Joannanewtongmu.weebly.com



Leadership for Change: The Role of Transformational Leadership in Educational ReformJoanna NewtonGeorge Mason UniversityAbstractTransformational leadership is characterized by its emphasis on facilitating principled change for the greater good. Leaders employing a transformational approach develop their followers’ capacity to impact change. Researchers have studied the influence of transformational leadership in educational reform of public schools. A review of empirical and case studies examining teachers’ perceptions of principals’ use of transformational leadership and its impact on teacher efficacy and motivation suggests that this approach may enable principals to engage teachers in the change process. Research also suggests that transformational leadership may facilitate reform by enabling principals to establish unifying visions, inspire teachers intellectually and provide them with emotional support. Research further suggests that teachers have low tolerance for ambiguity and prefer leadership that offers clearly delineated expectations. One conclusion is that an approach which integrates elements of transformational and transactional leadership may provide teachers with the optimum balance of engagement and support to initiate change. Transformational leadership is a process in which leaders engage with followers on both cognitive and emotional levels to impact positive change. Transformational leaders are motivated by moral purpose and a desire to achieve change that will benefit the greater good (Northouse, 2013; Fullan, 2002; Sergiovanni, 1990; Bass, 1990). Moreover, by engaging them as problem solvers, transformational leaders offer followers intellectual stimulation (Northouse; Fullan). They also meet followers’ emotional need to connect with others around a shared moral purpose (Sergiovanni). Ultimately, this cognitive and emotional engagement enables transformational leaders to use power to facilitate change through others (Leithwood, 1992). A growing body of research suggests that transformational leadership may be an effective way to support teachers as they make changes in their practice (Friedman, 2004; Fullan, 2002; Leithwood, 1992; Poplin, 1992; Sergiovanni, 1990). An examination of the research on the impact of transformational leadership in educational reform, however, reveals mixed conclusions. While some studies suggest that a transformational approach enables principals to establish unifying visions and goals (Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Geijsel, Sleegers, van den Berg & Kelchtermans, 2001; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood, 1994), not all empirical evidence supports this claim (Thoonen, Sleegers, Oort, Peetsma & Geijsel, 2011). Similarly, although there is some evidence that transformational leadership positively impacts teachers’ need to be intellectually stimulated (Leithwood & Sun; Thoonen et. al.; Olsen & Chrispeels, 2009; Ross & Gray, 2006; Friedman, 2004; Geijsel et. al.; Leithwood) and emotionally supported (Thoonen et. al. 2011; Olsen & Chrispeels; Ross & Gray; Geijsel et. al.; Leithwood), there is also evidence that suggests leaders should temper their use of these dimensions (Nguni, Sleeger & Denessen, 2006). The variance of findings implies that an integrated leadership approach which uses both transformational and transactional styles may be the most effective way to support teachers during the change process (Leithwood & Sun 2012; Thoonen et. al. 2011; Nguni et. al, 2006; Geijsel et. al. 2001).Review of Professional LiteratureAlthough transformational leadership was initially conceptualized by Burns (1978), it was first explored in school settings by Leithwood (Shields 2010, Ross & Gray, 2006). Leithwood (1999) defined transformational leadership in education as leadership characterized by six dimensions: 1) creating a unifying vision with supporting goals; 2) providing intellectual stimulation; 3) offering emotional support; 4) modeling professional practice; 5) establishing performance expectations and; 6) creating structures that encourage participation in school decisions (Leithwood). A review of the research exploring the impact of transformational leadership in schools reveals that it may be influential in three of Leithwood’s six dimensions: 1) vision and goal setting (Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Geijsel et. al., 2001; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood, 1994); 2) intellectual stimulation (Leithwood & Sun; Thoonen et. al.2011; Olsen & Chrispeels, 2009; Ross & Gray, 2006; Friedman, 2004; Geijsel et. al.; Leithwood) and; 3) individualized emotional support (Thoonen et. al. 2011; Olsen & Chrispeels; Ross & Gray; Geijsel et. al.; Leithwood). There is no consensus, however, among researchers about the role or nature of any of these characteristics (Nguni et.al., 2006). Vision and GoalsSupporting evidenceLeithwood and Sun (2012) defined vision as leaders’ ability to both articulate and unify followers around