A lesser-known branch of research is beginning to focus on using self-efficacy to help principals navigate the increasingly difficult demands placed on them.
In the third installment of the Harry Potter film series, a time-traveling Harry stands across a lake watching his past self succumb to evil forces on the opposite shore before his present self summons a difficult bit of magic to save his own life. Afterward, he excitedly explains to Hermione, “I knew I could do it (cast the spell) because I had already seen myself do it!” While his explanation baffled Hermione, those familiar with the work of Albert Bandura would recognize Harry’s epiphany as an example of the power of mastery experiences to influence future performance. Harry discovered that successful experiences lead a person to expect to continue to be successful.
In today’s educational climate, given the additional responsibilities and increased accountability placed on their shoulders, principals could use a bit of magic. Federal and state mandates, coupled with tight budgets and an ever-increasing workload, require administrators to wear many hats. In the absence of spells and wizardry, a working knowledge of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory may assist principals as they navigate a rocky educational landscape.
Self-efficacy and its influencers
Bandura defines self-efficacy as one’s belief in his or her ability to perform a given task. In an education leadership context, self-efficacy should be viewed as a principal’s belief in his or her capabilities to structure a particular course of action in order to produce desired outcomes (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). Self-efficacy is different from self-esteem; self-esteem and self-confidence are more overall qualities; self-efficacy is task specific. A self-confident principal has a general sense of certainty about his ability to run the school. In contrast, the feeling of self-efficacy would be different for individual tasks, e.g., overseeing curriculum, evaluating teachers, influencing school climate, or managing the building.
Principal self-efficacy has been linked with effective leadership, effective schools, the school restructuring process, and the quality of teaching and learning. Principals’ thoughts and actions influence the school culture, and research indicates that a principal can have a negative effect during a period of change. For these reasons, principals must have a strong sense of self-efficacy.
Bandura identified four main forms of influence by which people’s beliefs concerning their efficacy can be developed: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states.
#1. Mastery experiences: Success breeds success
Bandura tells us that mastery experiences are the strongest influencers of self-efficacy. When we successfully complete a task, we develop a reasonable expectation that we will succeed when faced with the task again. But in order for these experiences to bolster self-efficacy, they must be fairly demanding and require a combination of cognitive, behavioral, and self-regulatory tools in response to changing conditions (Bandura, 1995). In other words, success breeds success but only if it results from perseverance in the face of obstacles and challenges. The evolving landscape in education is ripe with opportunities to bolster one’s self-efficacy through mastery over challenging circumstances.
Thinking about past successes also has the potential to boost self-efficacy. Researchers have used an appreciative inquiry design that encourages newly appointed principals to reflect upon successful experiences in the year before they were appointed to their job as a way to create a positive trajectory for their professional growth (Walker & Carr-Stewart, 2006).
#2. Vicarious experiences: If you can do it, I can do it!
Vicarious experiences of people that you deem equal to yourself is another avenue for building self-efficacy. In fact, the greater the perceived similarity, the more trust you place in the model’s successes and failures as indicators of your own future performance. In Walker and Carr’s inquiry study (2006), observing the successful experiences of sitting principals gave new principals the most authentic evidence that they would be able to meet the demands of being a principal. Also, observing others in an authentic leadership setting enabled new principals to use the skills and knowledge they learned vicariously.
#3. Verbal persuasion: Yes, you can!
According to Bandura, receiving encouragement from someone we respect and trust bolsters our belief in our ability to perform a task; Bandura calls this “persuasory feedback.” This feedback encourages one to persevere in the face of setbacks. This source of efficacy is most effective when one has reason to believe that he or she can produce the desired effects through their actions (Chambliss & Murray, as cited in Bandura, 1995). Encouraging words can have a profound effect on those who receive them, and administrators are not exempt from their influence. But there’s a caveat: When not used correctly, they can undermine efficacy. Failure may result in a decrease in confidence in the person who encouraged him or her. Dweck (2007) elaborates on this point, telling us that praising brains and talent, as opposed to effort and perseverance, can jeopardize self-esteem and accomplishment.
#4. Physiological and emotional: It’s not all in your head, but it starts there.
