Abstract
Using an interview guide, each superintendent was asked a number of questions concerning how he would gain board support in the critical situations of transferring a popular principal, changing attendance boundaries, and obtaining a personal salary increase. Participants were asked to categorize their responses into power-coercive, normative-reeducational, or rational-empirical strategies. Specific tactics in each of these categories were ranked according to the likelihood of their use. Superintendents were also asked to describe the path the recommendation would travel in order for it to gain support. These paths ranged from those which attempted to persuade influential board members to those which were presented in a straightforward fashion to the entire board. Finally, these participating superintendents were asked to describe the board and situational characteristics they considered prior to the influence attempt. The principal findings of this study included an overall preference for rational-empirical strategies of influence, while the normative-reeducational ranked second. Little preference was found for power-coercive strategies. Certain tactics within the normative-reeducative category were preferred in instances where a personal salary increase or a boundary change was recommended. Significant differences in tactical choices were found. This indicates that the three situations contained board and situational factors which determined the choice of specific tactics. It was found that board and situational factors were considered to a much greater degree in attempting to gain support for the transfer of a popular principal and for a personal salary increase than for a boundary change. The study produced numerous recommendations for managerial behavior. Among them are (1) effective influence and change strategies in the superintendency may not be the same as those in other administrative positions. The political influence activity which appears successful in the principalship may be destructive to a superintendent. (2) Board-superintendent relations are best protected in critical situations by reliable information given early. (3) Anticipation of future concerns within the context of current actions is preferred. (4) Knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the board is crucial to successful outcomes. (5) Visualization of the entire change process before the influence act begins is critical to successful attempts. (Abstract shortened with permission of author.).