shared long-term goals. Effective transformational leaders articulate long-term objectives and establish attainable, short-term goals (Leithwood & Sun). In a meta-analysis of 79 unpublished theses and doctoral studies examining transformational leadership and its impact on teachers, Leithwood and Sun found that transformational leadership practices strongly impacted principals’ ability to envision long-term objectives. Moreover, when principals coupled their visions with well outlined short-term goals they positively impacted teachers’ willingness to make changes to their instructional practices (Leithwood & Sun). Leithwood and Sun’s (2012) conclusions are further supported by Hallinger and Heck’s (1996) review of 40 empirical studies investigating the role of transformational leadership in schools. In fact, Hallinger and Heck found that setting clear purposes and goals was the single variable that consistently impacted principal leadership across all 40 studies, making it the most important indicator of principals’ successful leadership. Geijsel et al. (2001) corroborate Hallinger and Heck’s (1996) conclusion. Geijsel et al. studied 1, 475 teachers in Dutch agricultural schools at both high school and university levels. While there was disparity in the school settings, all teachers in the study implemented large scale government mandated reform initiatives. Participants completed questionnaires in which they reflected on how principals’ leadership styles influenced the change process. Responses revealed that transformational leadership effectively contributed to vision and goal setting, as long as leaders clearly defined the vision and the goals by which to achieve it (Geijsel et al.). Additionally, many respondents reported that vague vision statements provided little guidance as to how to achieve long-term objectives. In fact, vision expressed in this manner increased feelings of uncertainty which in turn decreased motivation (Geijsel et al., 2001). Contradictory evidenceNot all research, however, supports the impact of vision on teacher motivation (Thoonen et. al., 2011). Thoonen et. al. surveyed 502 elementary teachers in the Netherlands to examine the impact of transformational leadership practices on teacher motivation. Like Geijsel et. al., (2001) they found that teachers reported greater feelings of efficacy and motivation when school leaders clearly identified vision and goals. Surprisingly, however, they also discovered that when teachers did not feel included in the vision building process they were less likely to be engaged in their work. This negatively impacted their involvement and motivation. Teachers reported that they did not feel responsible for working towards a vision which they did not co-construct (Thoonen et. al). The results of Thoonen et. al.’s (2011) study serve as a warning to school leaders: clearly defined vision and goals are necessary for effective leadership; however, including teachers in the process of establishing the vision and goals may be just as important. Intellectual StimulationSupporting evidenceThoonen et. al.’s (2011) findings that teachers need to be engaged in their work is further supported by research that reveals teachers are more likely to implement changes in instructional practices when they are intellectually stimulated (Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Thoonen et. al., 2011; Olsen & Chrispeels, 2009; Ross & Gray, 2006; Friedman, 2004; Geijsel et. al., 2001; Leithwood, 1994). In their meta-analysis, Leithwood and Sun (2012) reported that providing teachers with intellectual stimulation is second in importance only to vision and goal setting at impacting teachers’ willingness to initiate change. This finding is corroborated by Olsen and Chrispeels’ (2009) case study of one principal’s use of transformational leadership in a California middle school. Olsen and Chrispeels studied how the principal successfully motivated teachers to implement changes to their daily schedule. By using a combination of school visits, observations of team meetings and interviews with teachers, the researchers found that the principal engaged teachers intellectually through collaborative meetings. At those meetings teachers were able to work together and problem solve issues that negatively impacted instructional time (Olsen & Chrispeels). Several teachers in the study noted that the principal’s ability to engage them as learners was key to his successful implementation of new initiatives. Specifically noted were the use of data and research to help teachers understand issues impacting the school. Teachers also identified the risk-free environment established in team meetings and consensus-building efforts used by the principal (Olsen & Chrispeels, 2009). The value of intellectual stimulation is also echoed by Friedman (2004). Friedman reported on a case study documenting how principals in an urban United States high school employed dimensions of transformational leadership to impact changes to instructional practices. Researchers