 1991). Discretionary effort is not coercion or bossing teachers, but a belief that 
people are capable and willing to do more than they have been asked (Blanton, 1991).  
 Kreisburg (1992) examined the concept of power and added to the body of 
literature on the concept of power by coining the terms ?power over? and ?power with? 
(p. xi). ?Power over? is seen as domination; coercion, lack of respect and trust, and 
alienation and fear. ?Power with? is the ability to participate in decision making and to 
take action for change. Kreisberg (1992) claimed that ?power with? is the type of power 
that promotes empowerment.  
 As principals acquire skills and knowledge and provide support for teachers, they 
increase their personal power and gain support of teachers (Richardson, Lane & Flanigan, 
1995). Principals? use of personal power enables them to facilitate shared decision 
making more effectively than they would if they relied on positional power (Richardson, 
Lane & Flanigan, 1995).  
 For principals desiring to work with empowered teachers, the issue is not of 
losing decision-making authority, but rather offering initiative to the greatest number of 
people possible; thus, expanding their authority (Richardson, Lane & Flanigan, 1995). 
Relinquishing power control to teachers by allowing them to make decisions and solve 
problems actually enhances a principal?s power (Sergiovanni, 1992). 
 
 74
Facilitative power is the ability to help others achieve a set of ends that may be 
?shared, negotiated, or complementary? (Blas? & Blas?, 2001, p. 13). Using facilitative 
power, principals create necessary conditions for teachers to enhance their personal and 
collective performance (Blas? & Blas?, 2001).  
 
Empowerment 
 Empowerment in education has drawn considerable attention over the past decade 
(Richardson, Lane & Flanigan, 1995). Empowerment means different things to different 
people. According to Liontos (1993), empowerment means bringing the responsibility for 
decision making to the lowest possible level, which specifies that the administrator does 
not make all the decisions. Leadership, where teacher empowerment exists, looks quite 
different from traditional bureaucratic, hierarchical conceptions that slot individuals into 
different, limited functions and that place them in subordinate relationships to one 
another (Darling-Hammond, Bullmaster & Cobb, 1995). Empowerment creates 
ownership for those responsible for carrying out decisions by involving them directly in 
the decision-making process (Harrison, Killion, & Mitchell, 1989). Therefore 
empowerment can be defined as a form of decentralization that places decision making 
and accountability at the lowest level; thus, teachers are involved in decisions about 
instruction, curriculum because they are the ones in the classroom, closest to the students 
(Richardson, Lane & Flanigan, 1995).  
 According to Liebermann and Miller (1990), there are five key aspects involved 
in empowerment. They are as follows: 
 
 75
1. Empowerment implies a reevaluation of curricular and instructional efforts 
for students. 
2. Empowerment means advocating participatory decision making and more 
leadership from teachers, students, and the community. 
3. Empowerment specifies an appropriate and supportive environment for 
students and adults. 
4. Empowerment involves new partnerships and networks. 
5. Empowerment articulates the increased participation of parents and 
community members. 
Empowerment is a process to improve education by increasing the autonomy of teachers, 
principals, and staff to make school-based decisions (Richardson, Lane & Flanigan, 
1995). Empowerment emphasizes increased authority of teachers to make decisions 
outside of the confines of traditional structures of authority.  
The backbone of empowerment is autonomy. Typically school autonomy involves 
decision-making authority in three areas: budget, staffing, and curriculum (David, 1989). 
Empowerment is viewed as a way to transform schools into effective learning 
environments by providing school staff with authority, flexibility, and the resources they 
need to implement change and to solve the educational problems particular to their 
schools (David, 1989; Richardson, Lane & Flanigan, 1995). The teacher?s role undergoes 
many changes as a result of empowerment. In empowerment situations, teachers are 
actively encouraged to become involved in leadership roles (Richardson, Lane & 
Flanigan, 1995).  
 
 76
 Empowerment should create conditions in schools that facilitate improvement, 
innovation, and continuous growth for everyone in the school (Richardson, Lane & 
Flanigan, 1995). Empowerment necessitates administrators and teachers together 
attempting to share responsibility and power in the governance of schools (Blas? & 
Anderson, 1995). Empowerment can help teachers and principals respond less randomly, 
but more cooperatively, to the thousands of decisions made everyday in schools 
(Richardson, Lane & Flanigan, 1995). Therefore, empowerment offers greater flexibility, 
increased participation in decision making, and the ability to meet the specific needs of 
students and teachers (Richardson, Lane & Flanigan, 1995).  
 
Teacher Empowerment 
 Research supports the assumption that teacher empowerment relates to greater 
organizational effectiveness (Barth, 1990; Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Kreisberg, 1992; Lawler, 
1986; Short, 1994; Short & Johnson, 1994). Empowerment has been defined as a process 
whereby school participants develop the competence to take charge of their own growth, 
resolve their own problems, and fulfill their needs to effectively participate in the 
workplace (Kreisberg, 1992; Short, 1994). Teacher empowerment has also been defined 
as the possession and exercise of power in the pursuit of occupational improvement, 
professional autonomy, and the overall improvement of the educational process (Smith & 
Lotven, 1993). Empowerment also means simply to be able to effect change (Kreisberg, 
1992). In the above definitions, empowerment is both the knowledge that one can make a 
difference and the actual ability to act (Kreisberg, 1992). 
 
 77
Dunst (1991) suggested that empowerment consists of two issues 1) enabling 
experiences, provided within an organization that fosters autonomy, choice, control, and 
responsibility, which 2) allow the individual to display existing competencies that support 
and strengthen functioning. Starratt (2004) conveyed that a leader?s ?enabling presence? 
may empower teachers to participate in addressing school issues, own their professional 
development, and bring to the effort of school improvement their talents and creativity (p. 
103).  
 The interest in empowerment in education was initiated from business and 
industrial efforts to improve productivity. Alienation at work is cited as the most 
pervasive phenomenon of the post-industrial society and management in both the private 
and the public sectors are engaged in a constant struggle against it for their own survival 
(Kanungo, 1992). Alienated workers are apathetic, frustrated, and uninvolved with their 
jobs. Businesses that can counter worker alienation with empowerment plans will 
improve their position to compete with businesses that have solved this problem.  
The main strategy is to replace authority based management with participative 
management (Kanungo, 1992). Contemporary educational trends have incorporated 
empowerment strategies as a means to improve school effectiveness (Short & Johnson, 
1994). Empowerment is a way to lift the burden from individuals and provide the criteria 
for distributing the professional work of leadership throughout the teaching force 
(Lieberman & Miller, 2004).  
Principals who feel a burden to have total responsibility and control over 
subordinates? and school success described feeling anxiety, fear, and isolation but when 
empowering others in the school reported feeling relaxed and able to enjoy the workplace 
 
 78
(Beatty, 2000). In addition, some principals revealed feeling isolated when they neglected 
to empower others and share the burden and success of the educational process (Beatty, 
2000). Principals, as the designated formal leaders of schools, are recognizing that a 
likely avenue for more effective leadership may lie in enabling teachers to assume and 
carry-out leadership roles within the school organization (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Fennell, 
2002; Greenfield, 1995; Lucas & Valentine, 2001 Short, 1998). The principal?s role must 
change from a dictator to a ?leader of leaders? (Hallinger & Murphy, 1991, p. 515). 
Teacher empowerment has less to do with the ability to boss others but more to do with 
teacher professionalism (Blas? & Blas?, 2001). It is the ability to exercise one?s 
professional ability with quiet confidence and to help shape the way the job is done by 
having meaningful input into the decision-making process and policy development 
(Maeroff, 1988). In addition, teachers who perceive themselves as empowered have 
improved motivation, self-esteem, confidence, commitment, innovation, autonomy, and 
reflection (Blas? & Blas?, 2001). Bolin (1989) stated that teacher empowerment requires, 
?investing in teachers the right to participate in the determination of school goals and 
policies and the right to exercise professional judgment about the content of the 
curriculum and means on instruction? (p. 83). 
Two obstacles are identified in research as significant problems in traditional 
American schools: teachers are isolated from colleagues in most of their work; and 
teachers are not extensively involved in the decisions that affect their work (Short, 1994). 
In solving the two major problems that teachers face in the workplace, it is important to 
take an in-depth look at what happens in schools when teachers stop functioning in 
isolation and start collectively solving problems related to student achievement (Short, 
 
 79
1994). Teacher empowerment provides teachers the opportunities for choice and 
autonomy in the workplace to demonstrate their competencies as educators (Short, 1994; 
Zimmerman & Rappaprt, 1988). 
 According to Kirby (1991), three key elements in teacher empowerment are the 
ability to act, the opportunity to act, and the desire to act. Empowerment involves both 
personal and organizational issues. Empowerment focuses on the development of 
personal competence, as well as the opportunities a person has within the organization to 
demonstrate competence (Short, 1998). In other words, empowered teachers are highly 
competent and work in schools that provide opportunities to show competence (Short, 
1998). A school that values empowerment of teachers and students will be better at 
finding and developing resources than a school that does not support or hold an 
empowerment philosophy (Short, 1998).  
 Glenn (1990) suggested that the real power behind the construct of teacher 
empowerment is authority derived from teacher command of the subject matter and 
essential skills necessary to successfully teach students. Empowered teachers believe they 
have the skills and knowledge to act on a situation and improve it (Short, 1994). The 
foundation for teacher empowerment consists of enabling experiences, provided within 
the organization that fosters autonomy, choice, control, and responsibility, that allows 
teachers to display expertise that support and strengthen school functioning (Short, 1994).  
Dimensions of Teacher Empowerment 
 Short and Rhinehart (1992) and Short and Greer (1997) identified six dimensions 
of empowerment. The teacher empowerment attributes are decision-making, teacher 
impact, teacher status, autonomy, opportunities for professional development, and teacher 
 
 80
self-efficacy. The six attributes provide a theoretical foundation for examining teacher 
leadership. Each of the six attributes is discussed in the following pages. 
 Decision-making. The decision-making dimension of empowerment involves 
teachers? participation in critical decisions that directly affect their work. Research 
informs us it is necessary for teachers to be part of the decision-making process because 
they impact what happens in school (Barth, 2001; Blas? & Blas?, 2001).  
A key element in empowerment is providing teachers with a significant, genuine 
role in school decision-making (Short & Greer, 1989). Teachers have increased control 
over their work environment when their opinions influence the outcome of the decision-
making process. Teachers are less willing to participate in decision-making if they 
perceive that their opinions are not taken in to consideration by the principal when the 
final decision is made (Short, Miller-Wood & Johnson, 1991). Moreover, Ashton and 
Webb (1986) found that teachers are dismayed and frustrated when they are unable to 
influence the process of decision-making. Teachers feel validated in their ideas when 
they are given responsibility to make final decisions (Short, Miller-Wood & Johnson, 
1991).  
 A school climate that promotes involvement in decision making is characterized 
by openness and risk taking which encourages teachers to try new ideas and take different 
approaches (Short, 1994). The problem solving capacity of teachers is strengthened when 
shared decision-making is utilized in schools (Short, 1994). Teachers who are decision 
makers feel ownership and commitment to the process (Short, 1994). Teachers who feel 
responsible for student learning and accountable for their work have a greater interest and 
willingness to participate in decision-making (Short, 1994).  
 
 81
 Impact. The attribute of impact refers to teachers? perceptions that they have an 
effect and influence on school life (Short, 1994). Teachers? self-esteem and confidence 
grow when they feel they are doing something worthwhile and are recognized for their 
accomplishments (Ashton & Webb, 1986). Lightfoot (1986) added that teachers in good 
schools advanced in the practice of teaching by receiving respect from parents and 
community members. 
 Teacher impact is one of the characteristics of transformational teacher-leaders 
(Briley, 2004). Teacher impact means that teachers influence other faculty members to 
take part in reform efforts and school improvement initiatives (Harris, 2002; Howey, 
1988; Maeroff, 1988; Short, 1994; Wasley, 1991). Teacher-leaders use their influence to 
make a difference on significant issues within the school by utilizing others in making 
changes (Gonzales & Lambert, 2001; Hoerr, 1996). Teacher-leaders can influence what 
(Evans, 1996) referred to as ?unfreezables? ? teachers who become complacent and 
resist change. Empowered and transformational teacher-leaders, when viewed as peers, 
may be able to influence the ?unfreezables? to take risks in an attempt to take part in 
school reform (Briley, 2004).  
 Status. The status attribute of empowerment refers to the sense of esteem, respect, 
and admiration attributed by students, parents, community members, peers, and superiors 
to the profession of teaching (Short & Johnson, 1994). Recognition of teacher status can 
be found in comments and attitudes from the various constituents of the school 
environment and student response to the teacher?s instructions (Short & Johnson, 1994). 
In contrast, a combination of high public expectations and poor working conditions, as 
 
 82
perceived by teachers, creates tension that reduces the status that teachers may feel 
(Short, 1994).  
 Another important aspect of the status attribute of empowerment is having the 
ability to overcome the fear of resistance from faculty members (Barth, 2001; Gonzales 
& Lambert, 2001). Resistance may become evident through an attitude of jealousy and a 
view that the teacher-leader was chosen for various roles because of favoritism on behalf 
of the principal (Briley, 2004).  
On the other hand, there are teachers who look to teacher-leaders for support and 
encouragement which often leads to teacher-leaders? perceptions that colleagues respect 
the knowledge and expertise they have displayed in decision-making (Briley, 2004; 
Patterson & Patterson, 2004; Short, 1994). Many times teacher-leaders have proven 
themselves competent in decision-making; therefore faculty members are more likely to 
accept changes suggested by teacher-leaders then they would from outsiders (Patterson & 
Patterson, 2004; Sherrill, 1999). As a result of their contributions to the school, lead 
teachers receive recognition from the administration for their efforts enhancing their 
status among faculty members (Briley, 2004; Rinehart & Short, 1994).  
 Autonomy. Autonomy is the dimension of teacher empowerment that refers to 
teachers? beliefs that they can control certain aspects of their work life such as 
scheduling, curriculum, textbooks, and instructional planning (Gonzales & Lambert, 
2001; Short, 1994; Short & Johnson, 1994; Short & Rinehart, 1992). The foundation for 
autonomy is the sense of freedom to make certain decisions (Short, 1994) and the 
confidence to express opinions while also learning from and engaging with others in 
 
