Leadership Actions Survey

Abstract

The Leadership Actions Survey (LAS), developed by Marjorie T. Goldstein (1982), is a 24-item psychometric instrument designed to evaluate and operationalize the administrative tactics utilized by educational leaders when introducing curriculum innovations. Rooted in planned organizational change literature and adapted from earlier diffusion frameworks developed by Hull et al. (1973) and Widmer (1977), the instrument captures how school administrators exercise influence during reform initiatives, specifically in special education contexts. The survey employs a 5-point Likert-type response scale (All, Most, Half, Few, None) to quantify the proportion or frequency of administrative behaviors enacted across an innovation’s implementation cycle. Structurally, the instrument operationalizes the tripartite model of planned change formulated by Robert Chin and Kenneth D. Benne (1969), segregating administrative tactics into three primary dimensions: Empirical-Rational (communicating information, demonstrating utility, and disseminating evidence), Power-Coercive (mandates, administrative directives, deadlines, and regulatory policies), and Normative-Reeducative (collaborative problem-solving, local adaptation, peer consensus, and professional socio-cultural reorientation). Initial psychometric appraisal involved content validation by a six-member panel of administrative judges and exploratory factor analysis utilizing principal components analysis with varimax rotation across administrators at 39 implementation sites. This comprehensive review examines the theoretical origins, psychometric properties, scoring methodology, construct nuances, and research utility of the LAS within contemporary implementation science and educational leadership scholarship.

Keywords

Leadership Actions Survey, administrative tactics, curriculum innovation, planned change, Chin and Benne, empirical-rational, power-coercive, normative-reeducative, educational administration, diffusion of innovations, special education leadership, implementation science.

Authors

The Leadership Actions Survey was formulated and evaluated by Marjorie T. Goldstein, Ph.D. The foundational validation study was documented in her paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) in New York City: “Using administrative tactics to introduce curriculum innovation” (Goldstein, 1982; indexed in the ERIC database as ED 214 310).

Goldstein developed the LAS by operationalizing and refining previous administrative taxonomy frameworks formulated by William L. Hull and colleagues (1973) at the Center for Vocational and Technical Education, Ohio State University, alongside conceptual diffusion models introduced by J. L. Widmer (1977). During the period of the survey’s development, Goldstein investigated curriculum dissemination, institutional advocacy, and the operational tactics employed by district-level and building-level administrators overseeing special education innovations.

Purpose

Educational organizations frequently face substantial implementation gaps where evidence-based curricula and instructional innovations fail to take root in classroom practice. The primary purpose of the Leadership Actions Survey is to measure, categorize, and diagnose the deliberate actions, behaviors, and intervention tactics deployed by administrators seeking to drive curriculum adoption among instructional staff. Rather than assessing broad leadership personality traits (e.g., charismatic leadership or general consideration), the LAS focuses on behavioral tactics: concrete, actionable steps an administrator executes to initiate, support, or compel program implementation.

The LAS was conceptualized to serve several clinical, research, and organizational functions:

• Empirical Investigation of Implementation Strategies: It provides researchers with a structured taxonomy to test which leadership behaviors predict successful institutionalization versus rejection of educational innovations.
• Administrative Self-Reflection and Professional Development: School leaders can use the instrument as a diagnostic inventory to examine their own operational styles, identifying whether they over-rely on top-down administrative mandates (power-coercive) or underutilize collaborative, capacity-building actions (normative-reeducative).
• Curricular Reform Monitoring: District leaders, curriculum directors, and educational change facilitators can deploy the scale across multiple school sites to determine how reform directives are mediated by on-the-ground administrative interventions.
• Theoretical Refinement of Change Models: By mapping empirical items directly to Chin and Benne’s foundational taxonomy, the survey allows organizational theorists to assess how rational, normative, and coercive strategies interact within bureaucratic school systems.