collected observations of team meetings, interviews with teachers and administrators and assessment data over a four year period. To engage teachers in the reform process, school leaders invited them to share favorite instructional practices from their classrooms at team meetings. Friedman (2004) reported that more than 80% of the teachers shared “promising practices” (p. 217). She reported that this strategy opened new pathways of communication for teachers and led to increased intellectual curiosity. As a result of the emphasis on shared learning, teachers began to view themselves as learners and eventually identified areas of practice which they wanted to improve (Friedman). By engaging teachers intellectually, then, the principal achieved desired reforms in instructional practice (Friedman). The influence of intellectual stimulation in both case studies exemplifies Leithwood’s (1992) concept of facilitative power. By engaging teachers intellectually as collaborators and problem solvers, the principals built teachers’ capacity to initiate change. The principals used their power to bring about change through the teachers, not over them.Contradictory evidenceSurprisingly, in a study of 560 primary school teachers in Tanzania, Nguni et. al.(2006) found that intellectual stimulation negatively impacted teachers. Participants completed questionnaires about how transformational leadership influenced job satisfaction and commitment to organizational goals. Responses revealed that intellectual stimulation increased feelings of uncertainty, which in turn diminished job satisfaction. This alienated teachers from organizational goals (Nguni et. al.). Specifically, teachers expressed dissatisfaction with processes which required frequent revision of teaching methods (Nguni et. al). Rather than fostering an environment in which teachers felt motivated to try new methods, principals unintentionally fostered feelings that no teaching practice was ever adequate (Nguni et. al.). Another unintended negative consequence of overemphasis on intellectual stimulation may be that it causes teachers to view principals as unpredictable and untrustworthy (Nguni et. al., 2006). Nguni et. al. discovered that principals who placed too much emphasis on intellectual engagement appeared inconsistent. Teachers felt that such principals could not be relied to commit to decisions (Nguni et. al.). This undermined teachers’ confidence in their administration, resulting in increased resistance to change. Nguni et. al.’s (2006) findings serve as a reminder to educational leaders about the need for structured support. In order to be effective, transformational leaders must support teachers’ intellectual growth while simultaneously providing guidance. One way for transformational principals to achieve this balance may be to engage with teachers as individuals (Olsen & Chrispeels, 2009; Ross & Gray, 2006). Individualized Emotional SupportSupporting evidence Instructional change is couched in turbulence (Geijsel et. al, 2001). As a result of the negatively charged nature of many reform initiatives, teachers may feel uncertain about their ability to positively impact student achievement (Geijsel et. al.). Teachers who feel uncertain may be more likely to maintain existing attitudes, work in isolation, use routine practices and avoid risks (Thooonen et. al., 2011). These external pressures produce emotional stress for teachers as they are faced with an onslaught of ever-changing methods and negative public perception of their ability (Geijsel et. al.). Pressure to comply with reform initiatives may also increase anxiety (Thoonen et., al, 2011; Geijsel et. al., 2001; Leithwood, 1994). Leithwood studied teachers in seven schools in the United Kingdom as they restructured to satisfy government mandates. Teachers reported that they often implemented new practices chiefly from fear of negative repercussions (Leithwood). In addition, teachers reported that they hesitated to seek help when needed, expressing fear that others would view them as ineffective (Leithwood). Principals who employ a transformational approach may be able to provide emotional support that can decrease anxiety and increase teacher efficacy (Thoonen et. al., 2011; Olsen & Chrispeels, 2009; Ross and Gray, 2006). Emotional support consists of two dimensions: 1) building relationships with followers as individuals and 2) providing coaching. In a case study of how one principal used a transformational approach to facilitate change, Olsen and Chrispeels (2009) found that fostering individual relationships with teachers was integral to his success. In interviews, teachers commented on the principal’s “open door” policy which made them feel cared for and respected (Olsen & Chrispeels). As a result, anxiety dissipated and teachers felt motivated to make changes. One teacher commented,…you can go in there [principal’s office] and still come out feeling like a person, which hasn’t always happened in previous years…You’re not going to get a dressing down for