 83
learning (Briley, 2004). Autonomy is fostered when school environments support risk 
taking and experimentation by teachers (Short, 1994).  
  Autonomous individuals will generally have an attitude of collegiality, risk-
taking, and on-going learning (Henderson & Hawthorne, 2000). They also tend to 
experience greater satisfaction in the workplace as autonomy increases (Lumsden, 1998). 
As a result, autonomous people will willingly participate with, learn from, and share with 
others and believe they have a positive impact on school business (Briley, 2004). 
 Administrators are unsuccessful in promoting teacher autonomy when they do not 
take seriously the adverse impact on educational collaboration that a hierarchical system 
has on the growth of teachers (Barth, 2001). Moreover, Rosenholtz (1987) believed that 
the traditional bureaucratic organizational structure of schools prevents teacher autonomy 
and leads to teachers? leaving the teaching profession. Collegiality between 
administrators and teachers is gained through sharing information in the process of 
decision-making (Barth, 1990; Briley, 2004). As a result, an atmosphere of trust and 
interaction is built that promotes autonomy and increased competence (Briley, 2004) 
which translates into self-satisfaction for teachers (Koehler, 1990). Thus, in a climate 
where teachers have a greater sense of self- satisfaction and control over what happens in 
the workplace, mutual trust has been established and a climate has been created where 
autonomy can flourish (Koehler, 1990).  
 Professional growth. Professional growth refers to teachers? perception that the 
school in which they work provides them with opportunities to grow and develop 
professionally, to learn continuously, and to expand one?s own skills through the work 
life of the school (Short & Johnson, 1994).  
 
 84
 Self- Efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to teachers? perceptions that they have the skills 
and ability to help students learn, are competent in building effective programs for 
students, and can effect changes in student learning. Self-efficacy develops as individuals 
acquire self-knowledge and the belief that they are personally competent and have 
mastered skills necessary to affect desired outcomes (Short, 1994; Short & Johnson, 
1994). Roseholtz (1985) stated that teachers? sense of self-efficacy and professional 
certainty relates to teachers? decisions to remain in teaching. Teacher certainty about 
professional abilities and skills is highly correlated to student achievement (Roseholtz, 
1985). 
 An understanding of the six dimensions of teacher empowerment should provide 
the bases for developing strategies to help teachers become more empowered in their 
work lives (Short, 1994). Further, the six dimensions constitute a construct vital to the 
redesign of teachers? work life and the growth and renewal of schools.  
Teacher Leadership 
 Originally conceived as teacher empowerment (Lieberman & Miller, 2004), 
teacher leadership has earned a place in the professional literature. Lieberman and Miller 
(2004) divided the scholarly research and literature about teacher leadership into three 
main categories: 
1. Individual teacher leader roles and organizational realities: In order for 
teacher leadership to become a reality, teachers must be given support for 
their work, as well as a clear understanding of the roles they play within 
the schools in gaining legitimacy within the school organization 
(Lieberman & Miller, 2004). Furthermore, teachers as leaders have to 
 
 85
learn new skills including building trust and rapport, using resources, 
managing the work, and building skill and confidence with others 
(Lieberman & Miller, 2004). Teacher leaders realize that the bureaucratic, 
hierarchical nature of schools often are in conflict with the collegial nature 
of the reforms that teacher leadership was designed to bring about. 
2. Learning in practice: Although teacher leaders are taught theories and 
skills in preparation for their work, teacher leaders learn to become leaders 
through experience and practice much like the surgeon learns to perform 
surgeries by performing operations (Lieberman & Miller, 2004). Schon 
(1983) coined the term reflective practice which means learning takes 
place on the job when practitioners develop ?theories in use? from their 
own experience in practicing their profession (Lieberman & Miller, 2004). 
3. Teacher leadership and reshaping school culture: Teacher leaders have the 
potential to reshape culture by the roles they play in the reconstruction of 
relationships and meaning, the transformation of conditions for learning 
and teaching, and the development of a new way to view the teaching 
profession (Lieberman & Miller, 2004). For example, by promoting 
working together in a community of learners rather than in isolation, 
teacher leaders can begin to build a new collaborative culture. 
 
Reasons for Teacher Empowerment 
 Empowerment brings about constructive school change (Whitaker & Moses, 
1990). The empowerment of teachers is necessary for schools to reach their full potential 
 
 86
(Barth, 1990). Teacher empowerment gives decision making power to those closest to the 
students ? the teachers. Teachers? sense of empowerment grows as they have 
opportunities to grow and develop professionally, become life-long learners, believe they 
have an impact on student learning, have decision-making opportunities, trust they will 
be taken seriously, and have a sense of status (Briley, 2004; Short, 1998). Whitaker and 
Moses (1990) proposed five reasons why teachers should be empowered.  
 The first reason given is empowerment creates a sense of ownership in teachers? 
work environments and provides teachers with the opportunities to perform to their 
fullest capabilities (Whitaker & Moses, 1990). Empowerment builds greater ownership, 
and greater ownership results in more ingenuity and productivity (Richardson, Lane & 
Flanigan, 1995; Whitaker & Moses, 1990). 
 A second reason Whitaker and Moses (1990) gave for empowering teachers is 
that empowerment enfranchises teachers. Although teachers are often asked their 
opinions, it seldom makes a difference in the decisions that are made. When teachers feel 
they are left out of the decision making process, they are likely to develop a sense of 
powerlessness, which often leads to them leaving the teaching profession (Whitaker & 
Moses, 1990). 
 Third, Whitaker and Moses (1990) believed that teacher empowerment prevents 
mindless bureaucracy. Many schools still remain modeled after the industrial-age school 
where orders are given from the principal and conformity is expected. Empowered 
teachers want to create action that will benefit students and successful school 
restructuring depends on bringing out the full potential of teachers to make decisions that 
effect students (Whitaker & Moses, 1990). 
 
 87
 Whitaker and Moses stated that the forth reason for teachers to be empowered is 
the inspiration to grow as professionals. Growth and creativity are most likely to occur 
when teachers have autonomy to think, interact, and innovate. Teacher empowerment is 
the foundation for growth, conscious decision making and reflection. The development of 
a conscious educational belief system is the cornerstone of professionalism which 
requires teachers to be empowered. Top-down school reform is reactive, whereas 
internally motivated change stemming from teacher empowerment is creative and 
reflective which generates higher levels of professional growth, commitment, and 
performance (Whitaker & Moses, 1990).  
 The fifth reason given by Whitaker and Moses is that empowerment inspires 
collaboration among educators. Collaboration is based on empowerment (Barth, 1990; 
Whitaker & Moses, 1990). Rosenholtz (1988) found that teachers working in a 
collaborative environment seek each other out for assistance and take responsibility for 
helping colleagues.  
 In the book, School Empowerment, Richardson, Lane, and Flanigan (1995) stated 
two additional purposes for empowering teachers that have received little attention: 1) if 
students are to become problem-solving decision makers, they must be surrounded by 
adults who model that behavior, and 2) teachers, like many other professionals, are more 
committed to and feel more responsible for decisions they make. 
 
Barriers to Teacher Empowerment 
In order to successfully implement teacher empowerment, school personnel must 
avoid the mistakes often associated with empowerment efforts. The mistakes are: 
 
 88
1. The first error principals should avoid is the tendency to focus on the 
?here and now? rather than on the future. Therefore, a clearly stated end 
result must be communicated so that all parties understand the vision and 
mission of the school (Phillips, 1989; Romanish, 1991). 
2. A second common mistake is not adequately addressing the role changes 
of teachers and administrators (White, 1992). 
3. A third mistake involves the failure to provide training for all school 
personnel (Foster, 1990).  
4. A forth mistake concerns the lack of preparation for the realities of change 
(Fullan, 1991).  
On occasion, teachers who are given opportunities to involve themselves in 
school wide decisions invest time and energy in trivial decisions and minor issues (Blas? 
& Blas?, 2001). Weiss (1990) believed this occurs when teachers do not want to be 
involved in administrative decisions that that they view as detractors from their classroom 
work and because they view empowerment not as a genuine endeavor, but as a false 
pretense of allowing teachers to vent their frustrations without making a real impact on 
decision outcomes.  
Other barriers to teacher empowerment have been cited in research, such as lack 
of definition and clarity regarding change efforts; inadequate or inappropriate resources; 
lack of hierarchical support; sources of resistance from school personnel, including the 
school, the principal?s or central office staff members? fear of losing power; and forms of 
teacher resistance, such as reluctance to change roles and responsibilities, lack of skills, 
and lack of trust (Blas? & Blas?, 2001). Administrators? fears of losing control and 
 
 89
teacher resistance appear to be especially compelling and obstructing factors (Blas? & 
Blas?, 2001). State and federal policies and collective bargaining agreements often 
restrict a school?s flexibility and autonomy which may force schools to conform to 
standards and practices that restrict teacher empowerment (Blas? & Blas?, 2001).  
 
Facilitating Factors of Empowerment 
 For empowerment of teachers to be successful Smith and Lotven (1993) declared 
that four conditions must be in place; both teachers and administrators must: 1) 
understand and theoretically accept the benefits of empowerment and shared decision-
making; 2) know what roles both will play; 3) recognize the existence of a discrepancy 
gap between what currently is and what could be; and finally must 4) take the risk of 
commitment to change. Teachers believe that they are more empowered when the school 
in which they work provides them with opportunities to grow and develop professionally 
(Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Short, 1998). Teachers feel further empowerment when they are 
confident in their skills and abilities to help students learn, competent in building 
effective programs for students, and have command of the subject matter (Blas? & Blas?, 
2001; Short, 1998). Teachers are more empowered when they have greater involvement 
in decision making on issues of critical concern to them and to their work (Blas? & Blas?, 
2001; Short, 1998). 
Schools where teachers perceive themselves to be empowered have a high trust 
level among teachers, principal, and district office leaders; an intense focus on students as 
the primary driver for all decision making; a zeal for successfully tackling the tough 
problems that hinder student learning; and a strong belief among teachers that they are 
 
 90
highly competent (Short, 1998). Empowered teachers work intensely to increase 
professional competency through study, reflection, and other growth opportunities (Short, 
1998). 
 Variables critical in creating empowered schools identified by the ?Empowered 
School District Project? (Short, Miller-Wood & Johnson, 1991) include: 1) the need for 
the process of empowerment to be evolutionary, 2) the necessity for a knowledge base 
and specific school structures for empowerment to evolve, 3) an environment supportive 
of risk taking and innovation, 4) the need for trust building at a number of levels, 5) the 
powerful impact of an outside facilitator and contact with other schools involved in 
empowerment to help in the change process, 6) the restructuring of the role of the 
principal to enabler and ?conscious? and 7) the role of critical incidents in the creation of 
evolutionary shifts in the empowerment process. In addition, there are principal behaviors 
which are fundamental to teacher empowerment. Goldman, Dunlap, and Conley (1993) 
suggested that principals must: 1) manifest a clear sense of purpose linked to a vision for 
the school, 2) use data to inform their decisions, 3) allocate resources consistent with the 
school?s vision and goals, 4) help create new decision-making structures where they are 
needed, and 5) become more involved in indirect supporting roles for teachers and less 
involved in direct leadership activities.  
 In a study conducted by Bredeson (1989) it was found that in schools with 
empowered teachers the principals supported and positively affected the teachers? 
professional work in the following ways: 
? Providing time, space and money to implement ideas 
? Reassuring people that ideas and plans are valued 
 
 91
? Modeling an acceptance of problems as opportunities for improvement 
? Being informed 
? Being available 
? Providing an open, friendly and supportive environment 
 
Summary 
 Schools are bombarded with educational reform initiatives focused on improved 
student performance to answer society?s changing and complex nature. However, upon 
entering the 21
st
 century there appears to be no public resolve that schools are adequately 
preparing our nation?s youth to enter the workforce. Barth (1990) maintains that the 
reason for the mediocre results is that school restructuring and reform movements have 
been initiated from without schools therefore, making no substantial gains in school 
improvement. Rather, Barth (1990) contends the key to improvement lies within schools 
and begins with collegial professional relationships between principals and teachers. 
What seems clear is that little has changed in the basic structure of decision making 
within schools; therefore, there remains much untapped professional knowledge and 
talent in schools (Kreisberg, 1992).  
 When looking to improve schools from within, it appears that the authoritarian, 
bureaucratic structure controlling the relationships between teachers and principals may 
need to be transformed to a shared distributed model of leadership. The complexities and 
challenges of modern day schooling can no longer be totally controlled and directed by 
the principal acting in isolation (Blas? & Anderson, 1995). Instead, a school culture that 
is open to hearing the voices of all people in making decisions and formulating ideas and 
 
 92
solutions to challenges facing the world of education is needed. Teacher empowerment is 
more about transcending power than the possession of power (Combs, Miser & Whitaker, 
1999). The sharing of power between principals and teachers is often seen as the 
foundation to the success of modern-day schools (Leithwood & Meenzies, 1998). Many 
principals are discovering the importance of fostering teacher empowerment to improve 
site-based management and shared-decision making (Lucas & Valentine, 2001). 
Therefore, continuing to take an in-depth look at principal power and its relationship to 
teacher empowerment may lead to a greater understanding of how to establish successful, 
high-performance schools that meet the demands of an ever-changing society. 
Teacher empowerment necessitates collaboration between principals and teachers 
to solve problems, make decisions, create innovative solutions, and decide on the mission 
and vision of the school. Barth (1990) stated, ?School is not a place for important people 
who do not need to learn and unimportant people who do. Instead, school is a place 
where students discover, and adults rediscover, the joys, the difficulties, and the 
satisfactions of learning together? (p. 43).  
 