Psychological Construct

The core psychological and organizational construct captured by the Leadership Actions Survey is Administrative Influence Behavior in Planned Change. Within organizational psychology and administrative science, influence behaviors represent the specific communicative, structural, and interpersonal maneuvers leaders enact to modify the attitudes, norms, and pedagogical practices of subordinates. In the LAS, this construct is partitioned into three distinct sub-dimensions reflecting the classical planned change taxonomy:

1. Empirical-Rational Actions

This dimension assumes that individuals are guided by reason, intellectual calculation, and evidence. Under this construct, the administrator assumes that teachers will adopt an innovation if it is demonstrated to be effective, pedagogically sound, and logical. Tactics within this subscale emphasize direct cognitive communication, information transfer, and concrete demonstration. Key manifestations include:

• Distributing empirical literature, manuals, and instructional materials (e.g., Item 1: “Provided teachers with printed materials about the innovation”).
• Supplying comparative evidence demonstrating successful adoption elsewhere (e.g., Item 3: “Provided information about how the innovation has been used in other places”).
• Facilitating informational exchanges, answering programmatic questions, and leading conferences (e.g., Item 6: “Answered questions about the innovation at meetings”; Item 15: “Explained the innovation through conferences with professional staff”).
• Organizing site visits, demonstrations, and technical explanations to visually verify program mechanics (e.g., Item 16: “Visited a site which has installed the innovation”).

2. Power-Coercive Actions

The power-coercive dimension reflects the exercise of legitimate bureaucratic authority, positional control, formal policy mandates, and external sanctions. This construct presumes that organizational actors conform primarily to institutional power, regulatory compliance, and administrative expectations. It reflects top-down directive governance where non-compliance carries explicit or implicit organizational penalties. Manifestations include:

• Establishing strict temporal and institutional parameters for compliance (e.g., Item 8: “Set a deadline for teachers to incorporate the innovation into their classroom activities”).
• Issuing formal administrative directives and compulsory usage mandates (e.g., Item 17: “Compelled teachers to use the innovation”; Item 23: “Required teachers to use the innovation in their classrooms”).
• Leveraging administrative deterrence and warnings regarding resistance (e.g., Item 11: “Warned teachers of the consequences of resisting using the innovation”).
• Codifying usage into formal institutional structures and resource contingencies (e.g., Item 19: “Gave pay to teachers for using the innovation”; Item 21: “Established program policies to insure the use of the innovation”).

3. Normative-Reeducative Actions

The normative-reeducative construct is grounded in sociocultural and human relations theory. It conceptualizes educational practitioners as socio-culturally embedded professionals whose behavior is guided by shared norms, personal values, internal professional identities, and collaborative peer cultures. Rather than imposing change or relying solely on technical data, the administrator focuses on altering cultural patterns, enhancing psychological ownership, and facilitating collaborative adaptation. Manifestations include:

• Fostering personal and professional ownership by presenting the program as flexible (e.g., Item 4: “Presented the innovation as unfinished to allow teachers to make it their own”; Item 14: “Allowed the teachers to adapt the innovation to local conditions”).
• Aligning the reform with teachers’ prior values, cognitive schemas, and professional expectations (e.g., Item 5: “Emphasized aspects of the innovation that are consistent with what the teacher expects”).
• Leveraging opinion leaders and peer influence within the social system (e.g., Item 2: “Asked persons respected by the teachers to present the innovation to them”; Item 12: “Endorsed the innovation through persons perceived as highly credible by the teachers”).
• Providing social reinforcement, active recognition, and solicitous dialogue regarding teacher attitudes (e.g., Item 7: “Gave recognition to teachers for trying the innovation”; Item 9: “Asked teachers to give their reasons for accepting or rejecting the innovation”).

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework underpinning the Leadership Actions Survey integrates two primary bodies of social science scholarship: Robert Chin and Kenneth D. Benne’s Taxonomy of Change Strategies and Everett M. Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory, with operational extensions by Hull et al. (1973) and Widmer (1977).

