What Motivates Individuals to Become Leaders in Public and Higher Education?

Barbara Martin, Ed.D.

J.A. Johnson, Ed.D.

Marsha Lay, Ed. D.

Abstract

DeSpain (2000, p. xi) suggested that “the progress of man has always been dependent upon the power of leadership.”  He (DeSpain, 2000, p. xi)

continued with the statement that “We have just begun to understand the power and potential of leadership – that is the proper alignment of

the relationship between the leader and those being led.”  While research has documented career paths and processes of administrative

selection, little work has been done toward furthering an understanding of what causes people to set personal goals (Phillips & Gully, l997).

Researching the area of leadership and motivation specifically in the educational arena, statistics indicate that beginning in the twenty-first

century, a severe shortage will exist of individuals needed to fill university faculty positions and school district leadership positions (Tack &

Patitu, 1992).  If educational programs are not able to identify the motivating factors that encourage applicants, this shortage will translate into a

crisis situation for educational leadership.

            The purpose of this study, therefore, was to review the literature and research the issue of leadership and motivation  using

superintendents (district level), principals (building level), and professors (higher education) as units of analysis.  The researcher identified and

examined factors perceived to have influenced applicants to apply for leadership positions breaking the results into gender-specific areas.

 Results of the investigation provided promising areas for further research and opportunity for increased understanding in the area of what

motivates individuals to become leaders in the field of public and higher education.

What Motivates Individuals to Become Leaders in Public and Higher Education?

DeSpain (2000, p. xi) suggested that “the progress of man has always been dependent upon the power of leadership.”  He (DeSpain, 2000, p. xi)

continued with the statement that “We have just begun to understand the power and potential of leadership – that is the proper alignment of

the relationship between the leader and those being led.”  This need to study and understand the components of leadership has been echoed

by a variety of authors who have discourse on the subject of leadership (Kouzes & Posner, 1997; Maxwell, 2001; Northouse, 1991;Oakley &

Krug, 1991; Rebore, 2001).  Additionally, the study of leadership for several decades in business, government, and other formal bureaucracies

has substantiated the concept that leadership (often in the form of the  leader him or herself) often sets the tone for success or failure of the

organization (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 1996).   While there is obviously research done which has documented career paths and

processes of administrative selection, little work has been done toward furthering an understanding of what causes people to set personal

goals (Phillips & Gully, l997). 

Purpose of the Study

Translating this need for understanding and recruitment of competent leadership, there is definitive evidence that school districts and universities are going to be unable to meet the expanding need for leaders in the next decade. Beginning in the twenty-first century, a severe shortage will exist of individuals needed to fill university faculty positions and school district leadership positions (Tack & Patitu, 1992).  If educational programs are not able to identify the motivating factors that encourage applicants, this need will become a crisis situation. Yet, despite the exponential growth of knowledge and understanding in the field of leadership as well as the growing body of evidence related to the importance of leadership in the educational setting, little has been done to determine why people do or do not enter the field of educational leadership.  And, perhaps even more cogent to the discussion is the issue of how to encourage highly capable leaders to enter the field of educational leadership in particular.        

This study reviews the literature and researches the issue by using superintendents (district level), principals (building level), and professors (higher education) as units of analysis.  The researcher worked to identify and examine factors perceived to have influenced applicants to apply for leadership positions.  Specific questions driving the investigation were the following.

1.                  What factors affect a candidate’s decision to apply for a leadership position?

2.                  Are intrinsic or extrinsic motivators more influential in a candidates’ decision to seek a leadership position?

            To begin the study of leadership, motivation, and gender-related aspects of each, the review of literature compiles a diverse body of information related to the three driving factors of the study.

Conceptual Underpinnings

Motivation       

Motivation is a psychologically complex issue.  The beginnings of motivation theory have taken shape under the auspices of such influential theorists as Maslow (cited in Glickman, 1990), McGregor (cited in Glickman, 1990), Herzberg (cited in Glickman), and Deci (l975) among many others.  These researchers have offered psychological-based explanations for personal goal establishment and eventual attainment focusing on a range of factors (Ellis, l984).  Vasil (l996), in researching women’s career development in academia, found peoples’ perception of confidence in their ability to perform a given behavior successfully provided an internal barrier or motivation to career choice and advancement.  Several researchers (Deci, l975, Ellis, l984; Herzberg, l964; McGregor, l967; Maslow, l970) have investigated the contribution of self-efficacy theory to socialization and career development theories regarding the existence of internal and external barriers and/or motivators.  As personnel needs of school districts continue to increase, the ability to recruit, secure, and retain strong, effective leadership becomes increasingly difficult.   Additionally, researchers have described organizational structures, managerial styles, and motivational theories that impact career pathways (Parker, l998).  The focus of this study was the categorization of motivational factors within the frameworks of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors as related to gender.

