Difference between revisions of "Template:Dated maintenance category/doc"
imported>INkubusse m (+ mk iw) |
imported>Jstanka |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
{{redirect|Template:DMCA|the United States law of that name|Digital Millennium Copyright Act}} | {{redirect|Template:DMCA|the United States law of that name|Digital Millennium Copyright Act}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | === Background === | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | Over the past 20 years, researchers have pointed out concerns related to leadership theories in education and business management. Specifically, these theories traditionally: (a) were based largely upon the experiences of white males (Blackmore, 1989; Capper, 1993; Glazer, 1991); (b) were based on theories from a corporate or military setting (Gossetti & Rusch, 1995); (c) were written using the masculine voice; (d) were validated using male participants, (e) have projected a male or androcentric bias (Irby, Brown, & Trautman, 1999), (f) included gender bias language (Shakeshaft, 1989), and (g) excluded the female experience (Irby & Brown, 1995). Concerned with the exclusive nature of the aforementioned leadership theories, Irby, Brown, and Duffy (1999) developed the synergistic leadership theory (SLT) utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data gathered from (a) an exhaustive review of the literature, (b) surveys of 30 women leaders in education and business, and (c) open-ended interviews of 10 female school executives and 10 scholars in leadership preparation programs. In 2002, Irby, Brown, Duffy, and Trautman published the SLT in the Journal of Educational Administration. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | === | + | === Development of the theory === |
| − | The | + | The theory development for the SLT began in 1995 with an examination of leadership theories traditionally taught in administrative and management courses (Irby, Brown, & Duffy, 1999). The analysis focused on the origins, development, and content of the theories themselves. Existing theories were analyzed for: (a) the inclusion of the female experience and attitudes, (b) gender as a significant variable in development of the theory, (c) females in the sample populations, (d) use of non-sexist language, and (e) generalizabilty of the theory to both male and female leaders (Brown, Irby, & Trautman, 1999; Irby, et al., 2002). Findings of the research indicated that existing leadership theories were written from the male perspective but applied to both male and female leaders (Brown, et al., 1999; Shakeshaft, 1986). Therefore, a leadership theory that included the female perspective in its development and content was necessary (Brown & Irby, 1995; Gossetti & Rusch, 1995; Brown, et al., 1999; Shakeshaft, 1989). |
| − | + | Further, Irby, Brown and Duffy (1999) and Irby, Brown, and Trautman (1999, 2000) presented the theory in several scientific conventions and obtained feedback from scholars and practitioners in the field. The developers considered the feedback from both males and females of varying ethnicities in furthering the development of the theory. Interested in ensuring the theory had validity with diverse groups, Brown, Irby, and Duffy have directed several research studies based on the SLT with various ethnicities in the U.S. | |
| − | |||
| − | + | === Assumption === | |
| − | + | The SLT is based on the following major assumptions: | |
| − | + | (a) leadership is the interaction among four factors of attitudes, beliefs, and values; leadership behavior; external forces; and organizational structure, | |
| + | (b) an alignment of all four factors leads to harmony, with the leader being perceived as effective or successful, while a misalignment among the four factors results in tension or disharmony that negatively impacts the perceived effectiveness of the leader (Irby et al., 2002), and | ||
| + | (c) reflection and location of self in relation to all factors is critical to attaining the desired alignment (Irby et al., 2009). | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | === The SLT Model === | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | A tetrahedral model depicts the SLT’s four equal and interactive factors: (a) attitudes, beliefs and values; (b) leadership behaviors; (c) organizational structure; and (d) external forces, which are identified by four stellar points with six interaction pairs. This model can be rotated on any apex and still maintain its shape, thereby indicating no structural hierarchy and suggesting that it is the dynamic interaction of each of the four factors that affects the perceived success of the leader (Irby et al., 2002). | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | Factor I: Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | Attitudes, beliefs, and values are depicted as dichotomous, as an individual or group would either adhere or not adhere to specific attitudes, beliefs, or values at a certain point in time. They are manifested in actions, such as valuing professional growth, being open to change, and valuing diversity and integrity. Beliefs can change as new information is processed, while attitudes and values are more enduring (Irby, et al., 2002). | |