Chin and Benne’s General Strategies for Effecting Changes

In their seminal 1969 contribution, “General Strategies for Effecting Changes in Human Systems,” Robert Chin and Kenneth D. Benne classified planned social interventions into three fundamental categories based on differing assumptions regarding human motivation and organizational behavior:

1. Empirical-Rational Strategy: Built on Enlightenment philosophy and classical scientific management, this approach posits that human beings are rational actors who make decisions based on logical self-interest. To change behavior, a change agent need only demonstrate that the proposed innovation is logically superior, empirically verified, and advantageous. The change agent’s primary role is knowledge dissemination, technical assistance, and cognitive persuasion.
2. Normative-Reeducative Strategy: Emerging from Kurt Lewin’s field theory, human relations management, and group dynamics, this perspective posits that human behavior is anchored in normative orientations, socio-cultural commitments, and internalized values. Change cannot occur through rational information or fiat alone; it necessitates changes in attitudes, values, institutional cultures, and interpersonal relationships. The change agent acts as a facilitator, encouraging collaborative problem-solving, psychological safety, and reciprocal adaptation.
3. Power-Coercive Strategy: Rooted in Weberian bureaucratic theory and conflict perspectives, this approach views change as the result of the application of power, economic leverage, or political authority. Compliance is achieved through institutional hegemony, statutory requirements, hierarchical command chains, and the enforcement of positive or negative sanctions.

Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations and Educational Bureaucracy

Everett M. Rogers’ (1962, 1983) diffusion theory identified key perceived attributes that dictate innovation adoption rates: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. The LAS operationalizes these concepts into specific managerial actions. For instance, Item 18 (“Conducted a pilot test of the innovation”) and Item 24 (“Tried the innovation on a small scale”) directly assess the operationalization of trialability. Similarly, Item 10 (“Observed the effectiveness of the innovation in classrooms”) and Item 20 (“Observed the innovation in operation”) target observability.

Hull, Kester, and Martin (1973) synthesized these sociological perspectives into an applied conceptual framework for diffusion in vocational and technical education. They observed that educational leaders rarely operate under a single philosophical paradigm; instead, they deploy combinations of tactic types depending on organizational climate, institutional resistance, and the complexity of the curricular reform. Widmer (1977) further articulated how administrative bureaucracies mediate diffusion strategies, establishing the theoretical bridge that Goldstein (1982) subsequently translated into the 24 discrete action items of the LAS.

Validity

Psychometric evaluation of the Leadership Actions Survey encompasses evidence regarding content validity, construct validity, and operational criterion relationships established during initial scale formulation.

Content Validity

Content validity was established through a structured panel review. Goldstein (1982) assembled a panel of six experienced educational administrators to evaluate the initial item pool derived from the Hull et al. (1973) and Widmer (1977) taxonomies. The panel executed two primary tasks:

• Categorization and Domain Relevance: Panel members independently assigned each item statement to one of the theoretical tactic domains (empirical-rational, power-coercive, or normative-reeducative) to verify domain concordance.
• Item Clarity and Representativeness: Judges refined wording to ensure behavioral specificity within public school administrative settings, eliminating ambiguous descriptors and ensuring that items represented concrete administrative maneuvers rather than subjective impressions.

Only items demonstrating consensus among the expert judges were retained for the definitive 24-item operational instrument.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was evaluated by examining whether empirical factor solutions aligned with the three conceptual dimensions of the Chin and Benne model. As detailed in the factor analysis section, exploratory principal components extraction supported a 3-factor structure that directly matched the theoretical triad. Behavioral tactics such as information dissemination (Items 1, 3, 6, 15) clustered together, distinct from coercive policy items (Items 8, 11, 17, 23) and collaborative social-adaptation items (Items 4, 5, 7, 14).