Organizational Issues in Motivation

Parker (l998, p. 835). in research involving organizations and their needs “to develop individuals to perform in new and more complex ways” , looked at concepts such as organizational citizenship, contextual performance, organizational spontaneity, and the development of proactive and initiating employees.  Parker (l998) concluded, “Self-efficacy is an important motivational construct that influences individual choices, goals, emotional reactions, efforts, coping, and persistence” (p. 835) and focused on the development of this type of self-efficacy within modern organizations.  The rationale indicated that certain external activities by the organization (i.e., increased communication, job enrichment, decentralization of control) would result in the improvement of the self-efficacy of existing employees.  This emphasized the interdependence of intrinsic and extrinsic factors and their interaction in framing human behavior.

In the fields of management and organizational behavior, the application of some of the basic principles of the above-mentioned motivational constructs have led to the development of theories outlining factors that influenced successful careers.  Stephens, Szajna, and Broome (l998) reviewed the ‘theoretical subspecialties’ that have emerged from research in the fields of management and organizational behavior.  Job satisfaction, occupational choice, organizational socialization, and career expectations were identified as examples of the subspecialties.  These researchers further outlined three broad factors as fundamental to people’s perception of career success: organizational expectations, professional expectations, and work-nonwork expectations.

Stephens et. al. (1998) and Begley (l990) reported the importance of organizational expectations.  Specifically, Begley (l990) found the factors most significantly influencing decisions to pursue career training are most likely to be those motivators derived from the individual’s inner processes “. . . and paradoxically, organizational factors and relationships with others became important only after the decision was made” (p. 293).

Parker (l998) investigated a proposition that organizational interventions can infuence “the extent to which employees feel confident to take on a wide range of proactive, interpersonal, and integrative tasks” (p. 849).  These organizational manipulations provided significant motives for individuals indicating yet another variable impacting behavior.

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation

Herzberg (cited in Glickman, 1990) specifically distinguished between intrinsic rewards such as self-respect, sense of accomplishment, and

personal growth and extrinsic rewards such as salary, fringe benefits, and job security.  He (also cited in Glickman, 1990)) suggested that

intrinsic rewards are more satisfying and motivating than the extrinsic rewards which are commonly used to motivate.  Ellis (l984) held that

teachers are motivated more by intrinsic than by extrinsic rewards. He further suggested that teachers felt their needs and job satisfaction was

measured by such factors as participatory decision-making, using skills effectively, freedom and independence in their working environment,

using creative thought, and opportunity to expand their personal and professional knowledge. Pastor (cited in Glickman, 1990)) further stated

that motivation and job satisfaction were created by high internal motivation that included areas labeled as “critical psychological states”.

  These were experienced meaningfulness, responsibility for outcomes, and knowledge of results. Concurrent with these results Brodinsky and

Neill (l983) cited three policies  school administrators noted that effectively improved staff morale and motivation among their staffs.  These

included shared governance, inservice education, and systematic, supportive evaluation. 

Gender Specific Motivational Constructs

Specifically related to gender-related motivational factors, Tang and Talpade (l999) addressed the issue of job satisfaction.  These authors found significant differences between males and females with males leaning toward a higher satisfaction with salary/pay than females, and females having a higher satisfaction rating with co-workers than males.   This was previously substantiated by researchers who argued that social needs (i.e. working with people and helping others) are ranked higher by women than men with men rating pay higher than women.  Tang and Talpade (l999) also suggested that implications existed for employers and practitioners in the arena of job satisfaction and hiring practices.  Emphasizing the salary and/or benefits package may have initial significance for both genders, but enhancement of job satisfaction is also a factor in the recruitment and retention of employees.

