The question of what leadership is has been the focus of research studies for decades (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2006, p. 294). However, there is no single definition of leadership that all scholars agree upon (Bennis, 2007, p. 2; Thomas & Thomas, 2011, p. 530), and the meaning of leadership is changing (Price, 2006, p. 33). Scholars are in agreement though that the meaning of leadership is ambiguous (Pfeffer, 1977, in Bass, 1990, p. 11; Janda, 1960, in Yukl, 2002). There are four reasons for this ambiguity. One reason is that the term â€•leadershipâ€- is considered a common word incorporated into the technical vocabulary of a scientific discipline but imprecisely redefined (Janda,1960, in Yukl, 2002). A second reason for this perceived ambiguity is the use of imprecise terms such as authority, power, supervision, administration, management, and control to depict the same phenomena (Yukl, 2002). A third reason is that there are overlapping meanings of leadership. A final reason for ambiguity is that there are as many definitions of leadership as people who comment on the term leadership (Bass, 1990, p. 11). This is supported by Daft and Pirola-Merlo (2009, p. 4) who argue that there have been more than 350 definitions of leadership offered by scholars and writers, and Sims Jr, Faraj, and Yun (2009, p. 150) who observe that although there are hundreds of definitions of leadership, there is no single description that can completely encompass the concept of leadership. Daft (2005) argues that leadership research has evolved over time and will continue to do so, thus expanding the already long list of leadership definitions.
Below are some definitions of leadership over time, including the difference between leadership and management.
Bass (1990) defines leadership as: the focus group process, a matter of personality, a matter of inducing compliance, the exercise of influence, particular behaviours, a form of persuasion, a power relation, an instrument to achieve goals, an effect of interaction, a differential role, initiation of structure, and many combinations of these definitions. While, Yukl (2002, p. 3) cited nine representative definitions of leadership over time to show the development of the concept (see Figure 2.2-1).
Leadership is â€•the behaviour of an individual â€¦directing the activities of a group toward a shared goalâ€- (Hemphill & Coons, 1957, p. 7).
2. Leadership is â€•the influential increment over and above mechanical compliance with the routine directives of the organizationâ€- ( D. Katz & Kahn, 1978, p. 528)
3. â€•Leadership is exercised when persons â€¦ mobilize â€¦institutional, political, psychological, and other resources so as to arouse, engage, and satisfy the motives of followersâ€- (Burns, 1978, p. 18)
4. â€•Leadership is â€•the process of influencing the activities of an organized group toward goal achievementâ€- (Rauch & Behling, 1984, p. 46).
5. â€•Leadership is a process of giving purpose (meaningful direction) to collective effort, and causing willing effort to be expended to achieve purposeâ€- (Jacobs & Jaques, 1990, p. 281).
6. Leadership â€•is the ability to step outside the culture â€¦ to start evolutionary change processes that are more adaptiveâ€- (E.H. Schein, 1992, p. 2).
7. â€•Leadership is the process of making sense of what people are doing together so that people will understand and be committedâ€- (Drath & Palus, 1994, p. 4).
8. â€•Leadership is about articulating visions, embodying values, and creating the environment within which things can be accomplishedâ€- (Richards & Engle, 1986, p. 206).
9. Leadership is â€•the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organization â€¦(House et al., 1999, p. 184).
Figure 2.2-1 Definitions of leadership over the past 50 years
Source: (Yukl, 2002, p. 3)
Figure 2.2-1 shows that there has been no single agreed-upon definition of leadership in over five decades. However, in general, these definitions suggest three important components of leadership: the leader, the followers, and the goal.