| − | + | ||
| + | Factor II: Leadership Behaviors | ||
| + | |||
| + | Leadership behavior is depicted as a range of behaviors from autocratic to nurturer. Leadership behaviors include both behaviors that are commonly associated with males, and those that are commonly associated with females. For example, leadership behaviors that are traditionally associated with male leaders are self-assertion, separation, independence, control, and competition. Behaviors that are ascribed to female leaders are interdependence, cooperation, receptivity, merging, acceptance, being aware of patterns, wholes, and context (Irby, et al., 2002). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Factor III: External Forces | ||
| + | |||
| + | External forces, as depicted in the model, are those influencers outside the control of the organization or the leader that interact with the organization and the leader and that inherently embody a set of values, attitudes and beliefs. They may include: (a) local, national, and international community and conditions, (b) governmental regulations or laws, (c) demographics, (d) cultural and political climate, (e) technological advances, (f) economic situations, and (e) policy-making boards or councils (Irby, et al., 2002).. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Factor IV: Organizational Structure | ||
| + | |||
| + | Organizational structure refers to the characteristics of organizations and how they operate. The SLT model (Figure 1) depicts organizational structures as ranging from open, feminist originations to tightly bureaucratic ones. For example, bureaucratic organizations are characterized by division of labor, rules, hierarchy of authority, impersonality, competence; while feminist organizations feature participative decision making, systems of rotating leadership, promotion of community and cooperation, and power sharing (Irby, et al., 2002). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | === Validation studies === | ||
| + | |||
| + | The SLT was accompanied by the Organizational and Leadership Effectiveness Inventory (OLEI), a 96-item instrument designed to measure agreement or disagreement with particular indicator of each of the four factors of the SLT (Irby, Brown, & Duffy, 2000). Since its development, the SLT has been validated for both males and females and at various educational management levels across American ethnic cultural and geographic locations in the United States and in international settings (Ardovini, Trautman, Brown, & Irby, 2006; Bamburg, 2004; Glenn, 2008; Hernandez, 2004; Holtkamp, 2001; Holtkamp, Irby, Brown, & Yang, 2007; Justice, 2007; Kaspar, 2006; Schlosberg, 2003; Trautman, 2000; Truslow, 2004; Yang, Irby, & Brown; 2008). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | === Implications for educational leaders === | ||
| + | |||
| + | The SLT as the first gender-inclusive leadership theory has been validated as cross-cultural, situational and contextual, holistic and systemic, and socially just over the past seven years. As a 21st century leadership theory, the SLT has reflected a postmodern view of leadership situated among followers, within the organization, and in context of external forces. The SLT has significant implications for leaders to build global and reflective capacities and for educational leadership preparation programs to prepare leaders to accommodate change. The SLT includes democratic, adaptive, collaborative, nurturing, and people-oriented leadership behaviors consistent with the global trends necessary for leadership in the 21st century. Further, the SLT emphasizes culture as an external force that future leaders should reflect upon related to their own leadership experiences to enhance their own cultural awareness, sensitivity, and ability to interact effectively with others. Because the SLT focuses on philosophical beliefs and values which guide leaders’ behaviors, leaders are prompted to share their own beliefs and values with others, as well as encouraging others to do the same. Leaders can apply the SLT to their own contexts, taking into account the interactive and dynamic relationships among their own leadership behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, values (theirs and their followers), external forces, and organizational structures (Irby et al., 2009). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | === References === | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ardovinni, J., Trautman, D., Brown, G., & Irby, B.J. (2006). Validating synergistic leadership theory in education: The importance of including female leadership experiences and behaviors. Journal of Practical Leadership, 1(1), 23-44. | ||