The physiological and emotional states of principals also can influence their self-efficacy beliefs as stress and anxiety can negatively affect self-efficacy. Stress — mental or emotional strain or tension — can be ever present to an administrator. Physiological responses to stress, such as headaches, back pain, stomach pain, or worry, can be interpreted by the administrator as evidence of poor performance and can contribute to feelings of low self-efficacy.
To sum up the effects of these four affective factors: If a principal experiences a string of successes, identifies appropriate role models, receives encouragement, and remains relatively stress-free, he or she will most certainly develop high self-efficacy, which will benefit the principal and the school community that he or she serves.
Why self-efficacy matters
The job a being a principal has gotten tougher, not least on account of Race to the Top (RttT) guidelines. While they drew the most attention for encouraging states to connect teacher evaluation to student performance, the RttT guidelines also do much the same for principals by defining an effective principal as one whose students achieve acceptable rates of student growth. The connection flies in the face of research that identifies a myriad of other factors that affect student growth. Nonetheless, this definition can influence how a principal perceives his role as a leader. Such increased accountability may result in a principal’s preoccupation with a more technical approach to the job, perhaps shifting the focus to “doing things right” rather than “doing the right things” (Sergiovanni, 1992).
That strategy would conflict with McCollum & Kajs’s (2009) examination of motivation theories of self-efficacy, which found that being an efficacious school administrator is largely tied to having a mastery goal orientation. However, the current educational climate shift toward focusing on results of standardized tests is shifting school districts’ priorities toward a more performance-based school culture. Such an environment could harm a principal’s perception of his ability to lead school reform. Adverse circumstances, such as those created by the backlash to reforms, can negatively affect performance of self-efficacious principals; “disincentives, inadequate resources, and external constraints” place limits on what people can achieve when presented with external impediments (Bandura, 1977).
The current educational climate shift toward focusing on results of standardized tests is shifting school districts’ priorities toward a more performance-based school culture.
Research has found that managers with low self-efficacy perform poorly under pressure. The plethora of education reforms, with their guidelines, criteria, and rubrics, doubtless have constrained administrators. Smith and colleagues (2003) cited policy as an obstacle to a principal’s ability to be an instructional leader, so it seems that the very policies created to bolster instructional leadership are having the opposite effect in the postimplementation phase.
Consider the challenges of multiple, simultaneous implementation timelines required by RttT posed to principal self-efficacy. Instead of being able to settle in with the reforms, districts and principals needed to scramble to stay ahead of the game; memos from state education officials were not reassuring in the face of an initial dearth of resources and a quick implementation timeline. Without arguing policy, let us ask if administrators, when they look back on RttT’s implementation process and subsequent backlash, feel that it was a successful experience for them? Were they able to identify role models and trailblazers who aced the implementations? Have there been assurances of success from state or local agencies? Many will have persevered, but have their physiological and emotional states remained unscathed? Principals’ answers to these questions will determine their perception of their self-efficacy as they move forward.
Fostering principal self-efficacy
Since principals, unlike Harry Potter, cannot travel into the future to be reassured of their leadership capabilities in these tumultuous times, what can be done in the present to help them with the challenges they face? While the direct, causal relationships between efficacy sources and career self-efficacy have only begun to receive sustained attention, research provides guidelines for intervening to correct detrimental self-beliefs (Bandura, 1995). Professional development, reflection, and self-knowledge have been shown to improve self-efficacy.
Professional development
Districts planning to provide professional development to help navigate change should heed the warnings of previous research in this area. Leithwood et al. (2004) advise that the likelihood that any reform will to improve student learning is remote unless district and school leaders agree with its purposes and appreciate what is required to make it work. Zimmerman (2011) echoes this recommendation: “Unless school leaders themselves understand and appreciate the need for change in their schools, their interest in maintaining the status quo will undoubtedly take precedence over their willingness to accept or lead change in their buildings” (p. 110). Principals and district leaders should spend time having collegial conversations about what the reforms will look like in the context of the district’s culture and desired outcomes and the plan for achieving them.