More current definitions are provided here from three scholars. According to Robbins (2005) in Bodla & Nawaz (2010, p. 371), leadership is a process of influencing a group towards the achievements of goals and a leader is someone who can influence others and who has managerial authority. Leaders who are considered successful are those who can adjust their behaviours in accordance with the requirements of the organisation or according to the demand of the situation that prevails. This definition emphasises a process of influencing followers by the leaders to achieve goals. While, according to Boseman (2008, p. 36), leadership is the act of stimulating, engaging, and satisfying the motives of followers that result in the followers taking a course of action toward a mutually shared vision. Vugt et al. (2008, pp. 182-183) define leadership broadly as influencing individuals to contribute to group goals and coordinating the pursuit of those goals. This definition emphasises four important components of leadership: influence, coordination, followers, and group goals. The variety of definitions of leadership above suggests that no agreed-upon definition of leadership has yet been achieved.
In terms of what the â€•rightâ€- definition of leadership is, Bass (1990) argues that â€•the search for the one and only proper and true definition of leadership seems to be fruitless, since the appropriate choice of definition should depend on the methodological and substantive aspects of leadership in which one is interested,â€- and the definition can be used to suit purposes. This thesis is concerned with leadership behaviour, particularly principal leadership styles; therefore, the definition of leadership by Daft (2005, p. 5) and Daft and Pirola-Merlo (2009, p. 4) has been adopted-â€•Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes and outcomes that reflect their shared purposes.â€- It is seen that leadership involves leader, influence, change, purpose, intention, personal responsibility and integrity, and followers. The influence happens among people who want significant changes that reflect purposes shared by leaders and followers.
In conclusion, no single definition of leadership is agreed to in the literature. However, leadership is an influence process (Vroom & Jago, 2007; Yukl, 2002), there is no â€•correctâ€- leadership definition, it is only a matter of how useful it is for increasing our understanding of effective leadership (Yukl, 2002, p. 19), to exercise leadership. A leader has one or more followers-one cannot be leading if no one is following, and there must be a leader, influence, and followers in pursuit of goals (Vroom & Jago, 2007, p. 17; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2008, p. 136). Therefore, an organisation today is well advised to update its definition of leadership to keep pace with the nature of leadership challenges to do the right things (Price, 2006, p. 33).
The importance of leadership, the lack of studies of leadership in the Asian context, and the absence of agreed-upon definition of leadership suggest more studies of leadership in various disciplines and areas should be a focus of researchers. This issue provides additional justification for this study.
Distinct concepts of leadership may result in different approaches. The next section explores major theory approaches to leadership.
2.2.2 Leadership - The organizational brain
Leadership is important in organisations. Bennis (2007, p. 2) argues that the study of leadership is the most important and urgent subject because â€•leadership always matters and it has never mattered more than it does now.Further, he asserts that there are four major threats to world stability today:
(1) a nuclear or biological catastrophe, whether deliberate or accidental,
(2) a world-wide epidemic,
(3) tribalism and its cruel offspring and assimilation, and
(4) lack of effective leadership.
Solving the first three problems will be impossible without exemplary leadership. Exemplary leaders have six competencies:
(1) creating a sense of mission,
(2)motivating others to join them on that mission,
(3) creating an adaptive social architecture for their followers,
(4) generating trust and optimism,
(5) developing other leaders, and
(6) getting results (Bennis, 2007, p. 5).
The importance of leadership is supported by Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser (2008, p. 182) who affirm that leadership seems not to matter during times of peace and prosperity. However, leadership becomes a matter of life and death when business leaders gamble with people's life savings, when religious leaders create violent sectarian divides, and when politicians start wars.
Thomas & Kearney (2010, p. 8) support that leadership matters at all levels. Price (2006, p. 33) argues that an organisation needs to assess which level needs to develop leaders most: at the frontline manager level, in the senior leadership team, or somewhere in between. Furthermore, Price noted that smart companies get the highest return either by identifying which level of leadership will produce the greatest return or by investing in a systemic approach for developing the entire leadership pipeline.
