From leadership
behavior to
cognitions
229
From leadership behavior to
cognitions: a constructivist
theory of US principals
Frederick Wirt
Department of Political Science, University of Illinois-Urbana
Samuel E. Krug
MetriTech, Inc., Champaign, Illinois
Educational administration has long had an interest in leadership, maybe more
than any other discipline. This interest holds a special fascination for scholars,
but much of such early writing is filled with anecdotes that are prescriptive in
approach and discuss successful practice. Such evidence is very different from
a theory about leadership that could be tested. In this article, a systematic study
of many leaders – US principals – develops and tests a cognitive theory of
leadership and possible causal influences.
In the US, the training of educational leaders has centered on the “ed school”
that was designed to create and strengthen a professional cadre (Clifford and
Guthrie, 1988; Murphy and Hallinger, 1987). Continuous in-service training is
maintained after graduation (Wirt, 1992). Such training contributed to the
earlier image of the administrator as the “benevolent autocrat.” That is a
familiar characterization not only in US schools for superintendents and
principals, but also in Australia at the state level of director-generals (Wirt,
1987).
Consistent reports demonstrate that in English-speaking nations during the
last quarter-century professional control has come under increasing challenge
(Wirt et al., 1987). US superintendents have had to negotiate with newly
empowered constituents or with external governments (Bossert et al., 1982;
Crowson and Morris, 1990; Heck, 1992). Site administrators faced new roles
(Sergiovanni, 1987), as a new “micropolitics” generated new strategies of
professional control (developed in Malen, 1995). These new roles are often
condemned in the US and UK by educators as “political” (Ball, 1987; Hoyle,
1986; Wirt and Kirst, 1997, chapters 7-8). This political challenge climaxed in
reform movements affecting school organization, control, and curriculum. That
reform is a constant today in English-speaking nations, although its outcome
for student learning is still unclear.
Received July 1997
Revised November 1997
Accepted December 1997
Appreciation is expressed for funding support by the National Center for School Leadership,
University of Illinois, under US OERI Grant No. R117C80003.
Journal of Educational
Administration,
Vol. 36 No. 3, 1998, pp. 229-248,
© MCB University Press, 0265-671X