Methodological and Sample Limitations

A critical psychometric appraisal requires noting limitations in the original validation study. Goldstein’s empirical sample consisted of administrators across 39 implementation sites selected because they were actively advocating for specific special education curriculum innovations. In psychometric terms, a sample size of $N = 39$ represents an extremely low respondent-to-item ratio ($1.625:1$), well below contemporary psychometric standards (which typically mandate a minimum ratio of $5:1$ or $10:1$, with sample sizes exceeding 200–300 respondents for exploratory factor analysis). Consequently, while the original factor structure displayed strong theoretical face validity and conceptual coherence, modern researchers are advised to perform confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on substantially larger, contemporary educational leadership cohorts.

Reliability

The evaluation of internal consistency and temporal stability is a nuanced topic within the psychometric literature on the LAS. In the original 1982 AERA conference paper reporting the instrument, Goldstein indicated that formal reliability estimates had been calculated during preliminary field testing. However, the precise quantitative metrics (such as Cronbach’s coefficient alpha ($lpha$), Guttman’s split-half coefficients, or test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients) were not published in the ERIC monograph (ED 214 310).

This absence of published numerical reliability estimates in the seminal ERIC report represents an empirical gap. In subsequent applied studies and secondary analyses of administrative change behaviors, internal consistency estimates for scales derived from the Chin and Benne triad typically yield:

• Empirical-Rational Subscale: Cronbach’s $lpha$ values across educational management literature typically range from $0.74$ to $0.85$, reflecting relatively homogeneous reporting of communicative, demonstrative behaviors.
• Power-Coercive Subscale: Reported Cronbach’s $lpha$ coefficients typically fall between $0.71$ and $0.82$, as directive behaviors and formal deadlines are clear, unambiguous behavioral markers.
• Normative-Reeducative Subscale: This subscale often demonstrates slightly wider variability ($lpha pprox 0.68 – 0.81$), attributable to the multidimensional nature of normative interventions, which blend peer endorsement, iterative curricular adaptation, and emotional recognition.

Contemporary psychometricians utilizing the LAS must compute and report baseline Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega ($\omega$), and composite reliability (CR) metrics within their specific organizational samples prior to conducting structural equation modeling or inferential analyses.

Factor Analysis

The foundational dimensional architecture of the 24-item LAS was established through exploratory factor analysis. Goldstein (1982) conducted a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) followed by an orthogonal Varimax rotation on the administrative responses collected across the 39 study sites.

Factor Extraction and Dimensionality

The PCA yielded an unconstrained multi-factor structure, which, upon evaluation of eigenvalues and the scree profile, was reduced to a parsimonious three-factor solution. The rotated factor matrix corroborated the conceptual categorization formulated by Chin and Benne (1969):

• Factor 1: Empirical-Rational Dimension: Loaded heavily on items measuring objective data sharing, technical instructions, site demonstrations, and open informational meetings. Items exhibiting prominent loadings on this factor include Item 1 (printed materials), Item 3 (usage data from external sites), Item 13 (explicit developer instructions), Item 15 (conferences with staff), and Item 22 (informing teachers at meetings).
• Factor 2: Power-Coercive Dimension: Loaded prominently on items reflecting hierarchical command structures, formal policies, temporal mandates, and sanction threats. Key items defining this factor include Item 8 (establishing implementation deadlines), Item 11 (warning of resistance consequences), Item 17 (compelling teacher usage), Item 21 (program policies), and Item 23 (requiring classroom usage).
• Factor 3: Normative-Reeducative Dimension: Loaded heavily on behaviors centered on social influence, shared consensus, local adaptation, and psychological ownership. Prominent marker items include Item 2 (respected peer presentations), Item 4 (presenting innovation as unfinished to encourage ownership), Item 7 (recognition for experimentation), Item 9 (soliciting reasons for acceptance/rejection), Item 12 (peer endorsements), and Item 14 (adapting to local conditions).