 
 93
III. METHODOLOGY 
 
Introduction 
This chapter addresses the methodology used in this study. It contains nine 
sections. The first section offers a brief discussion of the ethical issues encountered while 
conducting this study. The second section presents the research design used in this study. 
The theoretical framework is discussed in section three of this chapter; followed by 
discussions about principals? use of power, participants, data collection procedures, 
analysis, and concluding with section nine that presents a brief summary of this research. 
Ethical Issues 
 Due to the highly political nature of this study, the researcher found it challenging 
to find school districts that were willing to participate. One area of sensitivity was 
guaranteeing the complete anonymity of the study participants. All the superintendents 
expressed concern that teachers might not want to participate in this study if they had 
negative feedback to give, for fear it would get back to the principals. One superintendent 
was also concerned about the effect negative feedback might have on his/her position 
because the superintendents were elected in that particular county. There was concern 
that teachers who did not want the current superintendent in office might use the research 
as an outlet to show that they were discontented.  
 
 94
Design 
 This study investigated the relationship between principal use of power and 
teacher empowerment as perceived by teachers. The primary method of analysis was 
quantitative, with survey analysis being used to determine if any direct relationship exists 
between principal use of power and teacher empowerment. Three types of data were 
collected. First, the Rahim Leader Power Inventory (RLPI) was used to measure teachers? 
perceptions of the type of power base used by principals. This multi-item instrument uses 
a 5-point Likert scale to measure the perception of subordinates regarding supervisors? 
basis of power (Rahim & Buntzman, 1988). The Rahim Leader Power Inventory (RLPI) 
was developed on the basis of feedback from students and faculty and an iterative process 
of factor analysis from six successive convenience samples and a random sample of 
public administrators (N = 1,256). The final instrument was constructed on the basis of a 
factor analysis from a national sample of managers (N = 476), respectively (Rahim & 
Buntzman, 1988). 
 Second, the School Participation Empowerment Scale (SPES) (Short & Rinehart, 
1992) was used to measure teachers? perceptions of their level of empowerment. It 
contains 38 statements requiring a neutral, agree, or strongly agree response. This 
instrument contains six subscales: (1) decision making, (2) professional growth, (3) 
status, (4) self-efficacy, (5) autonomy, and (6) impact. It was reported that Coefficient 
alpha for the total scale was .94 and those for the six factor scales ranged from .81 to .89. 
The split-half reliability of this instrument is .75 (Short & Rhinehart, 1992). A Canonical 
Correlation was employed to take into account the multivariate nature of principal power 
 
 95
bases and teacher empowerment. The Canonical correlation is a multivariate extension of 
multiple correlation and regression. 
Third, answers to open-ended questions were used to enrich the findings of the 
quantitative analysis. The open-ended questions were researcher-designed. They were, 
?Other than what was addressed on the School Participant Empowerment Scale, what do 
you view as limitations and facilitating factors of teacher empowerment? and ?Other than 
what was addressed on the Rahim Leader Power Inventory, what do you see your 
principal doing that limits or promotes teacher empowerment?? The questions were 
constructed in order to get additional feedback from teachers about teacher empowerment 
and principal use of power. The researcher was interested in hearing what teachers had to 
say in their own words, in addition to what was addressed on the SPLI and the RLPI. The 
open-ended questions took on a greater importance because although they were invited to 
do so, no teachers were willing to participate in focus group interviews. The researcher 
wanted to give teachers an outlet for feedback instead of being limited to responses on 
the SPES and the RLPI.  
Data from the surveys were analyzed using several statistical procedures and an 
emergent theme approach for the responses to open-ended questions on one survey. The 
data from the RLPI and the SPES were entered into Excel and then imported into SPSS. 
A descriptive statistics analysis was used to determine teachers? perceptions of the types 
of power used by their principals. A multivariate analysis, the canonical correlation, of 
the results of the RLPI and the SPES was conducted to determine the relationship 
between levels of principal power as perceived by teachers and perceived levels of 
teacher empowerment. A qualitative analysis of the responses teachers offered on the 
 
 96
open-ended questions was employed to determine other limitations and facilitating 
factors of teacher empowerment not addressed on the RLPI and the SPES. 
The original design for the study called for identifying background knowledge of 
teachers such as gender, age, race, academic degrees held, years of teaching experience, 
and level of teaching experience. These variables were of interest to determine if there 
was any relationship between these demographic subgroups and perceived teacher 
empowerment. For example, it would have been of interest to see if teachers? years of 
experience influenced their perceived level of teacher empowerment. However, the 
superintendents and many of the principals in each county expressed concern about 
asking for this information from teachers. It appeared that they were concerned about 
revealing information that could potentially identify participants. One of the 
superintendents stated that some of the teachers may be uncomfortable in filling out a 
survey about their principals for fear that they may be identified in some way so there 
data were not collected.  
There has been a trend in educational research for researchers use both qualitative 
and quantitative approaches in the same study (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2002). 
Researchers can combine the two approaches in three ways: using one approach to verify 
the findings of the other; using one approach as the groundwork for the other; and using 
both approaches in complimentary fashion to explore different aspects of the same 
research questions (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2002). This study used the answers given by 
teachers to the open-ended questions to further explore the relationship between 
perceived teacher empowerment and principal use of power. It was hoped that the teacher 
 
 97
input would give further insight into the limitations and facilitating factors of teacher 
empowerment.  
The study was conducted in three school districts in Alabama. Several research 
procedures were used to evaluate each research question as follows: 
Research Questions Research Procedures 
What are teachers? perceptions of the types 
of power used by their principals? 
 
The Rahim Leader Power Inventory (RLPI) 
was used to measure teachers? perceptions of 
the type of power base used by principals. 
What is the relationship between levels of 
principal power as perceived by teachers and 
perceived level of teacher empowerment? 
 
The School Participation Empowerment 
Scale was used to measure teachers? 
perceptions of their level of empowerment. 
This measure, along with the RLPI was 
studied to gain a better understanding of the 
relationship between teacher empowerment 
and principal use of power. 
What are important aspects that influence 
teacher perceptions of their level of 
empowerment? 
Researcher-designed open-ended questions 
were sent to teachers in the survey packet. 
The questions were designed to provide 
teachers with additional opportunities to 
voice their perceptions of teacher 
empowerment and principal use of power. 
 
 
 
 98
Theoretical Framework 
 The theoretical framework grounding this study is based on Kreisberg?s (1992) 
perception of ?power over? versus ?power with?. He examined the nature of power and 
its relationship to empowerment and found that ?power with? facilitated empowerment 
whereas ?power over? was a barrier to creating cultures that fostered a spirit of 
empowerment. The essence of ?power with? is having equal power relationships in 
schools rather than domination; meaning teachers become more active participants in 
school decisions and have shared rights and responsibilities with the principal. ?Power 
over? is seen as domination in the forms of coercion, lack of respect and trust, and 
alienation and fear. For schools to move from traditional stances of ?power over? to 
?power with?, educators and principals must be willing to examine how they view 
leadership roles and how schools are structured (Kreisberg, 1992).  
  The traditional bureaucratic model of leadership seemingly is no longer sufficient 
for meeting the demands of our ever-changing society. Because of the complex nature of 
modern-day schools, principals can no longer act in isolation as they manage and lead 
schools in the 21
st
 century. Therefore, in some instances, principals are being asked to 
create conditions that will foster the empowerment of teachers, thus lessening the burden 
on themselves to manage all school business while creating leadership cultures (Lambert, 
2005) that are large and flexible enough to better address the many issues facing today?s 
schools. ?Power with? encourages dialogue and collaboration among principals and 
teachers. Principals who share leadership with teachers focus on developing the skills 
teacher leaders need to have and provide opportunities for teachers to utilize those skills 
 
 99
in meaningful ways in the school, particularly as issues affect the teaching and learning 
process. 
 ?Power over? remains the norm in most schools simply because there is a lack of 
knowledge about the alternatives (Kreisberg, 1992). Obtaining information about the 
relationship between perceived teacher empowerment and principal use of power may 
add to the knowledge needed for ?power with? to be valued and better developed and 
utilized in schools.  
 This research utilizes the concept of ?power with,? the six dimensions of teacher 
empowerment, and the five dimensions of principal power bases to provide a 
comprehensive lens to examine the relationship between perceived teacher empowerment 
and principal use of power.   
 
Attributes of Empowerment 
 A review of the literature revealed that empowerment in education has drawn 
considerable attention over the past decade (Richardson, Lane, & Flanigan, 1995). 
Further, research suggests that in order for teachers to take a leadership role in schools 
they need to be empowered to do so (Berry & Ginsberg, 1990; Darling-Hammond, 1994; 
Glickman, 1991; Harris, 2003; Lieberman et al., 1988; Wynne, 2001). Short and Rinehart 
(1992) identified six attributes of teacher empowerment. These six attributes were 
decision-making, teacher impact, autonomy, status, professional growth, and self-
efficacy. Each of these attributes is defined in the following paragraphs. These attributes 
also operationally defined by the score on the School Participant Empowerment Scale. 
 
 100
Decision-making 
 Decision-making is defined as active participation in solving problems 
encountered in the school setting and having an impact on decisions pertaining to reform 
efforts. Teachers gain a sense of control over the work environment through participation 
in decision-making that directly affect their work (Barth, 2002; Lambert, 2003; Maeroff, 
1988; Short & Rinehart, 1992). Teachers feel endorsed in their ideas when they are given 
responsibility to make decisions (Short, Miller-Wood, & Johnson, 1991).  
Teacher Impact 
  Teacher impact is the degree to which someone influences others, helps others 
achieve, and learns from others (Henderson & Hawthorne, 2000). Teachers? self-esteem 
and confidence strengthens when they feel they are doing something meaningful and 
therefore will be recognized for their accomplishments (Ashton & Webb, 1986). Teacher 
impact differs from status in that teacher impact is something the teacher does while 
status is something the teacher receives based on what the teacher has done to achieve 
school goals (Ashton & Webb, 1986). 
Autonomy 
 Autonomy refers to teachers? beliefs that they can control certain features of their 
work life such as scheduling, curriculum, textbooks, and instructional planning (Gonzales 
& Lambert, 2001; Short, 1994; Short & Johnson, 1994; Short & Rinehart, 1992). 
Autonomy is also characterized by risk-taking, on-going learning, and an attitude of 
collegiality (Henderson & Hawthorne, 2000).  
 
 101
Status 
 Status refers to sense of esteem, respect, and admiration teachers feel from 
students, parents, community members, peers, and superiors (Short & Johnson, 1994). 
Status can also be characterized by the degree to which a teacher supports and encourages 
others (Patterson & Patterson, 2004; Short, 1994). 
Professional Growth 
 Professional growth refers to a teacher?s personal efforts at continuous learning 
and efforts to influence others to grow professionally (Short & Johnson, 1994). 
Professional growth includes inquiry, feedback, and reflection about educational issues 
(Gonzales & Lambert, 2001; Henderson & Hawthorne, 2000).  
Self-Efficacy 
 Self-efficacy refers to teachers? perceptions that they have the skills and ability to 
learn, are competent in building effective programs for students, and can effect changes 
in student learning. Self-efficacy is marked by feelings of competency, the need for self-
improvement, and a readiness to try and fail many times (Bandura, 1986; Enderlin-
Lampe, 2002). 
 
Principals? Use of Power 
 For the purposes of this study the power typology proposed by French and Raven 
(1959) is used to classify principal use of power. The bases of power suggested by French 
and Raven are widely discussed in the literature and are popular in application in the 
social sciences (Rahim & Buntzman, 1988). The five principal power bases are 
 
 102
operationally defined by the score on the the Rahim Leader Power Inventory. The five 
bases of power identified by French and Raven (1959) follow. 
1. Coercive Power ? Coercive power is based on subordinates? perceptions 
that a superior has the ability to punish or threaten if there is a failure to 
confirm to the leaders demands.  
2. Reward Power ? Reward power is based on the perceptions of 
subordinates that a superior has the ability to reward them for desired 
behavior. 
3. Legitimate Power ? Legitimate power is based on the belief of 
subordinates that a superior has the authority to influence and control their 
behavior. 
4. Expert Power ? Expert power is based on the subordinates? beliefs that a 
superior has job experience and special knowledge or expertise in a given 
area. 
5. Referent Power ? Referent power is based on subordinates? feelings or 
desires to identify with a superior because of admiration or personal liking 
of the superior. 
 
Participants 
 The participants in this study were K?12 teachers from three school districts in 
Alabama. The first school system had 2,415 students and 140 teachers in 8 schools 
encompassing grades K?12. The second school system consisted of 3,389 students and 
301 teachers in 6 schools encompassing grades K?12. The third school system consisted 
 
 103
of 10,213 students and 702 teachers in 15 schools encompassing grades PreK?12. A total 
of 1143 surveys were distributed to teachers. Each county allowed the researcher to send 
the survey to teachers one time with no additional reminders and 173 teachers returned 
the survey packet. 
 The participants were appropriate for this study because they were certified full 
time teachers with immediate supervisors; therefore, able to give feedback about 
perceived teacher empowerment and principal use of power. A total of 1143 surveys were 
distributed on time to teachers. Each county allowed me to send the survey to teachers 
one time with no additional reminders and 173 teachers returned the survey packet. 
 