asking a ridiculous question or for having a crazy idea or for disagreeing, or for whatever you go in there for. (p. 394).Ross and Gray (2006) also found that principals’ ability to support teachers emotionally is important. Ross and Gray studied 3,074 teachers in Canada to learn how leadership styles impacted teacher efficacy (i.e., teachers’ beliefs about their ability to influence student learning). They discovered that schools in which principals used a transformational approach had higher reports of teacher efficacy than schools in which the principal did not use a transformational approach. One of the key behaviors which contributed to increased efficacy was the principals’ willingness to offer frequent, positive feedback about job performance. Principals who personally acknowledged teachers’ success had faculty who reported feeling better about their job performance. As a result, teachers expressed greater confidence in their ability to implement new methods when required. Ross and Gray (2006) also found that when teachers were coached through the change process their sense of efficacy increased. Specifically, Ross and Gray examined how principals approached the use of student achievement data, a topic which can frequently produce anxiety in teachers. They discovered that when principals used data to measure success, rather than failure, teachers felt increased motivation to work towards common goals (Ross & Gray). Furthermore, when the principal used data to recognize areas of their professional strength, teachers were more likely to identify and work to improve their areas of weaknesses (Ross & Gray, 2006). In this way, transformational principals used data to motivate teachers to implement change. Rather than being used punitively, student achievement data became an impetus motivating teachers to improve their practice. By recognizing strengths and caring for teachers emotionally, transformational principals increased teacher efficacy and their willingness to implement reform initiatives (Thoonen et. al. 2011; Olsen & Chrispeels 2009; Ross and Gray, 2006). Contradictory evidenceProviding emotional support, however, can also have negative and unintended consequences (Nguni et. al., 2006). In their study of teachers in Tanzanian elementary schools, Nguni et. al. found that teachers reported decreased motivation to implement changes in their practice when they felt supported emotionally. This led Nguni et. al. to conclude that the use of emotional support should be tempered as it may easily be misinterpreted as tacit support for poor teaching practices. Consequently, just as when offering vision and opportunities for intellectual stimulation, transformational leaders must also conduct a metaphorical balancing act when offering teachers emotional support. Too much support can be misconstrued as their endorsement and acceptance of poor practice (Nguni et. al.). Inadequate support, however, can lead to anxiety and stress, making improvements in teachers’ practice all the more difficult to achieve (Thoonen et. al. 2011; Olsen and Chrispeels, 2009; Ross and Gray, 2006; Geijsel et. al. 2001;Leithwood, 1994). DiscussionResearch examining the role of transformational leadership in educational reform reveals the complexity of both leadership and the change process. While researchers have identified some areas in which transformational leadership may be effective, contradictory evidence makes it difficult to make definitive conclusions about its influence on educational reform. It is important to note, however, that the lack of consensus may be due in part to the varying socio-cultural contexts in which the studies were conducted. This factor further underscores the complex nature of teaching and learning in which leadership and change occur.Despite inconclusive findings, the research literature has agreed on three broad factors which negatively impact teachers: 1) ambiguous goals (Thoonen et. al. 2011); 2) exclusion from the decision making process (Thoonen et. al.) and; 3) emotional stress (Thoonen et. al; Geijsel et. al., 2001; Leithwood, 1994). These findings have valuable implications for how principals can effectively navigate the change process with teachers. Context of the ResearchResearch examining the role of transformational leadership in educational reform has been conducted in a wide variety of school contexts, ranging from elementary schools (Thoonen et. al. 2011; Nguni et. al, 2006;) to universities (Geijsel et. al. 2001). In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the research has been conducted in a wide range of socio-cultural contexts, including the United States (Olsen & Chrispeels, 2009; Friedman, 2004), Canada (Ross & Gray, 2006), the Netherlands (Thoonen et. al.) and Tanzania (Nguni, 2006). As noted earlier, this may account for some of the inconsistency in the research, especially since different cultures hold different expectations of leadership (Northouse, 2013). Given the differing contexts in which the research was conducted, it is difficult