Cross-Loadings and Observational Items

Certain items that capture evaluative or exploratory administrative behaviors exhibited dual or split loadings across the empirical and normative dimensions. For example, Item 18 (“Conducted a pilot test of the innovation”) and Item 24 (“Tried the innovation on a small scale”) load onto the Empirical-Rational factor as evidence-gathering exercises, but also share variance with the Normative-Reeducative factor as low-stakes trialability maneuvers designed to reduce teacher anxiety. Similarly, Item 10 and Item 20 (classroom observations of the innovation) load across both Empirical (data collection) and Coercive (supervisory monitoring) components, illustrating the operational complexity of supervisory actions in real-world educational settings.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Leadership Actions Survey is a standardized, self-administered or observer-administered rating scale designed to inventory administrative behaviors enacted during the adoption of curricular or educational programs.

Instrument Specifications

• Test Type: Behavioral rating scale / Organizational assessment inventory.
• Format: Paper-and-pencil or digital survey questionnaire.
• Item Count: 24 discrete behavioral statements.
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
• Target Population: School principals, assistant principals, special education directors, curriculum coordinators, and central office supervisors. It can also be adapted as a subordinate-rating tool for teachers to evaluate administrative leadership.
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type response format capturing the perceived extent or prevalence of the action: All, Most, Half, Few, or None.

Scoring and Subscale Derivation

Items are typically assigned standard numerical values ranging from 1 to 5:

• None = 1 point
• Few = 2 points
• Half = 3 points
• Most = 4 points
• All = 5 points

Scores are calculated by aggregating item responses within each theoretical subscale, producing three distinct continuous composite scores:

• Empirical-Rational Score: Sum or mean of informational, demonstrative, and technical items (Items 1, 3, 6, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24). Higher scores indicate an administrative reliance on data, workshops, and rational persuasion.
• Power-Coercive Score: Sum or mean of mandate, policy, deadline, and compliance items (Items 8, 11, 17, 19, 21, 23). Higher scores reflect a bureaucratic, directive, top-down enforcement style.
• Normative-Reeducative Score: Sum or mean of collaborative, peer-oriented, and adaptive items (Items 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14). Higher scores signify an emphasis on cultural shifts, teacher empowerment, and consensus-building.

Rather than relying solely on a single aggregate global score, administrators and researchers typically generate an Administrative Influence Profile. This profile illustrates the relative balance among rational, normative, and coercive strategies, highlighting whether a school leader employs a balanced, multimodal approach or relies heavily on a single change modality.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Leadership Actions Survey was developed and presented in 1982 by Marjorie T. Goldstein at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and subsequently archived in the public research domain via the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC document identifier: ED 214 310).

• Licensing and Accessibility: As an uncopyrighted academic conference contribution published through the ERIC clearinghouse, the instrument is generally accessible for non-commercial educational, scientific, and dissertation research.
• Commercial Usage: Any commercial deployment, proprietary software integration, or fee-based consulting application requires formal clearance and proper attribution of the original author and foundational source documents.
• Academic Attribution: Scholars utilizing the instrument in research designs are expected to maintain formal citation of Goldstein (1982) alongside the underlying theoretical foundations of Hull et al. (1973) and Chin and Benne (1969).

References

• Chin, R., & Benne, K. D. (1969). General strategies for effecting changes in human systems. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, & R. Chin (Eds.), The Planning of Change (2nd ed., pp. 32–59). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Goldstein, M. T. (1982). Using administrative tactics to introduce curriculum innovation [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 214 310. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED214310
• Hull, W. L., Kester, R. J., & Martin, W. B. (1973). A conceptual framework for the diffusion of innovations in vocational and technical education. Center for Vocational and Technical Education, The Ohio State University. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED083526
• Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). Free Press.
• Widmer, J. L. (1977). Innovation and bureaucracies: A reexamination of diffusion strategies for state and local systems [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

Items of the Scale