Moore and Moore (2000) conducted a study on motivational factors emphasizing school leadership at the building level such as building level

principals or assistant principals.  This research investigated factors that would motivate women to aspire to a building level leadership

position, and what factors would discourage them from this career goal.   Results of the study indicated that for women in the field of

educational leadership, internal factors were most frequently cited as motivators in acceptance of building level leadership positions.  These

factors included l) a desire to make a difference, 2) personal and professional challenge, 3) the ability to initiate change, and 4) the ability to

have a positive impact on students, staff, and the community.  Like teaching, becoming a principal is an occupation that promotes service to its

constituencies.  The researchers who posited that in order to encourage women to seek positions of leadership, the following changes should

occur: restructuring of job responsibilities; placing emphasis on direct impact on student achievement and instruction; add support services to

reduce isolation; increasing the leaders authority and responsibility; and finally nurturing a cadre of future leaders (Moore & Moore, 2000). 

Continuing this pattern of research as it relates to the motivators for aspiring to leadership positions, Harris, Arnold, Lowery, and Crocker (2000) conducted a study that continued to support the importance of intrinsic motivation.  These researchers suggested that a key motivator to principals is the opportunity to help children and the educators in the classroom.  They further stated that areas such as making a difference through hiring and staff development as well as continual support for families, students, and faculty increase commitment to the position. Additionally, Gunn and Holdaway (cited in Harris, 2000) indicated that perceptions of personal effectiveness, organizational effectiveness, and levels of influence were strong motivators for principals. 

This view of leadership motivated by intrinsic values was earlier substantiated by Sergiovanni’s (1992) work on moral leadership.  He stated that individuals are driven by that which is good and right.  Based on the initial review of literature, it became apparent that a significant area of study would be the area of what motivated individuals to leave their current positions and move to a higher level within the educational hierarchy.  The literature and practical experience by the researchers strongly indicated that additional responsibilities, time commitments, and increase challenges often accompanied this career change.  Based on the literature and anecdotal data, the research question became more focused on areas pertaining to the recruitment, selection,  retention of competent, qualified candidates for leadership positions in the field of education.  The research questions then centered on two specific issues.  First, upon what would school districts and universities need to focus to entice said individuals into leadership positions? Second, would these factors differ depending on gender? 

All of the aforementioned literature provided the researchers with a limited, yet significant theoretical understanding of motivational theories, identifying intrinsic and extrinsic factors, and how gender affects those factors.  The discussion also provided a cursory review of research documenting the importance of goal setting, socialization factors, and a variety of support traits that may influence or motivate an individual to seek career change.  The primary focus of this paper became factors which motivated practitioners to move into the field of leadership with an emphasis on gender-related differences.

Method

Instrumentation

To gain insight into educational leaders’ perspectives on the reasons why they change jobs and select certain school districts and/or universities, semi-structured and open-ended interviews were utilized as the dominant technique for obtaining descriptions of issues relevant to the study (Bogden & Biklen, 1998).  These personal interviews were conducted with seven recent successful applicants currently employed in leadership positions at either the school district or university level to assist in the development of a research tool.  This small sample of seven educational leaders was representative of both genders.  The sample population was utilized to identify the motivating factors which determine the acceptance of a new position.  Concurrent with the interview process, the review of literature was used to substantiate the final items selected for the initial survey instrument.  The resultant survey instrument was titled “Factors Influencing Leadership Applicants (FILA) and had three forms, one for superintendents, one for principals, and one for professors. 

            The completed survey tool was piloted with twenty-five educators. All educators were from schools and universities in the same state.  The participants’ job descriptions ranged from elementary principals to professors of educational administration.  The purpose of using educators from Kindergarten through University levels was to tap into all formal educational leadership levels.  Each of these participants completed the survey in the presence of the researcher. The researcher queried participants as to whether questions “led” them to answer in a certain way in order to obtain suggestions for improving the wording and design of questions. This piloting process has been proven successful in insuring reliability and validation of the instrument in previous research designs (Pedhauzer, 1997). To further examine the reliability of the instrument, Cronbach coefficient alphas (Cronbach & Suppes, 1969) were conducted on the Likert-type questions. Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient was derived through a statistical program SPSS PC+. A coefficient of (.80) was the minimal expected outcome for the questions. The statistical analysis provided an overall coefficient alpha (r=. 87), which indicated that the questionnaire met an acceptable level of (.80 or higher) (Pedhauzer, 1997). Additionally, the factors within the survey instrument were classified as intrinsic or extrinsic motivational attributes.  This was attained by information gained from the review of literature and the results of participants’ responses.  The questions were disaggregated to represent perceived intrinsic and extrinsic attributes along with gender profiles in each motivational category.   