Data Collection Procedures 
 Permission was given by the principals and school superintendents in each school 
district to conduct the study. Each personnel director provided the researcher with the 
names of the schools and number of certified full-time teachers in each school. A survey 
packet for every teacher was mailed to each personnel director who in turn mailed the 
survey packets to each school where one packet was placed in each teacher?s mailbox. 
Included in each survey packet was a self-addressed return envelope, an invitation to 
participate in the study, the Rahim Leader Power Inventory, the School Participant 
Empowerment Scale, a page with two open-ended questions, and an invitation to 
participate in focus group interviews.  
 The surveys were put in sealed envelopes addressed to a teacher at each school. 
The participants? identification was not retrievable. Teachers were asked to indicate 
whether they would be willing to participate in a focus group interview. The teachers had 
 
 104
the option of e-mailing or including in the survey packet their desire to participate in 
focus group interviews. None of the participants offered to participate in the study; 
therefore, this part had to be eliminated from the study. 
 
Analysis 
Data from the surveys were analyzed using a multiple regression analysis and an 
emergent theme approach to the responses of the open-ended questions. The data from 
the RLPI and the SPES were entered in Excel and then imported into SPSS. Any out of 
range values were then examined and corrected. There were a few cases in which there 
were missing values for numerous variables and those cases were deleted from the data 
set. None of the remaining cases had no more than four variables with mussing values so 
those missing values were replaced with the mean of the non-missing cases on the same 
variable 
Once all corrections were made there were 173 useable cases. There were five 
variables that needed recoding on the RLPI. New variables were created for each 
recorded variable. Individual items were computed that made up each scale. 
 
Summary 
 The methodology of this study focused on obtaining data from K-12 teachers in 
three school districts in Alabama that would assist the researcher in determining teachers? 
perceptions of the types of power used by their principals, the relationship between levels 
of principal power as perceived by teachers and perceived level of teacher empowerment, 
 
 105
and other important aspects that influence teacher perceptions of their level of 
empowerment. An analysis of the data is presented in Chapter IV. 
 
 106
IV. FINDINGS 
 
 The results of the study are presented in three sections of this chapter. Each 
section addresses one of the research questions proposed in this study. The first section is 
a descriptive analysis of the results of the RLPI as they relate to teachers? perceptions of 
the types of power used by their principals. The second section is a multivariate analysis 
of the results of the RLPI and the SPES as they relate to the relationship between levels 
of principal power as perceived by teachers and perceived levels of teacher 
empowerment. The third section is a qualitative analysis of the responses teachers gave to 
the open-ended questions component of the survey packet. The themes of the teachers? 
responses are identified. 
 
Teachers? Perceptions of the Types of Power Used by Their Principals 
This research sought to identify teachers? general perceptions of the types of 
power used by their principals. Table 3 reports the scaled score on each type of power 
base used by principals and the distribution of the cases reported by teachers in this study.  
 
 107
Table 3 
Recoded Coercive Power Base 
Score on RLPI 1-1.99 
strongly 
disagree 
2-2.99 
disagree
3-3.99
neutral
4-4.99 
agree 
5 
strongly 
agree 
Total
Coercive Power Base 8 33 81 46 5 173 
Reward Power Base 50 79 36 7 1 173 
Legitimate Power Base 0 4 60 97 12 173 
Expert Power Base 5 21 64 69 14 173 
Referent Power Base 5 23 53 64 28 173 
 
 An examination of the 173 returned surveys reveals that, 81% of teachers 
expressed neutral feelings about their principals? use of coercive power, 79% of teachers 
responded that they do not feel their principals use reward power, 97% of teachers 
responded that their principals operate from a legitimate power base, 69% of teachers 
reported that their principals use expert power, and 64% of teachers claim their principals 
use referent power. Therefore, from the 173 returned surveys, most teachers perceive that 
their principals operate from a legitimate power base followed by the use of expert and 
referent power.  
 
 108
The Relationship between Levels of Principal Power as Perceived by Teachers and 
Perceived Level of Teacher Empowerment 
The canonical analysis technique was selected to analyze the relationships among 
the multiple independent variables (principal power bases) and the multiple dependent 
variables (teacher empowerment). Canonical analysis of the five principal power bases 
and the six teacher empowerment dimensions resulted in one root that was statistically 
significant (p < .001). Of the other roots, none are significantly correlated. Following the 
table is an explanation of the information that is included.  
 
Table 4 
Summary of First Canonical Root for Teacher Empowerment and Principle Power Bases 
Variable Raw 
Weight 
Standardized
Weight 
Structure 
Coefficient
Proportion 
of Variance 
Redundancy
Teacher Empowerment 
Decision Making .038 .288 .750   
Professional Growth .227 .988 .942   
Status .014 .041 .477 
Self Efficacy .094 .301 .421   
Autonomy .008 .033 .623 
Impact .041 .132 .452 .408 .200 
Principal Power Bases 
Coercive .019 .076 .213   
Reward .034 .162 ..426 
Legitimacy .048 .151 .515   
Expert .151 .764 .964 
Referent .063 .335 .860 .432 .212 
  
 
 109
Table 4 (continued)   
Eigenvalue = .965 Canonical Correlation = 
.701 
Squared Canonical Correlation 
= .491 
Wilks Lambda = .426 F(30, 650) = 5.152 Significance of F = .001 
 
*Results reported for the first canonical root only. Canonical roots 2 through 5 were not 
statistically significant. 
 
 The Canonical Correlation suggested that there is the strongest relationship 
between the principal power bases of expert (-.964), referent (-.860), decision-making (-
.750), and professional growth (-.942) dimensions of teacher empowerment. To a lesser 
extent the principal power bases of legitimacy (-.515) and reward (-.426) are related to 
the status (-.477), self-efficacy (-.421), and impact (-.452) dimensions of teacher 
empowerment. On the whole, coercive power (-.213) does not seem to be linked to any 
aspects of teacher empowerment. Overall principal power bases account for about 21% of 
the raw score variance on the six dimensions of teacher empowerment. 
The data show expert and referent power as having the highest significant 
relationship to teachers? decision making and professional growth. Of the five subscales 
of principal power bases, coercive power has the lowest relationship to decision-making 
ability.  
 It appears that principal use of expert and referent power bases have the strongest 
influence on teacher empowerment. Coercive and reward power bases are the least likely 
power bases to have significant impact on the six subscales of teacher empowerment. 
Expert and referent power appear to be more closely interrelated power bases that 
influence teacher empowerment. The computed Pearson Correlation suggests that 
 
 110
teachers who perceive principals as operating from expert (.964) and referent (.860) 
power bases are more likely to feel empowered.  
Teachers? Perceptions about Limitations and Facilitating Factors of Teacher 
Empowerment 
Teachers were asked to answer two open-ended questions in addition to 
completing the RLPI and the SPES. The questions were, ?Other than what was addressed 
on the School Participant Empowerment Scale, what do you view as limitations and 
facilitating factors of teacher empowerment?? and ?Other than what was addressed on the 
Rahim Leader Power Inventory, what do you see your principal doing that limits or 
promotes teacher empowerment?? The constant comparative method (Ary, Jacobs, & 
Razavieh, 2002) of categorizing the teacher responses was used to compare teacher 
responses and group them with the six teacher empowerment themes set forth by Short 
and Rhinehart (1992) and Short and Greer (1997) and the five principal power bases 
proposed by French and Raven (1959).  
The six teacher empowerment dimensions are decision-making, impact, status, 
autonomy, professional growth, and self-efficacy. There were 92 questionnaires returned 
with responses to the open-ended questions about teacher empowerment. Qualitative 
findings related to each teacher empowerment dimension are discussed below. 
Decision-making 
The decision-making dimension of empowerment includes teachers? participation 
in critical decisions that directly affect their work. At the school level teachers are 
responsible for implementing the decisions that are made; therefore it is beneficial to 
have teacher input in the decision-making process. In this way, teachers may feel a sense 
 
 111
of ownership and control over their work which could lead to a greater sense of 
responsibility for school improvement. Repeated research studies show the benefit to 
organizations when those implementing the decisions have input in problem-solving and 
decision-making (Howey, 1988). However, 14 teachers who participated in this study 
reported having very little opportunity to make decisions. Several illustrative comments 
made by teachers were, ?The principal is a micromanager and doesn?t take teacher 
suggestions to heart. He says he welcomes our suggestions, but few, if any, of them are 
acted upon?; ?Our ideas are quickly dismissed? and ?There is very little opportunity to 
make decisions about what is taught and other decisions.? In addition two teachers wrote, 
?Teachers do not determine the pace of instruction in the classroom? and ?I feel my 
principal thinks that decision-making is her job and therefore would show weakness if 
she took the advice or request of teachers.?  
Moreover, one teacher stated she felt that only a select group of teachers were 
involved in decision making about the curriculum, budget, hiring, testing and scheduling. 
One teacher reported that even when they are asked to be involved in the decision-
making process, their ideas were not taken seriously. One teacher wrote, ?Many times I 
have served on textbook committees and it always seems to me that the county already 
knows what they want to adopt, therefore our input is useless.? Other teachers stated that 
they felt the same way and resented the time taken away from their classrooms to give 
their input when it was not taken into consideration. 
Some teachers wrote about factors other than leadership that hindered their input 
in the decision-making process. For example, ?The classroom sizes make it very difficult 
for teachers to decide for themselves what type of schedule would best suit them and 
 
 112
their students. This type of empowerment would greatly benefit teachers and students.? 
Along the same lines, one teacher expressed that decision-making was far removed from 
her school system in that, ?There is considerable micro-management from the top-down, 
beginning at the federal level and following through to the district and local level. This 
occurs in all aspects of my job from behavior management to curriculum.? 
Impact 
The attribute of impact refers to teachers? perceptions that they have an effect and 
influence on school life (Short, 1994). Teachers? self-esteem and confidence grow when 
they feel they are doing something worthwhile and are recognized for their 
accomplishments (Ashton & Webb, 1986). In addition, teacher impact is one of the 
characteristics of transformational teacher-leaders. Teacher-leaders can often influence 
other faculty members to take part in reform efforts and initiatives (Howey, 1988; 
Maeroff, 1988). 
There were two comments made by teachers that fit the impact dimension of 
teacher empowerment and both were negative. One teacher stated, ?Administrative 
discouragement of creative hands-on learning makes it difficult for me to feel like I am 
providing meaningful learning experiences for my students.? Another teacher wrote, 
?There is fear that if too much is left to the individual teacher, all standards will not be 
addressed, covered and mastered.? 
Status 
The status attribute of empowerment refers to the sense of esteem, respect, and 
admiration attributed by students, parents, community members, peers, and superiors to 
the profession of teaching (Short & Johnson, 1994). Recognition of teacher status can be 
 
 113
found in comments and attitudes from the various stakeholders of the school environment 
and student response to the teacher?s instructions (Short & Johnson, 1994). Teacher-
leaders may feel a sense of status when other teachers look to them for support and 
encouragement. This could possibly encourage these teachers to feel respected and 
admired by colleagues, as well as others in the school community.  
There were six comments made by teachers about their feelings of status and all 
were negative. Four descriptive comments were, ?There is a perception that the 
classroom teacher is the low man on the totem pole and if you are good enough you will 
get out of the classroom to be a reading coach, Title One teacher or an administrator?; ?I 
have noticed a lack of respect among colleagues for the jobs of other teachers as well as 
administration?; ?Would be nice to be praised sometimes instead of criticized for student 
performance? and ?I am not treated as an intelligent professional.? In addition, one 
teacher wrote, ?Teachers at my school are not allowed to exercise professional judgment. 
We must ask for permission before even so much as sending a note home to parents.? 
Autonomy 
Autonomy is the dimension of teacher empowerment that refers to teachers? 
beliefs that they can control certain aspects of their work life such as scheduling, 
curriculum, textbooks, and instructional planning (Gonzales & Lambert, 2001; Short, 
1994; Short & Johnson, 1994; Short & Rinehart, 1992). The foundation for autonomy is 
the sense of freedom to make certain decisions (Short, 1994) and the confidence to 
express opinions while also learning from and engaging with others in learning (Briley, 
2004). There were eight teacher responses that fit in the area of autonomy. Teacher 
 
 114
responses were broken down into themes; curriculum, scheduling, and professional 
judgment. 
Several teachers wrote that they have no control over the curriculum; they feel as 
if it is simply a mandated document dictated by the state. Teachers wrote comments such 
as, ?Curriculum is dictated by the county and state. Our curriculum is too cumbersome. 
We never drop anything, we add new stuff and there are just not enough hours in the day 
to teach it all?; ?Having a choice or being able to vote for curriculum changes would 
make teachers feel empowered? and ?Following a set curriculum guide does not allow 
teachers the opportunity to teach at a pace necessary for student learning.?  
In addition, many teachers wrote about how mandated scheduling lessens their 
feelings of empowerment. One teacher wrote, ?I believe that being bound to class 
schedules limits me. There are times when I feel my students need more instruction on a 
concept but I must hurry along in order to give a monthly benchmark assessment by the 
last day of the month. There are also days when I feel that math, science, and social 
studies need to be taught in the morning but school policy says that reading must be done 
in the morning,? Some teachers voiced concern about the lack of time given to math in 
their mandated schedules. One teacher noted, ?I feel that teachers are the ones in the 
classrooms daily and see what changes need to be made. We know how, what, and how 
well our students are learning. We should have more say in schedules.? Another teacher 
conveyed, ?Many other professionals have a much more flexible schedule; they get to 
choose when they go to the bathroom and when they eat lunch.? 
Professional judgment was a third theme in teacher commentary related to 
autonomy. One of the main points made by teachers was teachers are professionals, 
 
 115
therefore they should have freedom over certain aspects of their work. For example, one 
teacher shared, ?Teachers are not given enough credit for their own knowledge. They 
need to be given more freedom to produce learning activities other than another 
salesman?s program. What happened to common sense and trust in teachers?? It was also 
written that, ?teachers are not allowed to exercise professional judgment and must ask 
permission before even so much as sending notes home to parents?. Another teacher 
reported feeling like ?an underpaid robot expected to dramatically shape the future.? 
There was also some positive feedback from teachers about autonomy. One 
teacher conveyed, ?I am free to use materials and resources that I choose.? Another 
teacher wrote, ?Our principal has the confidence that his teachers know their subject, the 
student handbook, and the code of conduct for teachers. He treats us as professionals and 
gives us the opportunity to be the authority in our classroom. We know it and the students 
know it?. Related to autonomy were other positive comments such as, ?I have freedom to 
voice my opinions? and ?I am free to carry out my duties to state and county guidelines.? 
Professional Growth 
Professional growth refers to teachers? perceptions that the school in which they work 
provide them with opportunities to grow and develop professionally, to learn 
continuously, and to expand one?s own skills through the work life of the school (Short & 
Johnson, 1994). There were only three responses about professional development from 
teachers and both were negative. They were as follows, ?there are no opportunities in our 
system or state for performance promotions?; ?there is a fairly low ceiling when it comes 
to promotions or pay raises? and ?our in-service activities limit us severely because they 
seldom have any real world applications.? 
 
