280 K-12 LEADERSHIP PRACTICES
the dynamic interactive qualities, personal agency, and fluidity of CRL in action. Having said
that, we believe our graphic organizer provides a framework that captures the essential
interactive elements of CRL so that it can be understood, learned, and realized in practice.
Helping aspiring leaders become context-responsive leaders requires us to work
toward authenticity in the content, design, and delivery of pre-service preparation programs
and on-going professional development. As Eraut (1994) reminded us, the learning
environments created need to be more than pallid imitations of real context, with real people
and events. The preparation of context-responsive leaders requires a rich blend of authentic
content delivered in an array of formal and informal learning environments.
Given the complexity of CRL and the nuances of such practical wisdom in action, we
would argue that the learning and development involved in becoming such a leader are
grounded in a discernible, if not altogether predictable, educational journey of professional
socialization. Using data from 23 focus groups of superintendents Orr (2006) identified the
types of formal and informal leadership preparation, support, and socialization experiences
that these administrators believed were beneficial. These included: a) formal learning- such
familiar coursework as law, organizational theory, politics, structured internship experiences,
and a variety of process skills, b) informal learning- experiences including mentoring,
coaching, and networking with other superintendents, c) job-embedded learning- including
trial and error, baptism by fire, and organizational socialization, and d) on-going professional
learning- in conferences, workshops, reading, meetings, and seminars.
Hart and Bredeson (1996) provided a process model of socialization identifying five
distinct stages. These include a) antecedent conditions (personal characteristics, biography,
and prior experiences), b) anticipatory socialization (pre-service preparation/training), c)
professional socialization (learning the role of superintendent), d) organizational and
situational socialization, and e) becoming context responsive leaders. Implicit in this process
model of socialization is that the many factors contribute to superintendents’ development.
What becomes glaringly obvious is that much of the learning to become context-responsive
leaders occurs outside of university-based preparation and certification programs. This does
not diminish the importance of formal graduate training programs. However, it does suggest
that faculty need to understand how recruitment of candidates into their programs can build
on and complement prior socialization experiences. This includes greater attention to
antecedent conditions and prior experiences that may be much better predictors of success in
leadership preparation programs and the potential to become context-responsive leaders than
admission into training programs based primarily on self-nomination, undergraduate grade
point averages, and standardized text scores.
CONCLUSION
In terms of formal preparation for superintendents in Sweden and the United States, there
are two distinct patterns of professional socialization. Experiences of Swedish
superintendents in this study provide evidence of the benefits of professional socialization
anchored primarily in on-the-job learning and in-service education. In contrast,
superintendents in the US are prepared in university-based, pre-service training programs,
which traditionally begin with a high concentration of university-based coursework, with
some field-based experience. As US superintendents enter the field, their professional
socialization learning relies increasingly on job-embedded learning, professional development
and social interaction with professional colleagues.