 Population and Sample

The investigation focused on formal organizational structures of educational leadership, the building level administrator – principal, the district level administrator – superintendent, and the higher education leader – the university professor.  These leadership positions provide a full range of leadership positions from which to begin a pilot investigation into the area of leadership motivation. 

The population of the study consisted of superintendents, principals, and professors who had assumed their present position within the last five years.  The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education provided a list of superintendents and principals meeting this qualifier.  Additionally, the researchers surveyed professors in departments of educational administrations in the state who participated in a cooperative doctoral program with the University of Missouri ( five departments). In excess of one hundred (150) administrative leaders had assumed new positions within the last five years.  From this list of individuals, a random sampling was done resulting in ninety-six participants who responded for a response rate of sixty-three percent.  This total included fifty superintendents, twenty-one principals, and twenty-five professors.  These superintendents and principals represented districts from fifteen counties throughout the state.  Fifty of the superintendent and principal respondents represented rural districts while five of the rural schools represented K-8 districts with a student population of less than 200.  The participants from the five urban areas represented districts with 8,000 to 25,000 students.  The professors were represented by twelve professors from a Research I institution and the remaining thirteen from regional state universities.  Of the study respondents, sixty-six percent had an Educational Specialist degree or higher.  The majority had been in education between eleven and twenty-one years.  The gender break-down of the study participants were forty-two percent of the participants were female and fifty-eight percent, male. 

Limitations

This study was limited in the scope of coverage by the sample that was chosen.  The Superintendents, principals, and professors selected were all located in one state; therefore, some error may have been introduced into the findings due to limited sampling.  This descriptive study may give accurate measurements of respondents’ perceptions on what motivates them; however, their descriptions are not necessarily representative of the total population.  In addition the small sample, especially of principals, rendered sophisticated statistical analysis inappropriate.  While the authors indicate only plausible interpretations of the data in the report there may be other explanations for the data that are more accurate, especially due to the limitations as stated.  This study, while using a limited sample population, provides a pilot study venue for further research and investigation in to a vital area of leadership, particularly in the field of educational leadership.

Results

The 7-point Likert ratings received on the FILA were analyzed separately for university level, district level, and building level respondents. Mean ratings for each item on the questionnaire were calculated for each group in two ways, first as an overall mean and secondly for each gender group. In addition, comparing the mean for male respondents with the mean for female respondents generated a male/female difference. The results of these calculations can be seen in Table 1 for district level administrators, Table 2 for building level administrators, and Table 3 for professors.

The resulting means were also used to provide rankings for the various subgroups. Tables 4 through 9 summarize the rankings for male and female by the three identified subgroups organized by Intrinsic Factors and Extrinsic Factors.

First and Second Highest Ratings for Overall Group.  As can be seen in Tables 1,2,and 3 the highest average rating for the overall group was for item 12, the ability to impact public education, with an average rating of 6.8 (building level) and 6.2 (district level and university level). The second highest ratings were for item 8, personal satisfaction gained through job responsibilities (6.0) for district level administrators, Item 3, salary (6.5), for building level administrators and item 4, initiate change (5.6) and item 15, career step (5.6) for the university level.

Table 1

Comparison of Ratings by Gender

Item         Brief                                        Overall            Mean for                 Mean for                 Male/Female            Extrinsic/

1                Reputation                           4.5                           4.4                           4.7                           .3                            Intrinsic

2               Community/Lead.                 4.9                           4.6                           5.1                           .5                            Intrinsic

3               Salary                                     4.8                           4.0                           5.5                           1.5                          Extrinsic

4              Initiate Change                      5.6                           5.2                           6.0                           .8                            Intrinsic

5              Location                                4.0                           3.2                           4.7                           1.5                           Extrinsic

6              Variety                                   4.8                           4.4                           5.2                           .8                             Extrinsic

7              Peers/Mentor                       5.3                           4.6                           6.0                           1.4                           Extrinsic

8              Satisfaction                          5.5                           5.2                           5.7                           .5                            Intrinsic

9              Flexibility                              5.0                           4.9                           5.0                           .1                            Extrinsic

10            Personal Time                     4.5                           4.2                           4.8                           .6                            Extrinsic

11            Org. Structure                     4.8                           4.6                           4.9                           .3                             Extrinsic

12            Impact Education              6.2                           6.0                           6.3                           .3                              Intrinsic

13            Fringe Benefits                 4.3                           3.6                           5.0                           1.4                            Extrinsic