| + | Bamberg, W. (2004). An application of the synergistic leadership theory to the leadership experiences of five female superintendents leading successful school districts (Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(08A), 2824. (UMI No. 3143574 ) | ||
| + | Blackmore, J. (1989). Educational leadership: A feminist critique and reconstruction. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical perspective on educational leadership (pp. 23-44). London: The Falmer. | ||
| + | Brown, G., & Irby, B. (1995, Summer). Perceptions of women aspiring to administrative positions. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 61 (4), 33-38. | ||
| + | Brown, G., Irby, B. J., & Trautman, D. (1999). Analysis of thirteen leadership theories for an androcentric bias. Paper presented at the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, Jackson Hole, WY. | ||
| + | Capper, C. (1993). Educational administration in a pluralistic society: A multi-paradigmatic approach. In C. Capper (Ed.), Educational administration in a pluralistic society (pp. 7-35). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. | ||
| + | Glazer, J. (1991). Feminism and professionalism in teaching and educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(3), 321-342. | ||
| + | Glenn, J. (2008). Superintendent search consultants’ perceptions of school boards’ expectations of superintendent candidates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX. | ||
| + | Gossetti, P., & Rusch, E. (1995). Reexamining educational leadership. In D. Dunlap and P. Schmuck (Eds.), Women leading in education (pp. 11-35). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. | ||
| + | Hernandez, R. (2004). An analysis and school board’s perception of the factors of the synergistic leadership theory (Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(08A), 2848. (UMI No. 3143582) | ||
| + | Holtkamp, L. W. (2001). The validation of the organizational and leadership effectiveness inventory (Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(07A), 2300. (UMI No. 3020890) | ||
| + | Holtkamp, L., Irby, B. J., Brown, G., & Yang, LL. (2007). Validation of the synergistic leadership theory. Journal of Research for Educational Leadership, 4, 75-111. | ||
| + | Irby, B. J., & Brown, G. (1995). Career paths and aspirations of special education administrators. In D. Montgomery (Ed.), Reaching to the future: Boldy facing challenges in rural communities (pp. 166-170). Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University Press. | ||
| + | Irby, B. J., Brown, G., & Duffy, J. (1999). A feminine inclusive leadership theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. | ||
| + | Irby, B. J., Brown, G., & Duffy, J. (2000). Organizational and leadership effectiveness inventory. Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston Press. | ||
| + | Irby, B. J., Brown, G., Duffy, J. A., & Trautman, D. (2002). The synergistic leadership theory. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(4), 304-322. | ||
| + | Irby, B.J., Brown, G., & Trautman, D. (2000, April). Giving rise to missing voices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. | ||
| + | Irby, B. J., Brown, G., &Yang, LL. (2009). The synergistic leadership theory: A 21st century leadership theory. In C. Achilles & B.J. Irby (Eds.), Remembering our mission: Making education and schools better for students. The 2009 NCPEA Yearbook. Lancaster, PA: ProActive Publications. | ||
| + | Justice, P. P. (2007). Secondary school leaders in western North Carolina: The impact of place and gender on selection and behavior. (Doctoral dissertation, Western Carolina University, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(03A). (UMI No. 3255360) | ||
| + | Kaspar, K. A. (2006). The relationship of the synergistic leadership theory to the experiences of four elementary principals leading exemplary, low socio-economic campuses (Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(02A). (UMI No. 3250648) | ||
| + | Schlosberg, T. V. (2003). Synergistic leadership: An international case study (Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(07A), 2337. (UMB No. 3098504) | ||
| + | Shakeshaft, C. (1986). Women in educational administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. | ||
| + | Shakeshaft, C. (1989). Women in educational administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. | ||
| + | Shapiro, A. (2009). A comprehensive theory and practice of constructivist leadership. In C. Achilles & B.J. Irby (Eds.), Remembering our mission: Making education and schools better for students. The 2009 NCPEA Yearbook (pp. 83-93). Lancaster, PA: ProActive Publications. | ||