 116
Self-Efficacy 
Self-efficacy refers to teachers? perceptions that they have the ability to help 
students learn, are competent in building effective programs for students, and can effect 
changes in student learning (Short, 1994; Short & Johnson, 1994). Self-efficacy develops 
as individuals acquire self-knowledge and the belief that they are personally competent 
and have mastered skills necessary to affect desired outcomes (Short, 1994; Short & 
Johnson, 1994).  
Teachers wrote numerous comments related to self-efficacy, all of which were 
negative. One teacher wrote, ?Teachers, though well-trained and competent, are told what 
to do, how to do it, and when to do it rather than being given opportunity to use their 
talents, experience, and knowledge to help students?. It appears that some teachers, 
though they feel competent as skillful teachers, are not given the opportunities to display 
their knowledge and expertise because there are so many ?state and federal requirements 
such as No Child Left Behind? that they do not have the ?flexibility to do what is best for 
students?. In addition, several teachers stated that because of their age and lack of 
experience they felt unimportant. For example, one teacher wrote, ?Young or less 
experienced teachers often get left out of decision-making processes and are made to feel 
their opinions are insignificant.? It seems that some teachers come to the profession with 
feelings of self-efficacy but when surrounded by teachers that are older and with more 
experience they can begin to feel their knowledge is not valued.  
Other Dimensions of Teacher Empowerment 
 Of the 173 returned survey packets, the researcher received 127 responses about 
limitations and facilitating factors of perceived teacher empowerment. Additional themes 
 
 117
that emerged from teacher feedback about empowerment can be divided into the 
following themes: poor quality of administrative staff, standards, lack of communication, 
societal issues, non-teaching duties, lack of time, and appropriate discipline. These 
themes are included in a separate section because they do not appear to fit in the teacher 
empowerment categories set forth by Short and Rinehart (1992) and Short and Greer 
(1997). 
Poor Quality of Administrative Staff 
 Teachers expressed concern about inadequate administration. Several teachers 
wrote about the ?poor administrators in the county?, there are ?too many administrators? 
and that many of the administrators ?lack effective disciplinary procedures.? One 
response read, ?Principals should be open to their faculty. They should have the 
necessary qualities that go along with their profession like honesty, confidentiality, and 
good communication skills.? It appears that several teachers lack confidence and trust in 
their administrators. 
Standards 
 Much of the feedback from teachers focused on the vast amount of time that is 
given to complying and meeting various standards. The researcher received 27 responses 
about the hindrance of complying with standards to their perceived level of teacher 
empowerment. For example, a teacher wrote, ?The focus on students has been lost and 
replaced with successful completion of data to show we have met some mandated 
standard. There is not time for watching children learn. The teachable moment is no 
longer recognizable with all the push to stick to tasks so timelines can be met.? Another 
teacher commented, ?Sometimes it feels that a classroom is a dumping ground for any 
 
 118
new idea which comes along to solve society?s problems.? Teachers expressed many 
concerns about No Child Left Behind because it has ?put too much emphasis on testing 
instead of teaching?. A teacher commented, ?I see our school as more focused on test 
scores than on students and their needs.? In addition, a teacher expressed, ?Constant 
testing limits what I can do in the classroom. It is hard to even find the time to reward the 
students for a job well done because of constantly preparing them for a test.?  
Lack of Communication 
 To continue, four teachers felt that lack of communication lessened their feeling 
of empowerment. Teachers wrote about decisions being made that took away from 
instructional time simply because there was not communication between the faculty and 
principals when the decisions were made. For example, ?There are often unplanned and 
off task assembly programs that take away from instruction.? Another teacher wrote, 
?The most crippling factor to sense of empowerment is lack of communication.? Still 
another teacher stated that, ?there was lack of communication all the way from the 
federal government to teachers.?  
Societal Issues 
Societal issues such as pressure from parents and lack of parental support appear 
to play a part in teachers? lack of feeling empowered. ?Pressure from parents may limit a 
teacher?s empowerment. Some parents expect teachers to give grades because of who a 
child is, not because of what a child has earned. Parents may also limit a teacher?s 
effectiveness as a disciplinarian if they do not agree with the teacher?s decision to punish 
their child.? Many teachers feel they do not have parental support. In addition, one 
teacher stated that teachers are often criticized for those things for which parents should 
 
 119
be responsible. To clarify the teacher wrote, ?Teachers are expected to teach children 
who are raised by absent parents and teachers are expected to motivate students who 
don?t value education. Teachers are held accountable for their failure.?  
Non-Teaching Duties 
Teachers also communicated that additional teaching duties got in the way of 
feeling empowered. A teacher wrote, ?Teacher empowerment will continue to be limited 
as long as additional duties are assigned with no time allotted to complete these duties. 
These duties require teachers to work well over 40 hours per week with no additional 
compensation.? In addition, ?developing, executing, and assessing dynamic learning 
opportunities are hindered by our responsibilities to be nurse, counselor, attendance 
secretary and administrator.? Also one teacher wrote, ?Lack of subs and having to give 
up our planning time to watch other classes inhibit our abilities to prepare for students 
and to get a needed break time.?   
Lack of Time 
A lack of time was also reported as a hindrance to teacher empowerment. Several 
illustrative comments made were, ?Our curriculum is too cumbersome. We never drop 
anything, we add new stuff and there just aren?t enough hours in the day.? Teachers 
reported feeling that there were not enough hours in the day to re-enforce skills that some 
students miss while adhering to strict timelines. A teacher wrote, ?Teachers who are 
effective, work long hours under a large amount of stress. Time to do the work we have 
before us is constantly taken for meetings and more training and more meetings.? In 
addition a teacher wrote, ?Limiting factors of teacher empowerment include lack of 
planning time and a rush through curriculum due to the 7 month plan.? 
 
 120
Appropriate Discipline 
 Appropriate and consistence discipline was noted by seven teachers as a 
contributing factor to their sense of empowerment. Teachers conveyed that when they are 
supported by the principal in discipline decisions they feel empowered. One teacher 
wrote, ?If the student knows what a teacher says goes, and the principal will back it up, 
then the students are more likely to listen to the teacher.? Another teacher wrote that 
effective discipline procedures are a major factor in her sense of empowerment. The 
teacher wrote, ?When effective disciplinary procedures are repeated then I feel 
empowered.? A teacher wrote, ?We are limited in discipline because of the principal.?  
In addition to commentary about teacher empowerment, qualitative data were 
collected that relate to the principal power bases set forth by French and Raven (1959). 
Eighty-seven teachers responded to the questionnaire about principal use of power. The 
power bases are widely used and accepted in social science research (Rahim & 
Buntzman, 1988). The power bases are coercive, reward, legitimate, expert, and referent 
power. 
Coercive Power 
Coercive power is based on subordinates? perceptions that a superior has the 
ability to punish or threaten if there is failure to conform to the leader?s demands. The 
four comments teachers made about coercive power were negative. One teacher 
expressed, ?Principals seem to undermine teachers by making them feel as though they 
must participate in extracurricular activities done by the school. We are told to do this or 
we must fear for our job.? Another teacher answered, ?In our situation, our principal tries 
too hard to micro-manage every facet of our school day. Teachers feel that they are 
 
 121
expected to be robots performing exactly as the principal want.? Another relevant 
comment made was, ?My principal has a do it my way attitude even though he?s only 
been a principal for one and a half years. He will make us do something just to prove a 
point; not because it is what?s best for our school.? It was reported that one principal 
acted like a ?bulldozer? instead of ?building good relationships with staff.? 
Reward Power 
 Reward power is based on the perception of subordinates that a superior has the 
ability to reward them for desired behavior. Nine teachers wrote comments about reward 
power. Several teachers wrote that the educational system is not designed to give 
principals the resources to reward teachers. One teacher replied, ?Principals have no way 
to reward effective teaching- money or otherwise?. Moreover, ?Principals do not have the 
authority to promote teachers and have little input as to who will be hired.? It seems that 
some teachers feel discouraged because ?regardless of performance, teachers with similar 
education and experience receive the same pay.?  
 Teachers revealed that rewards do not have to be tangible to be empowering. An 
illustrative comment was, ?While a principal cannot give any one teacher a pay raise, he 
can recognize the teachers? performance in other meaningful ways, such as a note, duty-
free lunch, or any number of small recognitions can promote teacher empowerment.? 
Along the same lines another teacher wrote, ?Everyone likes to be patted on the back or 
to know that his/her superior has noted the amount of effort being put forth.? Teachers 
want the principal to, ?notice the good things they do instead of looking for the negative.? 
Several teachers communicated that praise empowers them. 
 
 122
 In addition to praise, teachers responded that principals have no way to promote 
or give monetary incentives. A teacher wrote, ?The way teachers? salaries are determined 
prevents excellent, hard-working teachers from being monetarily rewarded. Regardless of 
performance, teachers with similar education and experience receive the same pay.? In 
addition a teacher stated, ?It would be nice for principals to consider individuals for pay 
raises according to their commitment to work. If we were paid according to performance 
you would see teacher empowerment.?  
Legitimate Power 
 Legitimate power is based on the belief of subordinates that a superior has the 
authority to influence and control their behavior. One teacher addressed this type of 
power by writing, ?Some administrators do not have authority or funding to promote 
teachers. This is handled by the central office. Some principals have little say so as to 
which teachers they will hire.?  
Expert Power 
 Expert power is based on subordinates? belief that a superior has job experience 
and special knowledge or expertise in a given area. Teacher comments in the area of 
expert power were mostly positive. As one teacher wrote, ?Principals who follow through 
with their instructions, but also question policies regarding their schools that are not in 
the best interest of students empower me.? Moreover a teacher communicated, 
?Principals who model effective teaching empower me.? Two negative comments made 
were, ?Becoming a principal of an unfamiliar age group is unfair to the students and 
teachers? and ?Principals should be placed within his background or age group to be able 
 
 123
to better understand the workings of the school. Becoming principal of an unfamiliar age 
group is unfair to the students and to the teachers.? 
Referent Power 
 Referent power is based on subordinates? feelings or desires to identify with a 
superior because of their admiration for the superior. One teacher wrote, ?Effective 
administrators build strong trusting relationships and great rapport with their teachers?. 
Another comment made was, ?Administrators promote teacher empowerment by 
facilitating a collaborative environment. Effective administrators lead by example and 
build strong trusting relationships and great rapport with their teachers.? Teachers 
reported feeling empowered when, ?principals have positive attitudes and create positive 
environments that put teachers first. This provides us with great empowerment. We feel 
important because she tells us we are doing well on a regular basis.?  
Other Dimensions of Principal Power 
 Teachers offered many insightful comments about how they view principal 
power. Of the 173 returned surveys, the researcher received 87 comments about 
perceived principal power that produced several additional themes about principal use of 
power. The themes that surfaced from the responses given by teachers other then those 
already presented on the Rahim Leader Power Inventory were fairness, discipline, 
decision-making, and consistency. Teachers also noted that many of the decisions and 
actions taken by principals are beyond their control.  
Fairness 
 Teachers reported that equal treatment in school builds their sense of 
empowerment. Some illustrative comments were, ?Principals choose their bubby teachers 
 
 124
for specialty workshops and for the academic grant opportunities?; ?They fail to disclose 
pertinent information to all faculty? and ?Principals are not fair in choosing classes taught 
by teachers.? Principals who, ?unfairly assign duties based on personal liking or disliking 
of the faculty do not empower me.? 
 One teacher wrote that she felt it was unfair when her principal addressed the 
entire faculty about a problem. She wrote, ?Making generalized statements of which no 
one is sure who he is referring to all the teachers excuses the guilty ones because they 
don?t think it?s for them or aren?t there to hear it.? In addition, ?Principals do not 
document and discipline teachers who fail to meet standards. When extra duty 
assignments are made, these teachers are never asked to work on them. Some teachers are 
over-worked while others are allowed to be sub-standard.?  
 Two teachers reported that their principals showed favoritism based on a teacher?s 
level of experience. One teacher wrote, ?Some teacher?s experience levels are not valued 
and utilized while those with less experience but fresh out of school are placed in higher 
esteem.? A second teacher wrote, ?Principals show too much favoritism to some teachers 
because of their years of teaching experience.?  
Discipline 
 Principals who are consistent disciplinarians empower teachers. Teachers are 
empowered when the principal supports the teacher?s method of discipline. A teacher 
stated, ?If a principal does not stand behind a teacher in reference to student behavior 
problems, the principal limits teacher empowerment.? Moreover, a teacher wrote, ?The 
limiting factor of my empowerment is that principals don?t always follow through with 
discipline consistently.? Three teachers wrote about the negative impact that lack of 
 
 125
discipline has with students. One of the teachers expressed, ?In my school, the principal 
does not always back the teacher in discipline issues. The students know this and it makes 
behavior problems worse. Also punishment is not consistent with the school?s code of 
conduct.? 
Decision-Making 
 Lack of being able to make decisions was identified by eleven teachers as being a 
hindrance to their level of empowerment. One teacher conveyed, ?In our system, data 
drives decision-making, as it does in most places. However, if the central office wants 
teachers to do something, we are told, not asked our opinions. The central office also 
takes this approach with the principals.? Another response read, ?At times my principal 
refuses to hear the viewpoint of the teachers in scheduling and other decision-making 
situations.? A teacher wrote, ?A principal can give empowerment to teachers by letting 
them decide the times and responsibilities of duties that go on throughout the day.? In 
addition, one teacher stated that she thought giving teachers opportunities to make 
decisions was an imposition for the principal.  
Consistency 
 Teachers reported principals who follow set standards and procedures empower 
them. A teacher wrote, ?Principals who follow through with their instructions, but also 
question policies regarding their schools most empower me.? Another teacher stated, 
?Our principal is awesome. She consistently listens to our concerns and responds 
accordingly.? It appears that teachers want a vision and mission to guide their decisions, 
and teaching. 
 