14            Benefit of Skills                 4.8                           4.3                           5.2                             .9                           Intrinsic

15            Career Step                        5.6                           5.8                           5.4                             .4                           Intrinsic

Table 2

Comparison of Ratings by Gender

Item       Brief                                      Overall                 Mean for              Mean for              Male/Female           Extrinsic/

No.             Descriptor                         Mean                    Males                   Females                Difference               Intrinsic

1                Reputation                           5.2                           6.5                           4.7                           1.8                        Intrinsic

2                Community/Lead.                4.5                           4.5                           4.5                             0                        Intrinsic

3                Salary                                     6.5                           6.8                           6.4                           .4                         Extrinsic

4                Initiate Change                     6.2                           5.8                           6.4                           .6                         Intrinsic

5                Location                                5.0                           2.7                           5.9                           3.2                        Extrinsic

6                Variety                                   5.7                           5.8                           5.7                           .1                          Extrinsic

7                Peers/Mentor                       5.7                           4.3                           6.3                           2.0                         Extrinsic

8                Satisfaction                          5.7                           5.0                           5.9                           .9                           Intrinsic

9                Flexibility                              5.0                           6.2                           4.5                           1.7                         Extrinsic

10             Personal Time                       5.0                           6.3                           4.4                           1.9                         Extrinsic

11             Org. Structure                        5.2                           5.8                           5.0                           .8                          Extrinsic

12             Impact Education                  6.8                           6.5                           6.9                           .4                          Intrinsic

13             Fringe Benefits                      5.8                           6.5                           5.2                           1.3                        Extrinsic

14             Benefit of Skills                     5.4                           5.5                           5.3                           .2                          Intrinsic

15             Career Step                             6.2                           6.8                           5.9                           .9                          Intrinsic

Table 3

            Comparison of Ratings by Gender

Item Brief Overall Mean for Mean for Male/Female Extrinsic/

1                   Reputation                                 4.5                           4.4                           4.7                           .3                            Intrinsic

2                   Community/Lead.                      4.9                           4.6                           5.1                           .5                            Intrinsic

3                   Salary                                          4.8                           4.0                           5.5                           1.5                          Extrinsic

4                   Initiate Change                          5.6                           5.2                           6.0                           .8                            Intrinsic

5                   Location                                     4.0                           3.2                           4.7                           1.5                          Extrinsic

6                   Variety                                        4.8                           4.4                           5.2                           .8                            Extrinsic

7                   Peers/Mentor                            5.3                           4.6                           6.0                           1.4                          Extrinsic

8                  Satisfaction                                5.5                           5.2                           5.7                           .5                            Intrinsic

9                  Flexibility                                    5.0                           4.9                           5.0                           .1                            Extrinsic

10                Personal Time                            4.5                           4.2                           4.8                           .6                            Extrinsic

11                Org. Structure                            4.8                           4.6                           4.9                           .3                           Extrinsic

12                Impact Education                       6.2                           6.0                           6.3                           .3                          Intrinsic

13               Fringe Benefits                            4.3                           3.6                           5.0                           1.4                        Extrinsic

14               Benefit of Skills                           4.8                           4.3                           5.2                             .9                        Intrinsic

15               Career Step                                  5.6                           5.8                           5.4                             .4                         Intrinsic

Lowest Ratings for Overall Group.  The items receiving the lowest average ratings were the same for two of the groups. The lowest rating for building level administrators was for item 5 (location) with an average rating of 5.0 and for the university level with a ranking of 4.0. The lowest rating for the district level administrators was for item 10 (personal time) with an average rating of 4.0.

Comparisons of Male and Female Ratings. Comparisons of average ratings for males and females can be made by examining the mean differences between their average ratings (Tables 1, 2, 3) as well as in the ordinal ranking of their ratings (Tables 4, 5, 6,7,8,9). The comparison of mean differences for extrinsic factors demonstrates at least one factor, item 5 (location) appeared as one of the top motivators in two subgroups areas for females. The mean differences for item 5  (location) range from 3.2 (building) to .6 (district). Other items that demonstrate significant differences between genders were item 7 (peer/mentor) and item 13 (fringe benefits) at the university level. At the building level the males and female mean differences were significant for items 7 (peer/mentor) and for item 10 (use of personal time). Overall the mean differences between males and females at the district level (range 0-.9) was not as significant as they were at the university level (range .3- 1.5) and at the building level (range 0-3.2). While the rankings do provide insight into the overall higher and lower motivators for male and female administrators the overall comparison of rankings by gender should be considered in the context of the disparity, or lack thereof, between the actual average ratings.

Intrinsic Factors for District Level. For district level administrators, the items with the highest average ratings were very similar for males and females. The highest overall rating for item 12 (ability to impact public education) was no different than the average ratings for males and females. Item 4 (ability to initiate change) and item 8 (personal satisfaction gained through job responsibilities) were also very similar for both gender groups. Both groups gave high ratings to item 15 (step toward career goals) and item 14 (your skills will benefit the hiring district), however, their ratings were noticeably different. As can be seen in Table 3, female superintendents gave their highest ratings to item 14 (6.5) compared to the male superintendents whose average rating was (5.7), ranked fifth for intrinsic factors. In contrast, the second highest rating for male superintendents was item 15 (6.1), but the female superintendents gave this item a lower average rating (5.2), ranked fifth for intrinsic factors for them. Similar and lower ratings were given by both males and females for Items 16 (organizational climate), 2 (community leadership), and 1 (professional reputation).

Table 4

Average Ratings for Intrinsic Factors of District Level Administrators

Presented in Rank Order by Gender

Note. N= Forty-two superintendents.  The values represent the mean of participants’ responses to a 7-point Likert ranking.

Intrinsic Factors for Building Level. The building level administrators’ ratings for the intrinsic factors demonstrated several dissimilarities. The smaller sample size for this group may have contributed somewhat to the extreme nature of these differences, and the results should be considered in light of that fact. High ratings for both groups were given to item 4 (ability to initiate change), with average ratings of 5.8 (males) and 6.4 (females), and item 12 (ability to impact public education), with average ratings of 6.5 (males) and 6.9 (females). The rankings for these groups were different, however, their average ratings are so similar that the difference in rankings should be considered negligible (see Table 4). Somewhat different average ratings were given for item 8 (personal satisfaction gained through job responsibilities), with average ratings of 5.0 (males) and 5.9 (females), and item 15 (step towards career goals), with average ratings of 6.8 (males) and 5.9 (females). These disparities are more evident when examining the rankings (see Table 4) as item 15 had the highest average rating for males. Item 8 (personal satisfaction) was the third highest ranked intrinsic item for females, however, it was the second lowest ranked intrinsic item for males. Very dissimilar ratings were given for item 1 (professional reputation of becoming principal), with average ratings of 6.5 (males) and 4.7 (females). This disparity can also be seen in the rankings (Table 4) with this intrinsic item ranking second highest for males and second lowest for females. Very similar ratings were given for items 2 (community leadership), 14 (benefit of skills), and 16 (organizational climate), with item 2 having the lowest ratings for both gender groups.

Table 5

Average Ratings for Intrinsic Factors of Building Level Administrators

Presented in Rank Order by Gender

Note. N= Twenty-one building level administrators. The values represent the mean of participants’ responses to a 7-point Likert ranking.

            Intrinsic Factors for University Level.  For the professors, the top three intrinsic factors for both male and females, through ranked differently, were the same. The items were ability to impact education (6.0), career step (5.8), and the ability to initiate change (6.3). For both genders the three lowest ranked intrinsic factors were the same, though again ranked differently. They were personal reputation (4.5), skills would benefit the university (4.3), and organizational climate (4.1, 4.5). It is interesting to note that both the highest ranked intrinsic item and the lowest intrinsic item were the same for males and females 

Table 6

Average Ratings for Intrinsic Factors of Professors

Presented in Rank Order by Gender

Note. N= Twenty-five professors. The values represent the mean of participants’ responses to a 7-point Likert ranking.

Extrinsic Factors for District Level. A comparison of average ratings for extrinsic factors for superintendents revealed a combination of similarities and differences. The most similar highest ratings were given for items 7 (peer/mentor) and item 3 (salary). For both the male and female administrator personal time (item 10) ranked in either last or second to last.  Male and female superintendents had somewhat different average ratings for items 5 (physical location of job opportunity) and 9 (flexibility associated with daily schedule). Again, the most noticeable differences between the gender groups were on items 3 (salary) and 11 (organizational structure or present position) while the least difference was with item 7 (peer/mentor).

Table 7

Average Ratings for Extrinsic Factors of District Level Administrators

Presented in Rank Order by Gender

Note. N=forty-two superintendents.  The values represent the mean of participants’ responses to a 7-point Likert ranking.