| + | Trautman, D. (2000). A validation of the synergistic leadership theory: A gender- inclusive leadership theory. (Doctoral dissertation. Sam Houston State University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(07A), 2598. (UMI No. 3020899) | ||
| + | Truslow, K. O. (2004). Effects of the synergistic leadership theory: A gender-inclusive Leadership theory (Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(08A), 2859. (UMI No. 3143586) | ||
| + | Yang, LL., Irby, B. J. & Brown, G., (2008, May 6). Applicability of the synergistic leadership theory to leaders in East Asian cultures. Paper presented at 2008 Global Leadership Conference, Shanghai, China. | ||
Revision as of 19:26, 3 August 2010
| This is a documentation subpage for Template:Dated maintenance category. It contains usage information, categories and other content that is not part of the original template page. |
Contents
Background
Over the past 20 years, researchers have pointed out concerns related to leadership theories in education and business management. Specifically, these theories traditionally: (a) were based largely upon the experiences of white males (Blackmore, 1989; Capper, 1993; Glazer, 1991); (b) were based on theories from a corporate or military setting (Gossetti & Rusch, 1995); (c) were written using the masculine voice; (d) were validated using male participants, (e) have projected a male or androcentric bias (Irby, Brown, & Trautman, 1999), (f) included gender bias language (Shakeshaft, 1989), and (g) excluded the female experience (Irby & Brown, 1995). Concerned with the exclusive nature of the aforementioned leadership theories, Irby, Brown, and Duffy (1999) developed the synergistic leadership theory (SLT) utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data gathered from (a) an exhaustive review of the literature, (b) surveys of 30 women leaders in education and business, and (c) open-ended interviews of 10 female school executives and 10 scholars in leadership preparation programs. In 2002, Irby, Brown, Duffy, and Trautman published the SLT in the Journal of Educational Administration.
Development of the theory
The theory development for the SLT began in 1995 with an examination of leadership theories traditionally taught in administrative and management courses (Irby, Brown, & Duffy, 1999). The analysis focused on the origins, development, and content of the theories themselves. Existing theories were analyzed for: (a) the inclusion of the female experience and attitudes, (b) gender as a significant variable in development of the theory, (c) females in the sample populations, (d) use of non-sexist language, and (e) generalizabilty of the theory to both male and female leaders (Brown, Irby, & Trautman, 1999; Irby, et al., 2002). Findings of the research indicated that existing leadership theories were written from the male perspective but applied to both male and female leaders (Brown, et al., 1999; Shakeshaft, 1986). Therefore, a leadership theory that included the female perspective in its development and content was necessary (Brown & Irby, 1995; Gossetti & Rusch, 1995; Brown, et al., 1999; Shakeshaft, 1989).
Further, Irby, Brown and Duffy (1999) and Irby, Brown, and Trautman (1999, 2000) presented the theory in several scientific conventions and obtained feedback from scholars and practitioners in the field. The developers considered the feedback from both males and females of varying ethnicities in furthering the development of the theory. Interested in ensuring the theory had validity with diverse groups, Brown, Irby, and Duffy have directed several research studies based on the SLT with various ethnicities in the U.S.
Assumption
The SLT is based on the following major assumptions:
(a) leadership is the interaction among four factors of attitudes, beliefs, and values; leadership behavior; external forces; and organizational structure, (b) an alignment of all four factors leads to harmony, with the leader being perceived as effective or successful, while a misalignment among the four factors results in tension or disharmony that negatively impacts the perceived effectiveness of the leader (Irby et al., 2002), and (c) reflection and location of self in relation to all factors is critical to attaining the desired alignment (Irby et al., 2009).
The SLT Model
A tetrahedral model depicts the SLT’s four equal and interactive factors: (a) attitudes, beliefs and values; (b) leadership behaviors; (c) organizational structure; and (d) external forces, which are identified by four stellar points with six interaction pairs. This model can be rotated on any apex and still maintain its shape, thereby indicating no structural hierarchy and suggesting that it is the dynamic interaction of each of the four factors that affects the perceived success of the leader (Irby et al., 2002).