 126
 In addition, teachers reported perceiving that many of the actions taken by 
principals are beyond their control. For example, one teacher stated, ?Principals limit 
teacher empowerment simply because they are governed by No Child Left Behind?. 
Therefore, ?principals listen to our ideas and try to implement them when possible.? 
Furthermore, ?principals are asked to address county-wide or regional concerns often at 
the expense of their own schools.? Teachers wrote that they felt demands from outside of 
the school that were made on principals hindered their leadership ability. A teacher 
wrote, ?Administrators are stretched too thin with job responsibilities that they can?t do it 
all but are expected to.? In addition, another teacher stated, ?The business administration 
part of their job has become predominant and the people part has become secondary.? 
 Several teachers wrote that principal support empowered them to a great extent. 
One teacher wrote, ?A principal must stand behind a teacher in reference to student 
behavior or the principal limits teacher empowerment?. In relation to this statement, 
another teacher wrote, ?principals can support teachers when they have proper 
documentation therefore teachers feel empowered.? Two teachers expressed feeling 
empowered when their principals addressed discipline problems. One of these teachers 
stated, ?I feel that most of the time my principal takes care of discipline problems so that 
they do not continue to interfere with instruction. I feel empowered when my principal 
stands behind me in discipline issues.? 
 
Summary 
 When surveyed about the type of power used by their principals, most teachers 
reported that their principals operate from a legitimate power base followed by expert and 
 
 127
referent power. Furthermore, teachers reported that expert and referent power are more 
likely to influence their sense of empowerment in a positive way. To a lesser extent the 
principal power bases of legitimacy and reward power are related to the status, self-
efficacy, and impact dimensions of teacher empowerment. As a whole, coercive power 
does not appear to be linked to any aspects of teacher empowerment.  
 In addition to what was addressed on the School Participant Empowerment Scale, 
teachers felt that the following has a negative impact on their sense of empowerment: 
poor administrative staff, standards, lack of communication, societal issues, and non-
teaching duties. In addition to what was addressed on the Rahim Leader Power Inventory, 
teachers felt empowered when they perceive their principals as consistent and fair. 
Moreover, teachers feel empowered when principals are supportive in discipline issues 
and involve them in meaningful decision-making.  
 
 128
V. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
The purpose of chapter five is to discuss and reflect upon the findings of this 
study. There are six parts to this chapter: a brief synthesis of the key findings, a 
discussion of the findings, implications of the study, recommendations for principals, 
teachers, principal preparation programs, and policy makers, limitations of the study, 
recommendations for further study and summary. 
 
Synthesis of Key Findings 
The primary purposes of this study were to gain knowledge about teachers? 
perceptions of the types of power used by their principals and to determine the 
relationship between perceived teacher empowerment and perceived use of principal 
power. Two surveys were used to collect data; the School Participant Empowerment 
Scale and the Rahim Leader Power Inventory. Moreover, the study sought to gain insight 
into other limitations and facilitating factors for teacher empowerment beyond those 
addressed on the Rahim Leader Power Inventory (RLPI) and the School Participation 
Empowerment Scale (SPES) through open-ended questions. 
The research objectives included addressing the following questions: (a) What are 
teachers? perceptions of their own level of empowerment as measured by the School 
Participant Empowerment Scale?, (b) What is the relationship between levels of principal 
 
 129
power as perceived by teachers and perceived level of teacher empowerment as measured 
by the School Participant Empowerment Scale and the Rahim Leader Power Inventory?, 
and (c) What are other important aspects that influence teacher perceptions of their level 
of empowerment? 
To answer the research questions survey packets were distributed to teachers in 
three Alabama school systems. Each packet contained a self-addressed return envelop, an 
invitation to participate in the study, the Rahim Leader Power Inventory, the School 
Participant Empowerment Scale, a page with two open-ended questions, and an invitation 
to participate in focus group interviews. No teachers volunteered to participate in focus 
group interviews, so that part of the original research design was discarded.  
Data from the surveys were analyzed using several statistical procedures and an 
emergent theme approach for the responses to open-ended questions on one survey. The 
data from the RLPI and the SPES were entered into Excel and then imported into SPSS. 
A descriptive statistics analysis was used to determine teachers? perceptions of the types 
of power used by their principals. A multivariate analysis, the Canonical correlation, of 
the results of the RLPI and the SPES was conducted to determine the relationship 
between levels of principal power as perceived by teachers and perceived levels of 
teacher empowerment. A qualitative analysis of the responses teachers offered on the 
open-ended questions was employed to determine other limitations and facilitating 
factors of teacher empowerment not addressed on the RLPI and the SPES. 
The original design for the study called for identifying background knowledge of 
teachers such as gender, age, race, academic degrees held, years of teaching experience, 
and level of teaching experience. These variables were of interest to determine if there 
 
 130
was any relationship between these demographic subgroups and perceived teacher 
empowerment. For example, it would have been of interest to see if teachers? years of 
experience influenced their perceived level of teacher empowerment. However, the 
superintendents and many of the principals in each county expressed concern about 
asking for this information from teachers. It appeared that they were concerned about 
revealing information that could potentially identify participants. One of the 
superintendents stated that some of the teachers may be uncomfortable in filling out a 
survey about their principals for fear that they may be identified in some way so there 
data were not collected.  
 
Discussion of the Findings 
Results from the distribution of means of the responses given on the RLPI and the 
scaled scores, 81% of the respondents indicated they are neutral about their principals? 
use of coercive power and 79% of the respondents strongly disagree that principals 
operate from a reward power base. Of the 173 returned teacher surveys, 97% of the 
teachers reported perceiving their principals as operating from a legitimate power base. In 
addition, 69% of the respondents agree that their principals operate from an expert power 
base and 64% of the respondents agree that their principals operate from a referent power 
base. 
It appears more teachers in the three counties perceive their principals as 
operating from a legitimate power base; yet no feedback from teachers was about 
principals? use of legitimate power. Some teachers who reported their principals as 
operating mainly from a legitimate power base may think it is reasonable for principals to 
 
 131
decide what is to be done in the school. Moreover, these teachers may think that because 
of the position, principals have the right to expect teachers to follow their instructions, 
support their policies, and cooperate with them in work-related items. 
About the same number of teachers reported feeling that their principals have 
experience and special knowledge or expertise and that their principals identify with them 
because of mutual feelings of respect. These teachers are likely to view their principals as 
treating everyone fairly, having a pleasing personality, and having considerable 
professional knowledge. 
In addition, 81% of the teachers responded that they feel neutral about their 
principals operating from the coercive power base. This may mean that these teachers 
have not encountered their principals having to use disciplinary actions such as 
suspension, written warnings or being fired. Moreover, 79% of the teachers perceive their 
principals as not operating from a reward base. This may mean that these teachers do not 
believe that their principals have the ability or opportunity to provide tangible rewards 
such as pay raises, merit pay, promotions or bonuses. 
Of the six subscales of teacher empowerment it appears that principal use of 
expert power and referent power have the highest relationship with teacher 
empowerment. Coercive and reward power bases are the least likely power bases to have 
a positive significant impact on the six subscales of teacher empowerment. It appears that 
the teachers who responded to the survey are more likely to feel empowered when they 
like their principals and feel that the principals have knowledge and expertise in 
leadership. It can also be said that the same teachers are less likely to feel empowered 
when they view their principals as having the ability to punish, threaten, or reward them 
 
 132
for desired behavior. This finding appears reasonable because in many cases, principals 
have no power to reward teachers and because of tenure and grievance procedures, 
principals have little opportunity to punish teachers. 
Referent power is based on the subordinates? feelings or desires to identify with a 
superior because of respect for the superior. Referent power also refers to a leader?s 
willingness to be associated with followers. When leaders associate themselves with their 
followers, they involve teachers in democratic, collaborative activities that increase 
teachers? abilities and desires to cooperate in fulfilling the educational mission of the 
school (Blas? & Blas?, 2001). Collaboration sets the stage for teachers to be creative and 
to achieve personal and social goals (Barth, 1990) 
An important part of referent power is trust. Trust is the foundation for 
cooperation and effective communication which are two essential aspects of teacher 
empowerment and shared governance (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Johnson & Johnson, 1987). 
In an atmosphere of trust, people work together to identify and solve problems (Covey, 
1989; Blas? & Blas?, 2001). The nature of referent power lends itself to shared-
governance. Successful shared-governance principals build trust by encouraging 
openness and facilitating effective communication, and modeling understanding. These 
behaviors are the cornerstone of trust (Blas? & Blas?, 2001). Furthermore, an 
environment of trust sets the stage for professionals to reach their full potential in the 
work place. When a principal operates from a referent power base there is opportunity for 
positive rapport, trust, and respect to be built among teachers and principals which 
increases the likelihood of improved pedagogy and enhanced student achievement. 
Therefore, it makes sense to conclude that principals operating from the referent power 
 
 133
base would openly discuss classroom practices and pedagogy with teachers to ensure that 
innovations in teaching practice can be made.  
Drake and Roe (1999) maintain that of all the power bases, expert power holds 
the greatest promise for when leaders realize that the expertise they share with others 
should be focused on assisting others to grow in their profession. Principals using expert 
power remove barriers, create opportunities, and provide resources to aid teachers in their 
endeavor. It is also clear that schools where principals work from an expert power base 
receive high scores for teacher morale, approval, and performance (Drake & Roe, 1999). 
Expert and referent power, by their very nature, fall into the personal power 
category set forth by Stimsom and Applebaum (1988). As principals acquire skills and 
knowledge and provide support for teachers, they increase their personal power and gain 
support from teachers (Richardson, Lane, & Flanigan, 1995). Principals? use of personal 
power enables them to facilitate shared decision making more effectively than they would 
if they relied on positional power (Richardson, Lane, & Flanigan, 1995). Bredeson (1989) 
found that in schools with empowered teachers, principals positively affected teachers by 
being informed (expert power) and providing an open, friendly, and supportive 
environment (referent power).  
In contrast, reward power and coercive power bases were seen by the participants 
in this study as having the least relationship to the six dimensions of teacher 
empowerment. Sergiovanni and Starratt (2002) found that extrinsic rewards are not 
powerful enough to increase teachers? motivation. In addition, Drake and Roe (1999) 
contend that in modern day schools, few principals have the ability to provide teachers 
with tangible rewards. Coercive power is reduced by teachers? tenure and grievance 
 
 134
procedures. Also, due to collective bargaining procedures in many states with strong 
teacher unions, teachers are less likely to feel threatened by principals who use coercion 
to intimidate them. 
 