As leadership is important, identifying and developing effective leadership behavior continues to be important to organisations (Manning & Robertson, 2011, p. 88). Therefore, although leadership research has been a focus of researchers for more than two decades, it has recently expanded as a field of research and has been recognized by scholars as a topic worth research and recognition (Bodla & Nawaz, 2010, p.370). This is supported by Daft and Pirola-Merlo (2009, p. 4) who argue that leadership is one of the most observed subjects. In academic journals, in-depth articles typically address one aspect of leadership (Boseman, 2008, p. 36) because leadership is arguably the most important subject in the social sciences and an unavoidable theme in society (Vugt et al., 2008, p. 182) and one of the least understood subjects (Daft & Pirola-Merlo, 2009, p. 4). However, with effective leadership, people will have a better chance. â€•The noble hope of advancing the empirical and theoretical foundation of leadership-after all, we are all Pelagians at heart-could influence the course of leadership and, eventually, the quality and health of our livesâ€- (Bennis, 2007, p. 5).
Despite the long history of leadership research, Bennis (2007, p. 5) observes that after studying leadership for six decades, he is struck by how small the body of knowledge is. In particular, the body of knowledge of leadership in the Asian context is extremely little. Studying leadership will expand this knowledge base. This thesis examines leadership styles in association with decision-making styles and teacher job satisfaction in an Indonesian school context.
184.108.40.206 FRL Elements
The FRL approach consists of three leadership styles: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire. These three leadership styles are outlined below.
2.3 Leadership theory approach
2.4 Leadership styles
Democratic and autocratic leadership style
The FRL approach consists of three leadership styles: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire. These three leadership styles are outlined below.
2.4.1 Laissez-Faire Style
The term laissez-faire is taken from the French phrase and means a â€•hands-offâ€-, â€•let things-rideâ€- approach which represents the absence of transactional leadership. A laissez-faire leader avoids making decisions, gives no feedbacks, abdicates responsibility, makes little effort to help subordinates satisfy their needs and does not use their authority. Laissez-faire is the most passive and ineffective form of leadership (Antonakis et al., 2003; Northouse, 2007).
Laissez-faire leadership is considered non-leadership. An example of laissez-faire leadership would be a manager in a small company who is not concerned about what his/her followers do to achieve the company goals-he/she just lets them work the way they like without giving feedback, does not care whether the followers do something or do nothing or even who does something and who does nothing. When the followers do something, the laissez-faire leader does not emphasise results; he/she is not aware of his/her followers' performance (Northouse, 2007).
2.4.2 Transactional Style
2) Transactional Leadership Style
Transactional leadership refers to an exchange process between a leader and his/her followers based on job descriptions to complete clear and specific goals. When the responsibilities or requirements are successfully completed, the leader gives his/her followers a reward in return, yet disciplines them when the followers deviate from the standard (Antonakis et al., 2003; Bryant, 2003). In transactional leadership, a leader and followers commit to a transaction for a reward. Completing the requirements of a task equals completing the transaction (Bromley & Kirschner- Bromley, 2007). The leader rewards or disciplines the followers depending on the adequacy of the followers' performance.
Transactional leadership comprises the following dimensions:
(a) contingent reward,
(b) management-by-exception (active), and
(c) management-by-exception (passive).
Contingent reward refers to a constructive and positive transaction involving directed, consultative or negotiated agreements between leaders and followers about objectives and/or task requirements. The leader promises and/or provides suitable rewards and recognition if followers achieve the objectives or execute the set tasks as required (Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996). The rewards can include non-financial incentives such as recognition, praise, extra holiday time, and time off. Management-by-exception active (i.e. active corrective transactions) refers to the active intervention of a leader by monitoring the tasks being performed and using corrective methods to ensure that accepted standards are met. Last, management-by-exception passive (i.e. passive corrective transactions) refers to the passive intervention of a leader; the leader only intervenes after non-compliance has happened or when mistakes have already happened. The leader exhibits correction as a response to deviated performance to improve his/her subordinate behaviours (Antonakis et al., 2003).
