As Hoy asserts, an “astute administrator draws on both strategies to change the climate of the school” (Hoy & Miskel, 2013, pg. 225). In this case, the clinical strategy started with the administration of the OHI survey. The process of diagnosing—which in this case we see a great discrepancy in the principal influence score—would occur after the analysis of scoring takes place. The next step, prognosis, would occur after sharing the results with the staff. Having the lens of the staff would be critical in the principal’s next steps on how to move forward. In this case we are looking for a prescription to the principal influence score. Knowing that the principal influence directly refers to the principal’s ability to affect the action of superiors in an influential way and works successfully with the superintendent to benefit teachers, the principal can look more closely at the individual questions of respondents to find root causes (Hoy & Miskel, 2013, pg. 215). The question now centers on whether staff believe that principal is unable to receive what they need from their superiors or whether the actions of the superiors impede the principal’s role in the …show more content…
224). If the staff is focused on changing the environment for the better, change will likely occur if proper direction and progress are implemented. As Hoy asserts, if assumptions are acted upon it “leads to increased opportunities for professional development,” (Hoy & Miskel, 2013, pg. 224). In this case, staff could find opportunities and solutions to solving the principal influence score by determining the causes and working together towards a solution. This would provide additional opportunities for individual development for involved