Implications of the Study 
It was indicated at the beginning of this study that schools are expected to best 
prepare students to meet the demands of a modern-day, ever-changing society. Because 
of this, researchers continue to investigate the characteristics of high performance schools 
where students seemingly are prepared to meet the demands of our society. In the quest to 
improve schools there have been many top-down types of reforms and school 
improvement initiatives, yet there has not been the great wave of school improvement 
expected (Pellicer, 2003). The attempt to improve schools has been worthy, yet schools 
seemingly are still governed by age-old traditions that stand as barriers to substantial 
school reform (Richardson, Lane, & Flanigan, 1995). Another reason for the lack of 
improvement is the often insufficient attention given to the importance of positive 
relationships among adults in the school (Barth, 1990). 
Literature suggests to meet the expectations, demands and responsibilities placed 
on schools there is a need for school leadership to shift from a top-down style to a shared 
leadership approach (Blas? & Blas?, 1994, 2001; Dipaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003; 
Earl & Fullan, 2003; Evans, 1996; Ferrandino, 2001; Kochan & Reed, 2004; Lambert; 
2002; Lucas & Valentine, 2001; Short, 1998; Smith, 2001; Wynn, 2001). By encouraging 
the development of the abilities and skills of teachers, principals can begin to build 
shared leadership, which Kreisberg (1992) refers to ?power with,? Principals who 
 
 135
encourage teachers to become active participants in school decisions and share rights and 
responsibilities with teachers are practicing ?power with? Leadership. 
 Some research has explored the ways principals can foster the empowerment of 
teachers to assume various leadership roles in schools (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Harrison, 
Killion, & Mitchell, 1989; Richardson, Lane, & Flanigan, 1995; Starratt, 2004). A key 
element in understanding how principals can build leadership skills in teachers is to gain 
a better understanding of the relationship between perceived teacher empowerment and 
principal use of power (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Short, 1998). An enhanced understanding 
of the dynamics between perceived teacher empowerment principal use of power may 
lead to a better understanding of how to build successful, high-performing schools where 
principals share power with teachers.  
Research suggests that for teachers to be prepared to accept shared leadership they 
must feel a sense of empowerment (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1998). 
Therefore, one implication suggested by the findings of this study is that there is a 
relationship between principal use of power and perceived levels of teacher 
empowerment. This implication supports the premise of other researchers such as 
Kreisberg (1992), Richardson, Lane, and Flanigan (1995), Gonzales and Short (1996), 
Sergiovanni and Starratt (1998), and Blas? and Blas? (2001) who claim there is a 
relationship between teacher empowerment and principal use of power. These researchers 
state that it is important to gain an understanding of this relationship in hopes that all 
teachers will have a voice in school matters. Moreover, by sharing responsibility and 
decision-making with teachers, principals may lesson their load, allowing them to address 
 
 136
the complexity of today?s schools, while not having to feel as if they have to be ?super 
leaders.? 
The results of the study indicate that expert and referent power bases have the 
greatest relationship to the professional growth and decision making dimensions of 
teacher empowerment. Principals who have expertise and are well-liked empower 
teachers to be active in decision-making and problem-solving. Teachers feel that their 
ideas matter when given the responsibility for making decisions that directly affect their 
work. In addition, teachers are more motivated in their personal efforts to be involved in 
continuous learning to improve their craft by asking questions, trying new things, 
reflecting and implementing improvements they helped to identify.  
The coercive and reward power bases reflect the least relationship to teacher 
empowerment. Therefore, the study implies that teacher empowerment is not affected by 
a principal?s ability to punish or threaten if there is a failure to meet the leader?s demands 
or provide rewards for desired behavior. This finding is supported by the Sergiovanni and 
Starratt (2002) who found that extrinsic rewards are not powerful enough to increase 
teachers? motivation. In addition, Drake and Roe (1999) maintain that today?s schools 
few principals have the ability to provide tangible rewards for teachers. Furthermore, the 
use of coercive power is reduced by policies such as tenure and grievance procedures 
utilized by teachers? unions.  
The responses to the open-ended survey questions suggest that in addition to what 
was asked on the RLPI and the SPES, teachers feel a lack of empowerment due to time 
restraints, standardized testing, state and federal regulations, and pressure from parents, 
and lack of parental support. Teachers also feel less empowered when their principals do 
 
 137
not adequately address discipline problems, are not supportive, being stretched too thin, 
are governed by the No Child Left Behind Act and test scores. Teachers noted that 
principals who facilitate a collaborative environment, listen and make changes 
accordingly contribute to their feelings of empowerment. 
 
Recommendations for Principals, Teachers, Principal Preparation Programs,  
and Policy Makers 
Recommendations for Principals 
 This study revealed that principal use of power does play a role in the way 
teachers perceive their level of empowerment. Teachers in this study reported that of the 
five power bases used by principals, expert and referent powers have the greatest 
influence on their feelings of empowerment. Drake and Roe (1999) claim that when 
principals demonstrate their expertise and model collaborative leadership practices, they 
help teachers grow professionally and therefore it is likely that feelings of empowerment 
increase. The research reviewed for this study indicates that to have schools that are 
prepared to meet the challenges of the 21
st
 century, principals must lay the foundation for 
teachers to feel empowered. Teachers must feel a sense of authentic involvement in 
school business; it is important for teachers to feel that their input is listened to, taken 
into consideration, and makes an impact on decisions impacting teachers and learning.  
 Also, this study suggests that teachers are more likely to feel empowered when 
they have respect for their principals. This suggests that a principal?s personal belief 
system and work ethic make a difference in how teachers respond to them in the school 
setting. Teachers who respect and like their principals may be more likely to support the 
 
 138
vision and mission of the school, trust and feel trusted, and have a strong sense of 
empowerment. 
 Feedback from teachers suggests that it would benefit principals to monitor the 
non-teaching duties for which teachers are responsible. Often with change come new 
mandates and regulations that demand a great deal of time from teachers. In other words, 
teachers are likely to feel over-whelmed when items are continually added to their list of 
duties, yet nothing is removed. Teachers reported feeling less empowered when they felt 
stressed and overwhelmed.  
Principals can build teacher empowerment by developing ?empowering spaces? 
where collegiality and professionalism are expected. In ?empowering spaces? teachers 
are more likely to have their talents and expertise recognized by others and utilized for 
the betterment of the school. Principals who aware of teachers? strengths are likely to call 
teachers to their ?highest level of performance?. In addition, collaborative action research 
with teachers would also increase a sense of teacher empowerment. By conducting 
research with teachers, concerns and goals may be identified that are meaningful for 
principals and teachers. Developing a vision statement and mission statements assists 
principals in building the foundation on which to base all actions of the school. Teachers 
are empowered when principals are consistent with the goals, vision, and mission of the 
school. Consistent behavior encourages teachers? trust and respect. 
Recommendations for Teachers 
 Other recommendations for teachers are to form action research teams, take 
professional development classes, take responsibility for empowerment, and be proactive. 
Many teachers need encouragement to shift from their perception of isolation into 
 
 139
recognition of themselves as active contributors to their profession by building 
collaboration with colleagues, parents, principals, businesses, and community members. 
Professional development should be on-going rather than a side-line activity. This 
research suggests that professional development in the areas of decision-making, conflict 
resolution, working cooperatively, and team building may increase teachers? sense of 
empowerment. 
 Moreover, this study suggests that teachers should take responsibility for their 
own sense of empowerment. Teachers can begin by believing that education is a 
profession as noble as any other profession. Teachers should also recognize and celebrate 
the accomplishments of their colleagues, such as advanced degrees, additional 
certifications, research published, grants, and published articles. This recognition would 
ripple throughout the community and beyond.  
 Teachers should also be proactive in their pursuit of empowerment by being life-
long learners, building partnerships with colleagues, parents, administrators, and 
community members. Teachers should involve themselves in active reflection, trust the 
processes of school and embrace technology. 
Recommendations for Principal and Teacher Preparation Programs  
 This study also suggests that principal preparation programs could benefit from 
offering classes on collaboration among teachers, systems thinking, teacher 
empowerment, and the concept of ?power with? leadership. In addition, principal 
preparation programs should continue to educate administrators on different types of 
leadership other than the traditional top-down model of school leadership.  
 
 140
 In addition, collaborative action research between universities and school systems 
would be a way to investigate and solve school and classroom challenges. It would be of 
benefit to preparation programs to have input from practitioners. This could lead to 
mentorships between administrators. Principal preparation programs would also benefit 
from providing more practicum experience in addition to academia to aspiring 
administrators.  
Recommendations for Policy-Makers  
 This research suggests that policy-makers may want to be keenly aware of 
teachers? needs and the environment in which they work when making educational 
decisions. Teachers reported feeling that people who are not in the classroom make 
decisions without thinking about the ramifications. It appears that policy makers could 
benefit from more input from teachers. Those closest to the instruction need to have their 
voices heard. Teachers who are listened to by policy makers are more likely to feel like 
respected and empowered professionals. 
 Policy-makers need to be responsible for adequate resource allocation. Monies 
should be earmarked for professional development. Policy-makers could also benefit 
from allocating time and resources for collaborative action research with colleges, 
universities, and schools. In addition, study circles may help bridge the gap between 
community members, parents, teachers, and policy-makers.  
 
Limitations of the Study 
This study examined the relationship between perceived teacher empowerment 
and the perceived use of principal power. The experiences and environment of every 
 
 141
school is different. Therefore, the factors that facilitated or hindered teachers? perceptions 
of their empowerment appear to be dependent upon the personal experiences of each 
participant and the context and environment in which the experiences occurred. This 
study took a closer look at a highly political topic; the use and abuse of principal power 
and because of the nature of the study, some participants may have been reluctant to 
openly share their views. 
 This was an exploratory study limited to three school districts in Alabama. 
Therefore, conclusions can not be generalized from the target population to other 
populations (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2002). In addition, all survey data were self-
reported with results based on the assumptions that the participants were thoughtful, 
honest and worked independently when giving responses.  
Another limitation to this study was that the researcher was not contacted by any 
teachers willing to participate in focus group interviews. The qualitative analysis was 
limited to the answers teachers gave to the open-ended questions included in the survey 
packet. Therefore there were no opportunities to have teachers clarify or further elaborate 
on their responses. In addition, the researcher could not do analysis by schools. 
 One superintendent who originally gave permission for the county to participate 
in the study, left the position and the new superintendent requested that a change be made 
in how the surveys were sent to teachers; therefore, a change had to be made in the design 
of the research. The new superintendent along with the new personnel director did not 
give permission to mail the surveys directly to each teacher. The researcher initially 
intended on mailing a total of 300 survey packets that would be distributed among the 
three school districts depending on the population. The new superintendent requested that 
 
 142
the survey packets be mailed to the personnel director who in turn delivered them to each 
school. The secretaries at each school put one survey packet in each teacher?s box. 
 
Recommendations for Further Study 
This study examined the relationship between perceived teacher empowerment 
and principal use of power within three school districts. Much of what was revealed on 
the surveys and open-ended questions is supported by other research done in the area of 
teacher empowerment as it relates to principal use of power. Nine recommendations are 
offered for further study. 
 The first recommendation is to collect more background information about 
teachers such as years of teaching experience, grade taught, race, gender, age, tenure 
status and degree level of principals and teachers. The data from this research study did 
not provide any information about the differences in teacher demographics and how they 
related to perceived teacher empowerment and its relationship to principal use of power. 
Collecting demographic information about teachers might enrich the findings about the 
relationship between perceived teacher empowerment and principal use of power. 
Demographic information and its relationship to empowerment may uncover differences 
and similarities between and among various subgroups and how they view leadership. 
A second recommendation is to conduct focus group interviews or phone 
interviews to gain additional understandings about the relationship between perceived 
teacher empowerment and principal use of power. Because teachers completing the 
survey were not willing to participate in focus group interviews, the researcher may only 
have received ?surface? level information.  
 
 143
A third recommendation is to visit each research site to distribute the research 
packets instead of mailing the surveys. This would allow an opportunity to explain the 
purpose of the research and may result in a greater return rate as well as an opportunity to 
answer questions participants might have. 
A fourth recommendation is to conduct an in-depth study of a school or school 
system that report high levels of teacher empowerment. Fifth, recommendation is to study 
the impact between teacher empowerment and student achievement. The sixth suggestion 
for further study is to conduct the research in more than one state. The seventh 
recommendation is to research teacher leaders and equity issues. Unless issues of power, 
race, and class are addressed in school communities, the achievement level of African 
students will not be affected by the empowerment of teachers (Wynne, 2001). The eighth 
recommendation for further study is to study schools that have successfully re-structured 
the school day to allow teachers to have more planning, research, and collaborative time. 
The ninth recommendation is to study the relationship between perceived teacher 
empower and principal use of power at the elementary level, the middle school level, and 
the high school level. 
 
Summary 
This research was conducted to gain additional information about the relationship 
between perceived teacher empowerment and principal use of power. The research 
suggests that principals and teachers a like need to pay more attention to the relational 
aspects of schools and leadership. Principals and teachers need to develop a better 
understanding of the constraints and challenges facing others. By interacting regularly, 
 
 144
engaging in open communications and working side-by-side to resolve issues pertaining 
to teaching and learning, principals and teachers alike will gain a deeper respect for one 
another. Treating others as professionals is the foundation for empowering relationships 
in schools. 
In addition, an enhanced understanding of the dynamics between teacher 
empowerment and principal use of power may lead to a better understanding of how to 
build successful, high-performing schools that are capable of meeting the demands of the 
21
st
 century. Principals can not longer be the sole decision-makers in ever-changing 
complex school environments; empowering teachers may lead to shared power and 
therefore schools become more efficient and successful. Research suggests that for 
teachers to be prepared to accept shared leadership they must feel a sense of 
empowerment (Blas? & Blas?, 2001; Sergiovanni & Starratt). It is essential to continue to 
explore the relationship between teacher empowerment and principal use of power so that 
schools successfully prepare students to meet the demands of modern-day society. 
 
 145
  REFERENCES 
 
Aguinis, H., Nesler, M. S., Quigley B. M., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1994). Perceptions of 
power: A cognitive perspective. Social Behavior and Personality, 22(4), 377?384. 
Aguinis, H., Simonsen, M. M., & Pierce, C. A. (1998). Effects of nonverbal behavior on 
perceptions of power bases. Journal of Social Psychology, 138(4), 455?465. 
Anderson, L., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the 
workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452?511. 
Andrews, R. L., Basom, M. R., & Basom, M. (1991). Instructional leadership: 
Supervision that makes a difference. Theory Into Practice, 30(2), 97?101. 
Archer, J. (2002). Principals: So much to do so little time. Education Week, 21(31), 2?6. 
Ashton, P. T., Webb, R. B., & Doda, N. (1983). A study of teachers? sense of efficacy 
(Final Report, National Institute of Education Contract No. 400-79-0075). 
Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service 
No. ED 231 834) 
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: An 
International Review, 51(2). 
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. 
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 
Barth, R. (2001). Teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 443?449. 
 
 146
Bennis, W. (1991). Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21
st
 century. Antioch Review, 
9(1) 22?29. 
Bennis, W. (1989). Why leaders can?t lead. Training and Development Journal, p. 35?39. 
Blas?, J., & Anderson, G. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership. New 
York: Teachers College Press. 
Blas?, J. R., & Blas?, J. (2003). Breaking the silence overcoming the problem of principal 
mistreatment of teachers. California: Corwin Press. 
Blas?, J. R., & Blas?, J. (2001). Empowering principals what successful principals do. 
California: Corwin Press. 
Brewster, C., & Railsback, J. (2003). Building trusting relationships for school 
improvement: Implications for principals and teachers. Portland, OR: Northeast 
Regional Educational Lab. 
Briley, B. (2004). Teachers as leaders: A case study of teacher leadership development. 
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn. 
Brouillette, L. (1997). Who defines ?democratic leadership??: Three high school 
principals respect to site-based reforms. Journal of School Leadership, 7(6), 569?
591. 
Carmin, T. (2002). Love ?em and lead ?em leadership strategies that work for reluctant 
leaders. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 
Combs, A. W., Miser, A. B., & Whitaker, K. S. (1999). On becoming a school leader: A 
person-centered challenge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and 
Curriculum Development. 
 
