Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How effective is the principal? Discrepancy between New Zealand teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of principal effectiveness

  • Published:
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multi-source evaluation of school principals is likely to become increasingly common in education contexts as the evidence accumulates about the relationship between principal effectiveness and student achievement. The purpose of this study was to examine (1) the magnitude and direction of discrepancy between how principals and their teachers perceive the principal’s effectiveness and (2) what predicts principals who are at risk because their self-ratings considerably exceed the ratings others give them. We also investigated the appropriateness of various probability cut levels in analyses to predict overrating principals. The data sources were ratings by New Zealand principals (n = 135) and their teachers (n = 2757) of principal effectiveness—one scale (16 items) of an educational leadership practices survey. On average, both groups rated principals highly, and teachers tended to rate their principal higher than the principals rated themselves. There was more variance in teachers’ ratings than principals’ ratings. The variables of principal age (younger), time in principal role at the school (shorter), and socio-economic status of the school (lower) were all associated with greater magnitudes of discrepancy. Such discrepancies have implications for principals’ evaluations, principal development efforts, and for school improvement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A school’s decile rating indicates the extent to which it draws its students from low socio-economic communities. Decile 1 schools are the 10 % of schools with the highest proportion of students from low socio-economic communities, whereas decile 10 schools are the 10 % of schools with the lowest proportion of these students.

References

  • Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W. (1998). Self-other agreement: Does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 577–598. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00252.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atwater, L. E., & Waldman, D. (1998). 360 degree feedback and leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 423–426. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90009-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self–other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45, 141–164. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00848.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1997). Self–other rating agreement: A review and model. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 121–174). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

  • Avolio, B. J., Mhatre, K., Norman, S. M., & Lester, P. (2009). The moderating effect of gender on leadership intervention impact: An exploratory review. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(4), 325–341. doi:10.1177/1548051809333194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° feedback: accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 930–942. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brutus, S., Fleenor, J. W., & McCauley, C. D. (1999). Demographic and personality predictors of congruence in multi-source ratings. Journal of Management Development, 18, 417–435. doi:10.1108/02621719910273569#sthash.dkq9ZYtV.dpuf.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, A. H. (1997). Do you see what I see? An exploration of congruence in ratings from multiple perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 27(11), 983–1020. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00283.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daubman, K. A., Heatherington, L., & Ahn, A. (1992). Gender and the self-presentation of academic achievement. Sex Roles, 27, 187–204. doi:10.1007/BF00290017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, C., Sammons, P., Leithwood, K., Hopkins, D., Gu, Q., Brown, E., & Ahtaridou, E. (2011). Successful school leadership: Linking with learning and achievement. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R. (1993). Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the study of congruence in organizational research. Personnel Psychology, 46, 641–665. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00889.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R. (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4(3), 265–287. doi:10.1177/109442810143005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleenor, J. W., Smither, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Braddy, P. W., & Sturm, R. E. (2010). Self–other rating agreement in leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1005–1034. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 3–17. doi:10.2307/1002166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldring, E., Cravens, X. C., Murphy, J., Porter, A. C., Elliott, S. N., & Carson, B. (2009). The evaluation of principals: What and how do states and urban districts assess leadership? The Elementary School Journal, 110(1). doi:10.1086/598841.

  • Goldring, E., & Goff, P. T. (2010). Understanding feedback from teachers on leadership effectiveness: Do teachers and principals agree? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Denver.

  • Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1091–1123. doi:10.3102/0002831211402663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, S. K., Tonidandel, S., Barlow, C. B., & Dipboye, R. L. (2005). Self–other agreement on a 360-degree leadership evaluation. In S. Reddy (Ed.), Multi-source performance assessment: Perspective and Insights. Hyderabad: ICFAI University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck, R. H. (1992). Principals’ instructional leadership and school performance: Implications for policy development. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 21–34. doi:10.3102/01623737014001021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2010). Testing a longitudinal model of distributed leadership effects on school improvement. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 867–885. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heck, R. H., Marcoulides, G. A., & Lang, P. (1991). Principal instructional leadership and school achievement: The application of discriminant techniques. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2(2), 115–135. doi:10.1080/0924345910020204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A., & West, T. V. (2010). Similarity and agreement in self-and other perception: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 196–213. doi:10.1177/1088868309353414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwan, V. S. Y., John, O. P., Robins, R. W., & Kuang, L. L. (2008). Conceptualizing and assessing self-enhancement bias: A componential approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1062–1077. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265–268. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2007). New developments in and directions for goal-setting research. European Psychologist, 12(4), 290–300. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.12.4.290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Fevre, D., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2014). The interpersonal challenges of instructional leadership: Principals’ effectiveness in conversations about performance issues. Educational Administration Quarterly, 1–38. doi:10.1177/0013161X13518218.

  • Le Fevre, D., Robinson, V. M. J., & Sinnema, C. E. L. (2014). Genuine inquiry: Widely espoused yet rarely enacted. Education Management and Leadership. doi:10.1177/1741143214543204.

