Sample

The sample of chief vocational administrators who participated in this study was drawn from the larger sample of vocational educators who were part of the 1993 study to collect normative data and standards for the LAI (Moss et al., 1994b) and the LEI (Moss et al., 1994a). The selection of the original sample will be described, followed by a description of how the smaller sample of chief vocational administrators was identified.

National Sample of Vocational Educators

In order to collect national normative data on the LAI and the LEI, vocational educators with three different roles (each with an expectation that effective leadership should be provided) were used to form three purposive samples:

1. Chief Vocational Administrators (CVA). These were the chief line administrators in (1) specialized public secondary vocational institutions (e.g., principals, directors); and (2) both specialized and comprehensive public postsecondary institutions (e.g., presidents, directors, deans).
2. Vocational Department Heads (VDH). These were administrators/managers of clusters of vocational programs (e.g., department heads and coordinators in specialized public secondary vocational institutions, and both specialized and comprehensive public postsecondary institutions).
3. Vocational Teacher Leaders (VTL). These were professionals in non-administrative/management positions (e.g., teachers and counselors) who were viewed by their chief administrator and/or department head as particularly influential among their peers. Examples are teachers who held elective positions in faculty associations, professional organizations, or unions.

With the advice of consultants, a group of 12 states was selected from which the three samples were drawn. These states were deemed to have well-developed secondary and/or postsecondary vocational systems with relatively high proportions of minority teachers and administrators. Table 1 presents the total population of CVAs in each of the 12 states by type of institution. It is from this population that the sample of CVAs was selected for participation in this study.

All of the 329 CVAs in the 12 states were contacted by letter and then by telephone. The study and their role was explained, and their agreement to participate was solicited; 311 CVAs agreed to participate. Whether or not the CVAs agreed to participate, they were also asked to nominate three VDHs including (where possible) at least one member of a minority group and one female; and up to three VTLs, giving consideration to minorities and females whenever possible.

VDHs were then called and their participation in the study solicited. Minority VDHs were contacted whenever they had been nominated by CVAs. When no minority member had been nominated, or if the nominee declined to take part in the study, an attempt was made to randomly select an equal number of men and women to contact for the VDH sample. Two hundred eighty nine VDHs consented to take part in the study. During the interviews, VDHs were asked to provide the names of up to three VTLs, giving consideration to including minorities and females whenever possible.

Finally, VTLs were called and invited to be a part of the study. Minority members who had been nominated by either the CVA or VDH at a given institution were called first. If no minority member had been nominated, or if she or he refused to participate, individuals who had been named by both the CVA and the VDH were called. In lieu of joint nominees, an attempt was then made to randomly telephone an equal number of men and women. A total of 305 VTLs agreed to participate in the study.

Collecting the Normative Data

Each of the 905 persons who consented to take part in the norming and standards study was sent a packet of materials containing the following pieces:

• a cover letter explaining what they as ratees were being asked to do
• a form to collect demographic information about the ratee (participant)
• a form for the ratee to name the five persons who were to complete the LAI and the LEI as observer-raters
• five copies of the LAI rating-by-observer forms
• five copies of the LEI
• five copies of a cover letter
• envelopes (return addressed and postage paid) for completed forms to be sent back directly to the researchers

Directions to the participants stipulated that the LAI and LEI were to be given to five persons who "(a) Report to you either directly or indirectly (or in the event that you do not have five subordinates, they may be peers); (b) know you well at work; and (c) who, as far as possible, include females and persons from minority groups."

One follow-up was conducted with individuals who had agreed over the telephone to participate in the study, but who either had not returned completed forms containing demographic information, or who had fewer than three observer-raters return completed LAI and LEI instruments. (A minimum of three raters was considered essential for reliable ratings.) Most of the follow-ups were conducted by telephone; the remainder were sent letter reminders.

All of the completed LAIs were electronically screened for eligibility and then scored. To be eligible, the respondent had to report that she or he (1) knew the participant/ratee "very well" or "fairly well" (not "casually" or "not at all"); and (2) was a subordinate or peer (not a superior) of the ratee. The responses of ineligible raters were eliminated and if this reduced the number of eligible raters below three, the ratee was dropped from the sample. Table 2 summarizes the numbers of participants by each of the three samples at key stages of the data collection process.

The required number of completed LAI forms (at least three) were received from 77% of the individuals who had agreed over the telephone to participate in the study. After screening the completed LAI forms for eligibility, 61% of those who had agreed to participate remained in the three samples.

Selection of On-the-Job Interviewee Sample

From among the 220 CVAs who participated in the collection of normative and standard data for the LAI and the LEI, the 78 with the highest scores on the LEI were identified; that is, those who scored in the top one-third of their norm group. In a letter, the 78 CVAs were told their actual scores on the LEI, that they were in the top one-third of their norm group, and asked if they would be willing to be part of the current study to examine on-the-job experiences as a means for developing leadership capabilities. This letter was followed up by a phone call to determine if the CVA would be willing to participate in a telephone interview which was estimated to take approximately 30-45 minutes.

When CVAs agreed to participate in the study, they were told that they would be asked to describe two incidents that had the greatest impact on the development of their leadership capabilities. Since each person needed to have time to think about these two incidents, the interview was not carried out immediately. Rather, a time for the actual interview was scheduled for a later day, generally within the next two weeks. The initial phone call was followed up by a fax to confirm the interview date and time and restating the request for two critical incidents. A total of 69 CVAs agreed to participate in the telephone interviews and to relate at least two on-the-job incidents that affected their development as leaders. Table 3 presents the number of subjects by gender and type of employer.