 147
Coulon, S. C., & Quaglia, R. J. (1989). A comparison between the behavior of effective 
principals and effective teachers. Education, 1(110), 130?136.  
Curry, B. K. (2000). Women in power pathways to leadership in education. New York: 
Teachers College Press. 
Daresh, J. C. (1991). Instructional leadership as a proactive administrative process. 
Theory Into Practice, 30(2), 109?112. 
Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Reframing the school reform agenda: Developing capacity 
for school transformation. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(10), 752?761. 
Darling-Hammond, L., Bullmaster, M. L., & Cobb, V. L. (1995). Rethinking teacher 
leadership through professional development schools. The Elementary School 
Journal, 96(1), 87?106. 
David, J. L. (1989). Synthesis of research on school-based management. Educational 
Leadership, 46(8), 45?52. 
Davies, E. (1996). How violence at work can hit employees hard. People Management, 
2(18), 50?52. 
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of 
corporate life. Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley. 
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture the heart of leadership. 
San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 
Dipaola, M., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The principalship at a crossroads: A study 
of the conditions and concerns of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87(634), 43?62. 
Drake, T. L., & Roe, W. H. R. (1999). The principalship (5
th
 ed.). Upper Saddle River, 
NJ: Prentice-Hall. 
 
 148
Earl, L., & Fullan, M. (2003). Using data in leadership for learning. Cambridge Journal 
 of Education, 33(3), 383?394. 
Ebmeier, H. (2003). How supervision influences teacher efficacy and commitment: An 
investigation of a path model. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(2), 
110?141. 
Eisner, E. (1992). Educational reform and the ecology of schooling. Teachers College 
Record, 93, 610?627. 
Engvall, R. P. (1997). The professionalization of teaching. Lanham, MD: University 
Press of America. 
Ferrandino, V. L. (2001). Challenges for the 21
st
-century elementary school principals. 
Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 440?442. 
Flynn, P. (1995). Global competition and education: Another Sputnik? Social Studies, 
86(2), 53?55. 
Foriska, T. J. (1994). The principal as instructional leader: Teaming with teachers for 
student success. Schools in the Middle, 3(3), 31?34. 
Foster, K. (1990). Small steps on the way to teacher empowerment. Educational 
Leadership, 47(8), 38?40. 
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright 
(Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150?167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social 
Research. 
Fullan, M. (2002). Moral purpose writ large. The School Administrator Web Edition. 
Fuller, B., Wood, K., Rapport, T., & Dornbusch, S. (1982). The organizational context of 
individual efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 7?30. 
 
 149
Glendinning, P. M. (2001). Workplace bullying: Curing the cancer of the American 
workplace. Public Personnel Management, 30(3), 269?287. 
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school?Prospects for the future. New York: 
McGraw-Hill. 
Gonzales, E., & Short, P. M. (1996). The relationship of teacher empowerment and 
principal power bases. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 23(3), 210?216. 
Greenfield, W. D. (1995). Toward a theory of school administration: The centrality of 
leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(1), 61?85. 
Groff, F. (2001). Who will lead? The principal shortage. State Legislatures, 27(9), 16?19. 
Hager, J. L., & Scarr, L. E. (1983). Effective schools- effective principals: How to 
develop both. Educational Leadership, 40(5), 38?41. 
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of 
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 
33, 329?351. 
Hallinger, P. & Murphy, J. (1991). Developing leaders for tomorrow?s schools. Phi Delta 
Kappan, 72(7), 514?517. 
Harrison, C. R., Killion, J. P., & Mitchell, J. E. (1989). Site-based management: The 
realities of implementation. Educational Leadership, 46(8), 55?58. 
Herlihy, B., & Herlihy, D. (1985). Improving the principal-teacher relationships by 
understanding the concept of power. NAASP Bulletin, 69, 95?102. 
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and nature of man. New York: World Publishing. 
Holloway, J. H. (2000). The promise and pitfalls of site-based management. Educational 
Leadership, 57(1), 7?30. 
 
 150
Howey, K. R. (1988). Why teacher leadership? Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1),  
            28?31. 
Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Cyurphy, G. J. (1995). Understanding and influencing 
follower motivation. In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The leader?s companion insights on 
leadership through the ages (pp. 327?338). New York: The Free Press. 
Jaeger, R. (1984). Sampling in education and the social sciences. New York: Longman. 
Johnson, P. (1998). Conflict and the school principal: Expert or novice. Storrs, CT: 
University of Connecticut, Department of Educational Research. 
Kanfer, R., & Kanfer, F. H. (1991). Goals and self- regulation: Applications of theory to 
work settings. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 7, 287?326. 
Karant, V. (1989). Supervision in the age of teacher empowerment. Educational 
Leadership, 46(8), 27?29. 
Keefe, K. W., & Amenta, R. B. (2005). Whatever happened to the model schools project? 
Phi Delta Kappan, 86(7), 536?544. 
Kochan, F. K. (2004). Leading, learning, and becoming in a kaleidoscopic universe. 
UCEA Review, XLVI(1), 1?32. 
Kochan, F. K., & Reed, C. J. (2004). Collaborative leadership, community building, and 
democracy in public education. In F. English (Ed.), The new handbook of 
educational leadership (pp. 1?35). New York: Sage Publications. 
Kotter, J.  P. (1995). What leaders really do. In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The leader?s companion 
insights on leadership through the ages (pp. 114?123). New York: The Free Press 
Kreisber, S. (1992). Transforming power: Domination, empowerment and education. 
New York: State University of New York Press. 
 
 151
Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 
37?40. 
Lasswell, T. J., & Kaplan, A. (1950). Power and society. New Haven, CT: Yale 
University Press. 
Leithwood, K. A. (2001). School leadership in the context of accountability policies. 
Leadership in Education, 4(3), 217?235. 
Leithwood, K. A. (1992). Transformational leadership: Where does it stand? Education 
Digest, 58(3), 17?20. 
Leithwood, K. A. (1987). Using the principal profile to assess performance. Educational 
Leadership, 21(4), 63?66. 
Leithwood, K., & Menzies, T. (1998). A review of research concerning the 
implementation of site-based management. School Effectiveness and School 
Improvement, 9(3), 233?286. 
Levine, D. U., & Lezotte, (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of 
research and practice. Madison, WI: National Center for Effective Schools 
Research and Development. 
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2004). Teacher leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 
Lieberman, A., & Miller, K. E. (1990). Restructuring school: What matters and what 
works. Phi Delta Kappan, 7(10), 759?764. 
Lightfoot, S. (1986). On goodness in schools: Themes of empowerment. Peabody 
Journal of Education, 63(3), 9?28. 
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of 
school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325?340. 
 
 152
Louis, K. S., & Miles, M. B. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and 
why. New York: Teachers College Press. 
Lucas, S. E., & Valentine, J. W. (2001). Transformational leadership: Principals, 
leadership teams, and school culture. Proposal submitted Division A: Section 5: 
Leadership, School Organization, and Governance. 
McGreal, T. (1983). Successful teacher evaluation. Alexandria, VA: Association for 
Supervision and Curriculum Development. 
Milner, R. H. (2002). A case study of an experienced English teacher?s self-efficacy and 
persistence through crisis situations: Theoretical and practical considerations. 
High School Journal, 86(1), 28?36. 
Murphy, P. J. (1991). School management tomorrow: Collaboration?collaboration?
collaboration. School Organization, 11(1), 65?70. 
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The 
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 
Office. 
Newmann, F. M. (1996). Authentic instruction: Restructuring schools for intellectual 
quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Newmann, F. M., Rutter, R. A., & Smith, M. S. (1989). Organizational factors that affect 
school sense of efficacy, community, and expectations. Sociology of Education, 
62, 221?238. 
Niece, R. (1993). The principal as instructional leader: Past influences and current 
resources. NASSP Bulletin, 77(553), 12?18. 
Nyberg, D. (1988). Power over power. Ithaca: Cornell Paperbacks. 
 
 153
Pawlas, G. E. (2003). Breaking the silence. School Administrator, 60(1), 41?42. 
Pfeifer, R., & Baker, (1986). Enabling teacher effectiveness: Teachers? perspectives on 
instructional management. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American 
Research Association, San Francisco, CA 
Phillips, P. R. (1989). Shared decision making in an age of reform. Update, 20(3), 30?37. 
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School 
Journal, 83(4), 427?452. 
Rahim, M. A., & Buntzman, G. F. (1988). Supervisory power bases, styles of handling 
conflict with subordinates, and subordinate compliance and satisfaction. The 
Journal of Psychology, 123(3), 195?210. 
Raven, B. H. (1992, August). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. A 
presentation in honor of John R. P. French on the occasion of his receiving the 
Kurt Lewin Award. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological 
Association, Washington, DC. 
Reames, E. H. (1997). A study of the relationships between school work culture and 
teacher beliefs of efficacy and commitment in middle schools. Unpublished 
doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn. 
Reese, S. (2004). Effective school leadership. Techniques: Connecting Education and 
Careers, 79(6), 18?21. 
Richardson, M. D., Lane, K. E., & Flanigan, J. L. (Eds.). (1995). School empowerment. 
Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company, Inc. 
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behavior a 
multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 3, 555?573. 
 
 154
Romanish, B. (1991). Teacher empowerment: The litmus test of school restructuring. 
Social Science Record, 28(1), 55?69. 
Rosenholtz, S. (1991). Teacher?s workplace: The social organization of schools. New 
York: Teachers College Press. 
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Schulz, I. L., & Teddlie, C. (1990). The relationship between teachers? job satisfaction 
and their perceptions of principals? use of power and school effectiveness. 
Education, 109(4), 461?468. 
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). 
Schools that learn. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth discipline 
fieldbook. New York: Doubleday. 
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2004). Balance individual autonomy and collaboration to center on 
students. Education Digest, 70(3), 17?23. 
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (4
th
 ed.). 
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Why we should seek substitutes for leadership. Educational 
Leadership, 49(5), 41?45. 
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1990). Value-added leadership: How to get extraordinary 
performance in schools. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers. 
Sergiovanni, T. J., Burlingame, M., Coombs, F. S., Thurston, P. W. (1987). Educational 
governance and administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 
 
 155
Sergiovanni, T. J., & Corbally, J. E. (Eds.). (1984). Leadership and organizational 
culture. Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 
Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (2002). Supervision a redefinition (7
th
 ed.). New 
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 
Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (1988). Supervision human perspectives (4
th
 ed.). New 
York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 
Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (1971). Emerging patterns of supervision: Human 
perspectives. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 
Sernal, K. (1998). School leadership ? Balancing power with caring. New York: 
Teachers College Press. 
Short, P. M. (1998). Empowering leadership. Contemporary Leadership, 69(2), 70?73.  
Short, P. M. (1994). Defining teacher empowerment. Education, 114(4), 488?492. 
Short, P., & Johnson, P. (1994). Exploring the links among teacher empowerment, leader 
power, and conflict. Education, 114, 581?592. 
Short, P., & Rinehart, J. (1994). Job satisfaction and empowerment among teacher 
leaders, reading recovery teachers and regular classroom teachers. Education, 
94(114), 570?581. 
Short, P., & Rinehart, J. (1993). Teacher empowerment and school climate. Education, 
93(113), 592?597. 
Sizer, T. (1984). Horace?s compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. 
Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 
 
 156
Smith, W. (2001). Teacher efficacy, administrator efficacy, school culture, and 
leadership density. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, 
Louisiana. 
Smith, W., & Andrews, R. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make a 
difference. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum 
Development (ASCD) Press. 
Smith, J. M., & Lotven, B. A. (1993). Teacher empowerment in a rural setting: Fact 
versus fantasy. Education, 93(113), 457?464. 
Swanwick, D. (2004). How to beat the workplace bully. New Zealand Management, 
51(5), 45?47. 
Text of the Carnegie Report. (1986). Education Week, p. 11?18.  
Weber, M. (1945). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University 
Press. 
Whitaker, B. (1997). Instructional leadership and principal visibility. Clearing House, 
70(70), 155?156. 
Whitaker, K., & Moses, M. (1990). Teacher empowerment: A key to restructuring. The 
Clearing House, 64, 127?130. 
White, P. A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under ?ideal? school-site autonomy. 
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(91), 69?82. 
Wren, J. T. (Ed.). (1995). The leader?s companion insights on leadership through the 
ages. New York: The Free Press. 
 
 157
Wynne, J. (2001). Teachers as leaders in education reform [Electronic version]. (Report 
No. EDO-SP-2001). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and 
Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 462 376) 
Zuckerman, M. B. (1992). The case for school choice. U.S. News & World Report, 
113(24), 102. 
 
 158
APPENDICES 
 
 
 
 159
APPENDIX A 
SCHOOL PARTICIPANT EMPOWERMENT SCALE  
RAHIM LEADER POWER INVENTORY 
OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS 
 
 160
 
 
 161
 
 
 
 
 
 162
 
 
Please answer the following open-ended questions based on your perceptions. 
1. Other than what was addressed on the School Participant Empowerment Scale, 
what do you view as limitations and facilitating factors of teacher empowerment? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Other than what was addressed on the Rahim Leader Power Inventory, what do 
you see principals in general, doing that limits or promotes teacher empowerment? 
 
 
 163
APPENDIX B 
AUBURN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) 
APPROVAL LETTER AND INFORMATION SHEET 
 
 
 164
 
 
 165
 
 
 
 166