Superintendents
working in a rural district according to Hill,  P. must adjust to “living in a fish bowl”
politics. Hill, P (2015) reviews in his case study cost benefit analysis, the
giving of donations to the community, attending sporting events, pillow talk,
and school disciplinehiring issues. A secondary analysis evaluates the
leadership and exercise of political skill recorded by researches being used by
rural superintendents. The researchers used interviews and first hand
observations to document the interactions and decision rendered by
superintendents. This was a type of ethnographic research study it.).  Findings from the case study suggest the successful;
superintendent of a small, rural school district must possess high-end
political skills. Earning the trust and respect of staff and community,
identify which situations require immediate attention versus the whirlwind of
the tyranny of the urgent. This must be accomplished with scarce resources and
minimal district office personnel, who often must fill multiple positions.

Many
time there are external pressures from community stakeholders that rural
superintendents serve a uniquely public and high-profile role (Arnold, Newman,
Gaddy, & Dean, 2005; Lamkin, 2006; Theobald, 2005). That is, their job
requires close-knit relationships among community stakeholders (Lamkin, 2006).
Researchers have also posited that external pressures from community
stakeholders may increase the incidence of push-induced superintendent turnover
(Alsbury, 2003; Glass et al., 2000; Hodges, 2005). To some extent, this trend
may be due to community stakeholders’ attempts to influence how a superintendent
manages his or her school district. As Campbell (2001) explained, community
stakeholders, special interest groups, and the pressures that they exert can
complicate a superintendent’s ability to direct the administrative operations
of a school district. Therefore, superintendents who are skilled in responding
to community and political pressures—with an aim toward mutually beneficial
outcomes—might be more likely to avoid a push-induced departure. A
superintendent who does not display the ability to adequately manage the
diverse demands of community stakeholders will be at risk of involuntary
departure; discontented community stakeholders may exercise their political
will on the school board to remove the superintendent from office (Alsbury,
2003). As Fullan (1998) suggested, a degree of dissatisfaction will always
exist among community stakeholders with respect to a superintendent’s
leadership and performance. One way a superintendent can minimize the
possibility of an involuntary departure, however, is to foster an environment
of connectivity between the community and school district, as well as to be an
active participant in the community and community civic functions (Kowalski,
1995, 2006).