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minor, E. C., Porter, A. C., Murphy, J., Goldring, E., Cravens, X., & Elliott, S. N. (2014). A known group analysis validity study of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education in US elementary and secondary schools. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(1), 29–48. doi:10.1007/s11092-013-9180-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J. (2013). The architecture of school improvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 252–263. doi:10.1108/09578231311311465#sthash.BUnYQyul.dpuf.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostroff, C., Atwater, L. E., & Feinberg, B. J. (2004). Understanding self–other agreement: A look at rater and ratee characteristics, context, and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 57, 333–375. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02494.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L., & Bruce, M. N. (1992). The effect of acquaintanceship on the validity of personality impressions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(5), 816–824. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.5.816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pont, B., Figueroa, D. T., Zapata, J., & Fraccola, S. (2013). Education outlook: New Zealand (pp. 1–24).

  • Reeves, D. B. (2008). Assessing educational leaders: Evaluating performance for improved individual and organizational results (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. doi:10.1177/0013161X08321509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, V., & Timperley, H. S. (2007). The leadership of the improvement teaching and learning: Lessons from initiatives with positive outcomes for students. Australian Journal of Education, 51(3), 247–262. doi:10.1177/000494410705100303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, V. M. J. (2011). Student-centered leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, V. M. J., & Le Fevre, D. (2011). Principals’ capability in challenging conversations: the case of parental complaints. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(3), 227–255. doi:10.1108/09578231111129046.

  • Scheffer, J. (2002). Dealing with missing data. Research Letters in the Information and Mathematical Sciences, 3, 153–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinnema, C. E. L., Le Fevre, D., Robinson, V. M. J., & Pope, D. (2013). When others’ performance just isn’t good enough: Educational leaders’ framing of concerns in private and public. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12(4), 301–336. doi:10.1080/15700763.2013.857419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinnema, C. E. L., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2007). The leadership of teaching and learning: Implications for teacher evaluation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(4), 319–343. doi:10.1080/15700760701431603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinnema, C. E. L., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2012). Goal setting in principal evaluation: Goal quality and predictors of achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(2), 135–167. doi:10.1080/15700763.2011.629767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 33–66. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.514_1.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, M., Youngs, P., Yang, H., Chu, H., & Zhao, Q. (2012). Association of district principal evaluation with learning-centered leadership practice: Evidence from Michigan and Beijing. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24, 189–213. doi:10.1007/s11092-012-9145-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. R., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Difference scores from the point of view of reliability and repeated-measures ANOVA: In defense of difference scores for data analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(1), 37–43. doi:10.1177/0013164411409929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vecchio, R. P., & Anderson, R. J. (2009). Agreement in self–other ratings of leader effectiveness: The role of demographics and personality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 165–179. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00460.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2008). What makes you think you’re so smart? Measured abilities, personality, and sex differences in relation to self-estimates of multiple intelligences. Journal of Individual Differences, 29, 35–44. doi:10.1027/1614-0001.29.1.35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Andrew Porter (University of Pennsylvania), Joseph Murphy (Vanderbilt University), Ellen Goldring (Vanderbilt University), and Stephen N. Elliott (Arizona State University), the authors of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education, for use of portions of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) structure and other items from the VAL-ED.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Claire E. L. Sinnema, Viviane M. J. Robinson & Denyse Pope

  2. Lynch School of Education, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA

    Larry Ludlow

Authors
  1. Claire E. L. Sinnema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Viviane M. J. Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Larry Ludlow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Denyse Pope
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire E. L. Sinnema.

Appendix

Appendix

Principal and teacher versions of PE scale

Principal: How effective are you in…

Teacher: How effective is the principal of your school in…

  1. 1.

    using research on teaching and learning to inform important school decisions?

  2. 2.

    learning alongside teachers about how to improve teaching and learning?

  3. 3.

    serving the interests of the whole school rather than of particular interest groups?

  4. 4.

    leading useful discussions about the improvement of teaching and learning?

  5. 5.

    identifying and resolving conflict quickly and fairly?

  6. 6.

    promoting and modeling the values of this school?

  7. 7.

    maintaining integrity in difficult situations?

  8. 8.

    showing both personal and professional respect for staff?

  9. 9.

    earning the respect of all of the staff?

  10. 10.

    earning the respect of the wider community?

  11. 11.

    earning the respect of the different ethnic communities served by the school?

  12. 12.

    seeking high quality information about the situation before making a final decision?

  13. 13.

    being open to learning and admitting mistakes?

  14. 14.

    saying what I think and explaining why?

  15. 15.

    actively seeking others’ views?

  16. 16.

    making tough decisions when necessary?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sinnema, C.E.L., Robinson, V.M.J., Ludlow, L. et al. How effective is the principal? Discrepancy between New Zealand teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of principal effectiveness. Educ Asse Eval Acc 27, 275–301 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-014-9209-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-014-9209-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation