Leadership Actions Survey

Abstract

The Leadership Actions Survey (LAS) is a 24-item psychometric instrument developed to assess the specific tactics utilized by administrators when attempting to influence the adoption and introduction of curriculum innovations, particularly within the context of special education. The survey is theoretically grounded in a framework of tactic types established by Hull and colleagues (1973), focusing on how educational leaders facilitate or compel organizational change. The original research was presented at the American Educational Research Association in 1982, documented under ERIC ED 214 310.

Keywords

Leadership, Administrative Tactics, Curriculum Innovation, Special Education, Organizational Change, Influence Strategies, Educational Administration, LAS.

Authors

Goldstein, M. T.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Leadership Actions Survey (LAS) is to systematically identify and measure the specific actions, or influence tactics, employed by educational leaders. These tactics are focused on driving the adoption and implementation of new educational programs or innovations, specifically in the realm of special education curricula.

The instrument provides a structured means for researchers and practitioners to categorize administrative behaviors based on established strategies of change, allowing for the analysis of which influence methods are most prevalent or effective in promoting educational reform within institutional settings.

Construct

The LAS measures administrative influence tactics, which are conceptually categorized into three major strategies derived from the work of Chin and Benne on organizational change. These three factors represent the core constructs assessed by the instrument:

• Empirical-Rational: This construct involves the administrative use of communication and logical argument, focusing on providing information, data, and evidence to persuade individuals of the innovation’s merits.
• Power Coercive: This construct involves the use of formal authority, mandates, orders, deadlines, or organizational policies to compel compliance and ensure the required use of the innovation.
• Normative-Reeducative: This construct centers on creating supportive conditions, fostering shared values, and allowing for teacher adaptation, thereby encouraging voluntary innovation and commitment among the professional staff.

Validity

Efforts were made during the instrument’s development to determine its initial content validity. The categorization of the initial item pool, derived from theoretical tactic types, was assessed by an expert panel.

Specifically, six practicing administrators served as a panel of judges, reviewing and classifying the survey items to ensure they accurately represented the intended administrative influence tactics. Additional preliminary analyses were conducted to further confirm that the instrument covered the relevant behavioral domains related to introducing curriculum innovations.

Reliability

The original research indicated that reliability estimates for the Leadership Actions Survey were obtained during the validation process. However, the specific quantitative reliability values (e.g., internal consistency coefficients such as Cronbach’s alpha, or test-retest data) were not explicitly reported or provided in the source documentation (Goldstein, 1982). Consequently, the internal consistency and stability of the 24-item scale remain empirically undocumented based on the publicly cited materials.

Factor Analysis

A multivariate statistical procedure was employed to investigate the underlying structure of the 24 items. The analysis used a principal components analysis followed by a varimax rotation, designed to achieve a clear, interpretable factor structure.

The analysis successfully yielded three distinct factors. These factors were subsequently named according to the theoretical framework proposed by Chin and Benne regarding strategies of changing: empirical-rational, power coercive, and normative-reeducative. This dimensional structure confirms the theoretical segmentation of administrative influence tactics assessed by the LAS.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report survey; Measure of administrative influence tactics in educational settings.

Format: The instrument consists of 24 items. Responses are gathered using a five-point Likert-type response set, labeled as: All, Most, Half, Few, or None, indicating the frequency with which the administrator used the described action.

Language Available: English (Original study).

Population Group: Educational administrators/leaders responsible for implementing curriculum changes.

Age Group: Adult professionals.

Population Details: The sample consisted of administrators from 39 separate sites who were identified as active advocates for a particular curriculum innovation. Data were collected via surveys and interviews.

Test Methodology: Quantitative survey administration, complemented by qualitative interview data.

Keywords

Educational leadership, Influence tactics, Organizational change, Special education, LAS, Goldstein 1982, Varimax rotation, Empirical-rational, Normative-reeducative.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A

Correspondence Address: Refer to Goldstein, M. T. (1982). Using administrative tactics to introduce curriculum innovation. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association. ERIC ED 214 310.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1982

Permissions/Fee: The original paper is an academic presentation available through the ERIC database (ED 214 310). Information regarding current commercial permissions, licensing, or usage fees for the Leadership Actions Survey is not detailed in the original source material. Researchers should consult the author or the ERIC documentation for usage rights.

Reference’s

• Goldstein, M. T. (1982). Using administrative tactics to introduce curriculum innovation. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association. ERIC ED 214 310.
• Hull, W. L., et al. (1973). A conceptual framework for the diffusion of innovations in vocational and technical education. Columbus: Center for Vocational and Technical Education, Ohio State University.
• Widmer, J. L. (1977). Innovation and bureaucracies: A reexamination of diffusion strategies for state and local systems. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association.

Items of the Leadership Actions Survey

1. Provided teachers with printed materials about the innovation.
2. Asked persons respected by the teachers to present the innovation to them.
3. Provided information about how the innovation has been used in other places.
4. Presented the innovation as unfinished to allow teachers to make it their own.
5. Emphasized aspects of the innovation that are consistent with what the teacher expects.
6. Answered questions about the innovation at meetings.
7. Gave recognition to teachers for trying the innovation.
8. Set a deadline for teachers to incorporate the innovation into their classroom activities.
9. Asked teachers to give their reasons for accepting or rejecting the innovation.
10. Observed the effectiveness of the innovation in classrooms.
11. Warned teachers of the consequences of resisting using the innovation.
12. Endorsed the innovation through persons perceived as highly credible by the teachers.
13. Provided explicit instructions by the developer on how to use the innovation.
14. Allowed the teachers to adapt the innovation to local conditions.
15. Explained the innovation through conferences with professional staff.
16. Visited a site which has installed the innovation.
17. Compelled teachers to use the innovation.
18. Conducted a pilot test of the innovation.
19. Gave pay to teachers for using the innovation.
20. Observed the innovation in operation.
21. Established program policies to insure the use of the innovation.
22. Informed teachers about the innovation at meetings.
23. Required teachers to use the innovation in their classrooms.
24. Tried the innovation on a small scale.