The quality of the professional development is always an important consideration. Coble (in Zimmerman, 2011) emphasizes that the readiness of school leaders to absorb change “will be enhanced not only by their good intentions but also by the professional learning experiences that they seek” (p. 112). The education establishment spends billions annually on occupational training despite the paucity of reliable evidence about the effectiveness of the methods used. Successful professional development programs, according to Bandura, are based on social cognitive theory, evaluated by empirical tests, and are able to provide empirical evidence of their effectiveness. Leithwood and colleagues (2004) advocate participating in authentic problem solving that involves the ordinary activities of school administrators. Such activities lead to developing “useful, robust, situated knowledge” (p. 67) — the kind of knowledge possessed by expert leaders. Whatever professional development a district offers, it should be ongoing and support the evolving nature of the reforms.
Reflection
Another strategy for boosting self-efficacy comes from the work of Huberman, as cited in Walker and Carr-Stewart (2006), who studied the effects of using a reflection process with new principals. He found that in the “survivalist” stage of their career, prior experiences of success and the quality of the mentorship experience (Bandura’s mastery experiences and social persuasion) influenced new principals’ judgment about their self-efficacy. Reflecting on successful experiences has the potential to increase self-efficacy (Walker & Carr-Stewart, 2006).
Know thyself
DeMoulin (1992) supports the ongoing measurement of administrator self-efficacy and says periodic measurements of self-efficacy are vital. Zimmerman (2011) recommends that principals identify their strengths and weakness in the context of change. They recommend a 360-degree evaluation, in which a principal can gain “information from . . . superiors, subordinates, and peers about their perceptions of both . . . strengths and weaknesses” (p. 112). The knowledge gleaned from such a process can be invaluable in developing a learning/growth plan. While districts may not have the resources to implement such a comprehensive evaluation plan, most districts have updated their principal evaluation process with the advent of the new annual professional performance review guidelines. Principals in New York City schools are evaluated in part via a school quality report. The School Quality Snapshot gives teachers and parents the opportunity to weigh in on a principal’s effectiveness regarding the clarity and realization of the school vision, the articulation of curriculum across grade levels, and the creation of a sense of community in the school. Having principals monitor their self-efficacy using the data available to them could enhance their ability to set goals for their professional development, a requirement of the new state-approved administrator evaluation plans.
Moving forward
The shifting paradigms and the choppy political waters that accompany major school reforms can decrease principals’ beliefs in their ability to fulfill their supervisory obligations and be instructional leaders. To avoid the deleterious effects of these changes on the perceived self-efficacy of principals, districts can take steps to support administrators during transitions. Research points to several things districts can do:
- Develop policies that recognize the challenges and unintended consequences of the implementations;
- Offer relevant, ongoing professional development; and
- Raise awareness of and monitor self-efficacy.
In addition, principals can bolster their self-efficacy by reflecting on positive experiences and working with a mentor for encouragement and support. Bandura may not be a magician, but his self-efficacy theory has the potential to offer relief to administrators during the current shifts in the educational landscape.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
DeMoulin, D. (1992, November). Demographic characteristics associated with perceived self-efficacy levels of elementary, middle, and secondary principals. Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Knoxville, TN.
Dweck, C. (2007). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. http://bit.ly/1LbHnUO
McCollum, D.L. & Kajs, L.T. (2009). Examining the relationship between school administrators’ efficacy and goal orientations. Educational Research Quarterly, 32 (3), 29-46.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1992).Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, W., Guarino, A.J., Strom, P., Reed, C., Lamkin, M.L., & Rushforth, K. (2003). Principal self-efficacy and effective teaching and learning environments.School Leadership & Management, 23(4), 505-508. http://bit.ly/1QB3Fy7
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Gareis, C.R. (2004). Principals’ sense of efficacy: Assessing a promising construct. Journal of Educational Administration, 42 (5), 573-585. http://bit.ly/1OYQanK
Walker, K. & Carr-Stewart, S. (2006). Beginning principals: Experiences and images of success. International Studies in Educational Administration, 34 (3), 17-36.
Zimmerman, J.A. (2011). Principals preparing for change: the importance of reflection and professional learning. American Secondary Education, 39 (2), 107-114.
Citation: Kelleher, J. (2016). You’re OK, I’m OK. Phi Delta Kappan, 97 (8), 70-73.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Joanne Kelleher
JOANNE KELLEHER is an assistant principal at William T. Rogers Middle School, Kings Park, N.Y.