2.4. 3 Transformational Style
Transformational Leadership Style
The term transformational leadership, which changes and transforms people as implied in its name, was initially coined by Downton in 1973, and introduced by James McGregor Burns in his book Leadership in 1978. In 1985, the model was developed and refined by Bass until it reached the form enjoying popularity nowadays (Molero, Cuadrado, Navas, & Morales, 2007). The popularity of the transformational leadership style, which is categorised under the new leadership paradigm and emphasises the charismatic and affective elements of leadership, might have resulted from its focus on intrinsic motivation and subordinate development as well as its relevance to current needs in chaotic business environment (Northouse, 2007). According to Burns (1978) in Northouse (2007, p. 179), transactional leadership is different from transformational leadership. Transactional leadership includes many aspects of leadership, concentrating on the transaction between leaders and their subordinates. In contrast, transformational leadership refers to â€•the process whereby a person engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower.â€- For instance, a manager who practises transformational leadership attempts to change his/her corporate values to reflect a more human standard of fairness and justice. Simply, transformational leaders are concerned about what you can do for your country; in contrast, transactional leaders are more focused on what your country can do for you (Bass, 1999).
Conceptually, a transformational leader refers to someone who stimulates his/her subordinates to alter their beliefs, capabilities, values, and motives to result in congruency between their personal goals and interests with organisational aims (Burns, 1978 in Bass, 1985).
Transformational leadership theoretically includes four key dimensions, known as the Four I's, reflecting four kinds of behaviours which may not be exhibited entirely at once:
(1) charismatic leadership or idealised influence (attribute),
(2) inspirational motivation,
(3) intellectual stimulation, and
(4) individual consideration (Bass, 1985, 1988).
Idealised influence refers to the socialized charisma of a leader, capable of being trusted, admired, and respected as well as viewed as having a high standard of moral and ethical behaviours. The ability of the leader to build trust, admiration and respect can lead to acceptance of radical change within organisations, without any great resistance. By demonstrating high morals/values, beliefs and clear missions, the leader would be believed as a role model for the followers. Therefore, the followers can count on such a leader to do the right thing. However, there might be a risk if the leader uses his/her power for personal gain. Therefore, the leader is required to avoid using the power, except when urgently needed.
Inspirational motivation refers to how a leader behaves to motivate and inspire followers to arouse their spirit for a future-oriented view through enthusiasm, optimism, and a shared vision. Followers would be highly motivated to accomplish appropriate behaviours to achieve positive results.
Intellectual stimulation refers to the ability of a leader to stimulate his/her followers to perform creatively and innovatively, and attempt to do routine tasks in new ways. The followers are encouraged to try new ideas and creative problem solutions. Public criticism is avoided when followers make mistakes; they are not criticised when they have different ideas to the leader.
Individualised consideration refers to leader behaviour that contributes to follower satisfaction by advising, supporting, and paying attention to the individual needs of followers, and thus allowing them to develop and self-actualise to meet their needs for achievement and growth (Antonakis et al., 2003; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Geijsel, Sleegers, Leithwood, & Jantzi, 2003; SimiÄ‡, 1998).
In brief, Idealised influence refers to charismatic vision and behaviour that inspires subordinates to follow, inspirational motivation is the ability of a leader to motivate his/her subordinates to commit to the vision, intellectual stimulation refers to the capacity of a leader to encourage his/her subordinates' innovation and creativity, and individualised consideration refers to the ability of a leader to coach his/her subordinates to fulfil their needs of development (Barbuto, 2005; SimiÄ‡, 1998).
Transformational leadership is believed to be able to effectively respond to the tremendous challenge facing organisations in the turbulence of the modern world (Kirkbride, 2006, p. 31). This is supported by Vera and Crossan (2004) in Gordon and Yukl (2004, p. 362) who argue that â€•researchers suggest that transformational leadership is more effective in turbulent environments, times of poor organizational performance, and birth or decline organisational stages because transformational leader behaviours include inspiring others, encouraging change, and providing vision. These behaviours are necessary for leaders because they encourage employees to challenge the status quo and to think about potential futures for the organisation.â€- A transformational leader can empower followers to transform into high involvement individuals and teams focused on service, quality, quantity of output or production and cost-effectiveness (Bass, 1999, pp. 9-10).
