0.2 Beach, g., & Keiser, k. (october 2011). to be or not to be..  (Page 3/10)

Growth motivators are less commonly publicized but can underscore espoused disincentives. While money is often mentioned, the main reason identified for the decline in qualified principal candidates is that changes in the job itself make it less attractive (Cusick, 2003). Other conditions considered as disincentives and affecting the decision to seek or not seek a building administrator position are that managing a work-life balance is easier in a current role and there is a high satisfaction in a current role so there is little desire to change (Cranston, 2003).

Seen together, disincentives can be overwhelming: legislated expectations, increased parental demands, and the expanding number of things schools are expected to do increase the number and kind of responsibilities that fall to the principal – school improvement, annual reports, accountability, core curriculum, student safety, gender and equity issues, mission statements, goals and outcomes, staff development, curriculum alignment, special education, and accreditation (Cusick, 2003). Perceived as obstacles, these are disincentives, but seen as opportunities, they may invite candidates to the challenge.

Incentives associated with the principalship also can be seen as motivated by a combination of existence, relatedness, and growth. Cranston (2003) found that a pool of aspiring principal candidates identified four main factors acting as potential incentives for seeking the principalship, including the capacity to achieve work-life balance, school location acceptable to the family, good working conditions, and good remuneration. Although articulated in different terms, fundamental relatedness incentives include making a difference in students’ lives and influencing the direction of schools. Being ready for more responsibility, wanting a new challenge to expand horizons, and wanting a chance to use good ideas can be identified as incentives identified with growth (Howley, Andrianaivo,&Perry, 2005).

Leaders are measured by their sense of purpose, ability to get others engaged with them as they translate purposes, manage the enterprise, and intervene when required to keep the system on target (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003. Effective building level leadership, in the form of a dedicated, skilled principal, is a key in creating and maintaining high quality schools (Cusick, 2003). Whether this challenge is attractive or repellent to a prospective school leader lies within the perceptions each has of the rewards offered, of the belief effort can meet the expectations, and of the trust that good performance will result in the reward (Vroom&Yetton, 1973). Understanding these perceptions then forms the basis for decreasing disincentives and increasing incentives.

Changing role of the principal

Today’s principal and the principal of the past may share similar duties, but the expectations and profile have evolved over the past decades (Hinton&Kastner, 2000). Winter and Morgenthal (2002) observed that, rightly or wrongly, the school principals of 30 years ago were in many ways the masters of their domains. Principals enjoyed a parental rather than a quasi-legal relationship with students and experienced far less formal and less frequent interactions with parents and community groups. Changes over the last few decades have enhanced the power and influence of students, teachers, and the community and helped advance democratic governance (Evans, 1996; Winter&Morgenthal, 2002). The school principal has been characterized as an underpaid workhorse juggling the demands of instructional leadership, bureaucracy, official mandates, and adverse interest groups (Howley, Andrianaivo,&Perry, 2005).