Extrinsic Factors for Building Level.  The average ratings of extrinsic factors for male and female principals demonstrated more differences than similarities. The two groups gave similar and higher ratings for item 3 (salary). They also gave similar and midrange ratings for Items 6 (variety of responsibilities) and 11 (organizational structure). Noticeable differences were found in Items 13 (fringe benefits), 10 (personal time), 9 (flexibility of schedule), 7 (encouragement of peers/mentors), and 5 (physical location of job opportunity). Male principals gave higher ratings to fringe benefits (item 13), personal time (item 10), and flexibility of schedule (item 9), resulting in rankings of second, third and fourth for these items. Female principals gave higher ratings to the encouragement of peers/mentors (item 7) and to physical location (item 5), resulting in rankings of second and third for these items.

Table 8

Average Ratings for Extrinsic Factors of Building Level Administrators

Presented in Rank Order by Gender

Note. N=Twenty-one building level administrators.  The values represent the mean of participants’ responses to a 7-point Likert rankings.

            Extrinsic Factors for University Level.  For both male and female participants, item 8 (flexibility) and item 7 (peer/mentors) ranked in the top three extrinsic factors. While the females ranked salary also in their top three, the males ranked salary as one of the lowest motivators at this level. However the males ranked the organization’s structure as a top motivator. Both genders ranked the extrinsic factor of location as the least important motivator for a job selection.

Table 9

Average Ratings for Extrinsic Factors of Professors

Presented in Rank Order by Gender

Note. N=Twenty-five professors.  The values represent the mean of participants’ responses to a 7-point Likert ranking.

Conclusions

The analysis of the data generated by the surveyed population provided results that were both consistent and inconsistent with current published research.  The findings in the statistical analyses do not lend themselves to numerical significance.  However, while this significance is not specifically apparent, which we believe may be due to the limitation of the survey, the authors still believe the differences identified offer valuable information to those who are recruiting and hiring educational leaders. On the basis of the analysis of data represented in this study, the following conclusions are offered.

The first major conclusion drawn from this research suggests that when looking at the overall ratings of all three subgroups, the highest ratings were given to intrinsic motivators. This data parallels the findings of Schnake (l983) whose research suggested intrinsic factors to be more motivating.   Specifically, the intrinsic motivator of impacting education and the ability to initiate change were the strongest factors identified in the survey results. These similarities are supported by Maslow’s conceptualization (cited in Glickman, l990) of a hierarchy of needs which addressed the personal needs.  It may be inferred that the upper level leadership positions may meet the higher level needs as indicated in Maslow’s hierarchy (cited in Glickman, 1990).  This is also supported by Bandura and Woods’ research (l989) which suggested that these high ratings by the participants indicate that they believe they have direct control over the decision-making processes (i.e. impacting education, initiating change, skills benefiting district, personal satisfaction).   The implication for practice that can be drawn from this conclusion is the suggestion that educational personnel provide appropriate staff development for all school leaders which meets the needs of the intrinsic motivators identified, i.e., impact on education, initiating change, and offering skills which will benefit the total institution. This conclusion also has implications for preparatory programs of school leaders as universities address programmatic changes which emphasize both extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors. Those institutions that prepare leaders should encourage practice and provide tools that meet these identifiable motivators. Colleges and universities must implement these desired goals of changing educational practices and initiate change in the status quo as it directly impacts student instruction.

Specifically, educational leadership programs need to incorporate opportunities into coursework for students to examine personal belief systems and ultimately reflect on their intrinsic motivators.  Furthermore, as prospective leaders, students in educational leadership programs must be encouraged to articulate their intrinsic value structures.  By understanding what truly motivates themselves as individuals and in turn what motivates others can only strengthen their ability to lead themselves and others. This deeper understanding of human nature can help to support program changes that ultimately benefit students in their charge.

The second major conclusion supported by the data is related to extrinsic motivational factors.  The highest extrinsic motivational factor for both males and females at the district and building levels was salary. This extrinsic factor ranking was generally consistent with previous research.   In fact the respondents’ views paralleled earlier findings. However the professors deviated from these findings by ranking salary lower. Specific implications of this data suggest that school districts should continue the emphasis put upon salary and fringe benefits packages. It is also particularly interesting to note that while males have traditionally been primarily concerned with salary and benefit, now there appears to be no difference between the genders in motivation regarding monetary reward. This may be directly related to the assumption of females’ changing roles as “breadwinner” of the family.