to determine if variance in results is a reflection on transformational leadership itself or the result of cultural preferences for leadership. More research is needed within a singular cultural context to determine the impact of transformational leadership within specific socio-cultural domains. The research is further complicated by nebulous definitions, among them the lack of a unitary definition of “reform.” While several studies allude to government mandated reform initiatives (Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Thoonen et. al., 2011; Geijsel et. al. 2001; Ross and Gray, 2006; Nguni, 2006; Friedman, 2004), few delineate the specific elements of that reform. This, in turn, makes it difficult to determine how principals can successfully initiate it; without knowing what is being reformed, it is difficult to determine when, or if, reform has been successfully accomplished. This ambiguity may further contribute to the diverse conclusions in the research literature. A uniform definition of reform, one that presents a clear description of what constitutes the reform being studied, may help to clarify the constructs by which “successful reform” is measured. An Integrated Approach A surprising and critically important finding in the existing research is that teachers have a low tolerance for ambiguity (Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Thoonen et. al. 2011; Nguni, 2006; Ross & Gray, 2006; Geijsel, 2001; Leithwood, 1994). This finding has important implications for principals: teachers want clearly defined expectations and goals. For this reason transformational leaders may be more likely to impact positive change by including some elements of transactional leadership (Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Thoonen et. al. 2011; Nguni, 2006; Geijsel, 2001). Aspects of transactional leadership which may be beneficial, for example, include setting clear expectations, establishing responsibilities and providing recognition for successful performance (Nguni et. al. 2006). These aspects of transactional leadership may reduce ambiguity and help teachers feel emotionally supported, making the change process easier for them to navigate. ConclusionWhile research has been unable to definitively prove the value of transformational leadership in educational reform, it does offer valuable insights about how principals can best support teachers during the change process. The research is particularly valuable in providing insights about how teachers experience reform and how principals may be able to use their power to assist teachers as they navigate the change process. Specifically, by combining elements of transactional and transformational leadership, principals may be able to provide a supportive structure while still engaging teachers both cognitively and emotionally. Certainly more research is needed to explore how transformational principals can apply elements of transactional leadership to motivate and support teachers as they become agents of change. ReferencesBass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31. Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.Friedman, A.A. (2004). Beyond mediocrity: Transformational leadership within a transactional framework. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(3), 203-224.Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8) 16-20. Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., van den Berg, R. & Kelchtermans, G. (2001). Conditions fostering the implementation of large-scales innovation programs in schools: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 130-166.Hallinger, P. & Heck, H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191. Leithwood, K. & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387-423. Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518. Leithwood, K. A. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 49(5). 8-12Nguni, S., Sleegers, P. & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzania case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 145-177.Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice. (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Olsen, E. & Chrispeels, J. (2009). A pathway forward to school change: Leading together and achieving goals. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8, 380-419. Poplin, M.S. (1992). The leader’s new role: Looking to the growth of teachers. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 10-11.Ross, J. & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 179-199.Sergiovanni, T.J. (1990). Adding value to leadership gets extraordinary results. Educational Leadership, 47(8) 23-27.Shields, C. (2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 558-589. Thoonen, E., Sleegers, P., Oort, F., Peetsma, T. & Geijsel, F. (2011). How to improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors and leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly 47(3), 496-536. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download