Context Matters: Lessons Learned from Successful Superintendents about Professional Development 275(Bjork & Kowalski, 2005; Bredeson & Kose, 2007; Bredeson, Kose, & Johansson, 2004;
Cooper, Fusarelli, & Carella, 2000; Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2000; Glass & Franceshini
2007; Johnson, 1996; Petersen & Barnett, 2005; and Orr, 2002; 2006).
In other descriptive studies researchers have documented common elements in the work of
superintendents. For example, regardless of school district size, superintendents cited
financial issues as the most challenging problem(s) they face (Bredeson & Kose, 2007;
Bredeson, Kose, & Johansson, 2005; Glass et al., 2000; Glass & Franceschini 2007). Yet we
are reminded that,
The superintendency is so very different from district to district that making
generalizations is hazardous. In fact, there is no such thing as the superintendency;
instead, there are many superintendencies. Often they are more unlike than like each
other (Glass et al., 2000, p.15)As Kowalski (personal communication, Nov., 17, 2007) argued, “The more research I do
on the superintendent, the less inclined I am to generalize and that is due to context.” Thus, it
seems reasonable to assert that, despite similar tasks and functions commonly used to describe
the work of school superintendents, each district leader enacts his or her administrative role
uniquely given such factors as district size, community demographics, organizational culture,
history, geography, and local political realities, not to mention individual personalization of
the role.
There is general acceptance among scholars that context matters in terms of leader
behavior and its outcomes. That said, Hargrove and Owens (2002) reminded us, “The
boundaries of possible action are set by context, but there is flexibility within the boundaries”
(p. 199). Gronn and Ribbins (1996) also made a strong case for studies of context and
leadership,
Context continues to be badly under-theorized in leadership, but that, if re-
conceptualized as the sum of the situational, cultural, and historical circumstances
that constrain leadership and give it its meaning, context is the vehicle through which
the agency of particular leaders may be empirically understood (p. 454)In three studies on school principals, investigators described the effects of context on
leaders and on their behavior. Dempster, Carter, Freakley, and Parry (2004), for example,
reported that principals were often ill-prepared to deal with micro-contextual influences and
macro-contextual influences when confronting critical decisions and stated,
“Decentralization, intensification, and complexification are now all part of the contemporary
school context and that context is figuring prominently in the way principals go about their
decision-making” (p.164). Hallinger (2003) came to a similar conclusion about the
importance of context when studying the work of principals. He stated, “We concluded that it
is virtually meaningless to study principal leadership without reference to context” (p. 346).
Mitchell and Castle (2005) reported that any examination of the impact of context on
principal leadership must include more than conditions of site, population, purpose, and
activities. They stated, “We have come to see that context goes deeper than physical
phenomena. It also speaks to the tacit agreements and implicit psychological contracts—
between principals and other members of the educational community” (p. 428).
Organizational and social psychologists also have provided insight into the relationship
between leader behavior and context,