Factor I: Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values
Attitudes, beliefs, and values are depicted as dichotomous, as an individual or group would either adhere or not adhere to specific attitudes, beliefs, or values at a certain point in time. They are manifested in actions, such as valuing professional growth, being open to change, and valuing diversity and integrity. Beliefs can change as new information is processed, while attitudes and values are more enduring (Irby, et al., 2002).
Factor II: Leadership Behaviors
Leadership behavior is depicted as a range of behaviors from autocratic to nurturer. Leadership behaviors include both behaviors that are commonly associated with males, and those that are commonly associated with females. For example, leadership behaviors that are traditionally associated with male leaders are self-assertion, separation, independence, control, and competition. Behaviors that are ascribed to female leaders are interdependence, cooperation, receptivity, merging, acceptance, being aware of patterns, wholes, and context (Irby, et al., 2002).
Factor III: External Forces
External forces, as depicted in the model, are those influencers outside the control of the organization or the leader that interact with the organization and the leader and that inherently embody a set of values, attitudes and beliefs. They may include: (a) local, national, and international community and conditions, (b) governmental regulations or laws, (c) demographics, (d) cultural and political climate, (e) technological advances, (f) economic situations, and (e) policy-making boards or councils (Irby, et al., 2002)..
Factor IV: Organizational Structure
Organizational structure refers to the characteristics of organizations and how they operate. The SLT model (Figure 1) depicts organizational structures as ranging from open, feminist originations to tightly bureaucratic ones. For example, bureaucratic organizations are characterized by division of labor, rules, hierarchy of authority, impersonality, competence; while feminist organizations feature participative decision making, systems of rotating leadership, promotion of community and cooperation, and power sharing (Irby, et al., 2002).
Validation studies
The SLT was accompanied by the Organizational and Leadership Effectiveness Inventory (OLEI), a 96-item instrument designed to measure agreement or disagreement with particular indicator of each of the four factors of the SLT (Irby, Brown, & Duffy, 2000). Since its development, the SLT has been validated for both males and females and at various educational management levels across American ethnic cultural and geographic locations in the United States and in international settings (Ardovini, Trautman, Brown, & Irby, 2006; Bamburg, 2004; Glenn, 2008; Hernandez, 2004; Holtkamp, 2001; Holtkamp, Irby, Brown, & Yang, 2007; Justice, 2007; Kaspar, 2006; Schlosberg, 2003; Trautman, 2000; Truslow, 2004; Yang, Irby, & Brown; 2008).
Implications for educational leaders
The SLT as the first gender-inclusive leadership theory has been validated as cross-cultural, situational and contextual, holistic and systemic, and socially just over the past seven years. As a 21st century leadership theory, the SLT has reflected a postmodern view of leadership situated among followers, within the organization, and in context of external forces. The SLT has significant implications for leaders to build global and reflective capacities and for educational leadership preparation programs to prepare leaders to accommodate change. The SLT includes democratic, adaptive, collaborative, nurturing, and people-oriented leadership behaviors consistent with the global trends necessary for leadership in the 21st century. Further, the SLT emphasizes culture as an external force that future leaders should reflect upon related to their own leadership experiences to enhance their own cultural awareness, sensitivity, and ability to interact effectively with others. Because the SLT focuses on philosophical beliefs and values which guide leaders’ behaviors, leaders are prompted to share their own beliefs and values with others, as well as encouraging others to do the same. Leaders can apply the SLT to their own contexts, taking into account the interactive and dynamic relationships among their own leadership behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, values (theirs and their followers), external forces, and organizational structures (Irby et al., 2009).