A third conclusion that results from the data is that there are gender differences through out both the intrinsic and extrinsic motivating factors. Although the mean differences between the genders were not significantly different these differences should be noted. At the district and building levels males emphasized fringe benefits and personal time while females were more motivated by interaction with peer mentors and the location of the job.  Additionally, the emphasis for males appeared to be on areas of personal significance with females more attuned to personal support systems.  Generally speaking ,excluding the salary and fringe benefit aspects, male respondents focused on factors that reflected personal needs and values. Conversely, female respondents tended to focus on factors that emphasized interpersonal relationships and support systems. Considering the rural area in which this research was conducted, implications for the results may suggest that the rural environment in which many of the respondent’s resided and worked had an effect on the resulting data. It appears that females who move to leadership positions, particularly in rural areas where they are often moving into a non-traditional role, may value support systems in the form of family issues and collegial interaction.

The fourth conclusion this data suggests is the need for leadership preparation programs and professional development programs to embrace collaborative models of leadership. The national standards movement in leadership preparation leads itself toward a more interpersonal, collaborative model of leadership. This corresponds within the value systems indicated by the respondents. However, support systems for female administrators, and male administrators alike, must be continually enhanced to arrive at this needed collaborative model of leadership.  In relation to school district efforts, staff development must become an integral part of the overall professional development plan that incorporates a comprehensive system of mentoring.  All educational leaders must have ample professional opportunities that incorporate the ability to initiate and implement change.  A system of effective peer mentoring may create communities of learners that would embrace such models of collaborative leadership and learning.

Implications for Further Study

            Continuous rigorous research in the area of leadership candidate motivation may yield some insights that would benefit candidates of both genders.  Given the trends discussed in the study, topics for further research might include the developmental stages of educational tenure, geographical location of administrative candidates, i.e. urban as opposed to rural location, and prospective professional development models relating to the value system of school leaders.

This issue of which factors motivate which candidates is both educationally important and fertile for more intensive research in light of the changing population of educational leaders. The declining pool of educational leaders has been well documented making this research effort particularly significant.  Understanding why potential candidates search for leadership positions, what motivates their decision to accept a position, and how they choose to remain and/or relocate will be vitally important for employing institutions. Educational institutions are only going to be able to meet the expanding need for leaders if they can identify the motivating factors that encourage applicants.

References

Bandura, A., & Wood, R. E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805-814.

Begley, P. T. (1990, June). Influences on the socializing experiences of aspiring principals. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Victoria, British Columbia.

Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S.K. (1998) Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods (3^rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Cronbach, L. & Suppes, P. (Eds.). (1969). Research for tomorrow’s schools. New York: Macmillan. deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

DeSpain, B.C. (2000).  The Leader is the Servant:  A 2lst Century Leadership Model.  Grupo Editorial Iberoamericana: Mexico City, Mexico.

Harris S., Arnold, M. Lowery S., & Crocker, C. (2000). Deciding to Become a Principal: What factors motivate or inhibit that decision? ERS Spectrum, 4, 40-44.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., & Johnson, D. (1993).  Management of Organizational Behavior:  Utilizing Human Resources.  Saddle River, New Jersey:  Prentice-Hall.

Moore, D.H. & Moore R.A. (2000, October). The principal shortage: Perceptions of female graduate students currently in two university leadership programs. Paper presented at the SIC 26^th Annual Conference for the Research on Women and Education. San Antonio, Texas.  

Northouse, P. (2001). Leadership:  Theory and Practice.  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications.

Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The role of job enrichment and organizational interventions. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83, 835-852. 

Pedhazur, E.J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (3^rd ed). Florida: Harcourt Brace.

Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 792-802.

Schnake, M. E. (1983). An empirical assessment of the effects of affective response in the measurement of organizational climate. Personnel Psychology, 36, 791-807.

Sergiovanni, T.(1992) Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Stephens, G., Szajna, B., & Broome, K. (1998). The career success expectations scale: An exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 129-141.

Tack, M. W. & Patitu, C. L. (1992) Faculty job satisfaction: Women and minorities in peril (Report No. BBB27915). George Washington University: Washington DC. School of Education and Human Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction  Service No. ED355859).

Tang, T. & Talpade, M. (1999) Sex differences in satisfaction with pay and co-workers. Public Personnel Management. 28(3). 345.

Vasil, L. (1996). Social process skills and career achievement among male and female academics. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 2-22.