References
Ardovinni, J., Trautman, D., Brown, G., & Irby, B.J. (2006). Validating synergistic leadership theory in education: The importance of including female leadership experiences and behaviors. Journal of Practical Leadership, 1(1), 23-44. Bamberg, W. (2004). An application of the synergistic leadership theory to the leadership experiences of five female superintendents leading successful school districts (Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(08A), 2824. (UMI No. 3143574 ) Blackmore, J. (1989). Educational leadership: A feminist critique and reconstruction. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical perspective on educational leadership (pp. 23-44). London: The Falmer. Brown, G., & Irby, B. (1995, Summer). Perceptions of women aspiring to administrative positions. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 61 (4), 33-38. Brown, G., Irby, B. J., & Trautman, D. (1999). Analysis of thirteen leadership theories for an androcentric bias. Paper presented at the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, Jackson Hole, WY. Capper, C. (1993). Educational administration in a pluralistic society: A multi-paradigmatic approach. In C. Capper (Ed.), Educational administration in a pluralistic society (pp. 7-35). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Glazer, J. (1991). Feminism and professionalism in teaching and educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(3), 321-342. Glenn, J. (2008). Superintendent search consultants’ perceptions of school boards’ expectations of superintendent candidates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX. Gossetti, P., & Rusch, E. (1995). Reexamining educational leadership. In D. Dunlap and P. Schmuck (Eds.), Women leading in education (pp. 11-35). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Hernandez, R. (2004). An analysis and school board’s perception of the factors of the synergistic leadership theory (Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(08A), 2848. (UMI No. 3143582) Holtkamp, L. W. (2001). The validation of the organizational and leadership effectiveness inventory (Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(07A), 2300. (UMI No. 3020890) Holtkamp, L., Irby, B. J., Brown, G., & Yang, LL. (2007). Validation of the synergistic leadership theory. Journal of Research for Educational Leadership, 4, 75-111. Irby, B. J., & Brown, G. (1995). Career paths and aspirations of special education administrators. In D. Montgomery (Ed.), Reaching to the future: Boldy facing challenges in rural communities (pp. 166-170). Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University Press. Irby, B. J., Brown, G., & Duffy, J. (1999). A feminine inclusive leadership theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Irby, B. J., Brown, G., & Duffy, J. (2000). Organizational and leadership effectiveness inventory. Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston Press. Irby, B. J., Brown, G., Duffy, J. A., & Trautman, D. (2002). The synergistic leadership theory. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(4), 304-322. Irby, B.J., Brown, G., & Trautman, D. (2000, April). Giving rise to missing voices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Irby, B. J., Brown, G., &Yang, LL. (2009). The synergistic leadership theory: A 21st century leadership theory. In C. Achilles & B.J. Irby (Eds.), Remembering our mission: Making education and schools better for students. The 2009 NCPEA Yearbook. Lancaster, PA: ProActive Publications. Justice, P. P. (2007). Secondary school leaders in western North Carolina: The impact of place and gender on selection and behavior. (Doctoral dissertation, Western Carolina University, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(03A). (UMI No. 3255360) Kaspar, K. A. (2006). The relationship of the synergistic leadership theory to the experiences of four elementary principals leading exemplary, low socio-economic campuses (Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(02A). (UMI No. 3250648) Schlosberg, T. V. (2003). Synergistic leadership: An international case study (Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(07A), 2337. (UMB No. 3098504) Shakeshaft, C. (1986). Women in educational administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Shakeshaft, C. (1989). Women in educational administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Shapiro, A. (2009). A comprehensive theory and practice of constructivist leadership. In C. Achilles & B.J. Irby (Eds.), Remembering our mission: Making education and schools better for students. The 2009 NCPEA Yearbook (pp. 83-93). Lancaster, PA: ProActive Publications. Trautman, D. (2000). A validation of the synergistic leadership theory: A gender- inclusive leadership theory. (Doctoral dissertation. Sam Houston State University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(07A), 2598. (UMI No. 3020899) Truslow, K. O. (2004). Effects of the synergistic leadership theory: A gender-inclusive Leadership theory (Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(08A), 2859. (UMI No. 3143586) Yang, LL., Irby, B. J. & Brown, G., (2008, May 6). Applicability of the synergistic leadership theory to leaders in East Asian cultures. Paper presented at 2008 Global Leadership Conference, Shanghai, China.