The transformational leadership model has been of great interest to researchers in many different sectors such as military, education, psychology, sociology, and political science and in many countries, mainly North America and European countries for over two decades (Bass, 1997; Griffith, 2004; Molero et al., 2007; Tatum et al., 2003). However, literature on transformational leadership model in an Indonesian school context is extremely little. Therefore, studying transformational leadership model in an Indonesian school context will contribute to the body of knowledge and will help achieve effective leadership in Indonesian schools.
2.4 Leadership in schools
Administrative Leadership Styles within Situational Leadership Theory
The administrative role is essential in improving student learning gains through leadership style and teacher's collaboration capacity. As reported in the literature, school leadership drives student learning gains while purposely providing society with independent and enlightened adults (Moos, Krejsler & Koford, 2008). Lazaridou (2006) found leadership strategies directing improvement must be relevant to the school culture and addressed through appropriate leadership actions. The literature reviewed within the conceptual framework of situational leadership theory explored studies of administrative behaviors within two leadership styles: transformational and transactional leadership styles. Each style is presented as it relates to a teacher-focused principal's decisions that recognize school capacity and its effect on student learning gains.
Situational leadership theory. In this section a review of the synthesis of leadership styles defined as situational theory was conducted to illustrate the flexibility of the leaders' choices. The use of a combination of leadership styles creates a myriad of tools for the leader. Situational leadership theory presents the principal with the transformational and transactional tools to proceed in the best interest of the school that is focused on teacher effectiveness (Blase & Blase, 1999). Teacher relationships with administrators are of low consideration until an internal change is implemented which requires authoritative monitoring and accountability (Blanchard & Hersey, 1979). As purveyors of situational leadership, Blanchard & Hersey depict situational leadership as less dependent on the level of management and more dependent on the maturity of the teachers supervised.
On the contrary, the acceptance of leadership behavior flexibility that coincides with the situation is accepted as a theory, yet countered as a practice due to the dependence on the maturity of the subordinate. A study of Blanchard & Hersey's research reveals their prescriptive model of measurement of leadership style is conceptually ambiguous. It does not accurately measure the correlation between the maturity of the subordinate and the task-relevant maturity of high performance initiated by the leadership (Graeff, 1983).
Teacher perception of school leadership as researched by Blase and Blase is determined by the situation presented. Their 1999 qualitative study focused on the analysis of the administrative leadership styles as related to teacher perception. Their pragmatic presentation of analytical data leads the reader toward an understanding of the role of the principal in a teacher-focused school environment. This study of more than 800 teachers throughout the United States found the situational strategies used by principals often reveal exemplary instructional leadership (Blase & Blase, 1999). Their open-ended questionnaire provided a platform for teachers to express details of their opinions on how a principal's actions helped or hindered their professional goals. Hallinger and Heck presented a caution present in situational leadership theory through their findings in a meta-analysis of 42 studies. Only after the principal establishes a culture of accountability and control, should the level of engagement change toward the transfer of leadership (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). Nevertheless, the authors found no positive results in a school leaders push for increasing student achievement without seeking to improve teacher capacity.
Laissez-faire leadership style: Within leadership literature the laissez-faire leadership style is the least effective style of leadership when comparing it with transformational and transactional leadership styles (Barnett, Marsh, Craven, 2005). The avoidance or delaying of important decisions coupled with the attitude of acceptance of no change defines a laissez-faire leader (Avolio & Bass, 2005). Laissez-faire leadership style predictably held the most negative effect on the teachers' perceptions of global satisfaction of leadership. Teachers have a desire to be led by their school leaders (Barnett, Marsh, Craven, 2005). Teachers who are abandoned to teach independently without knowledge or accountability to the school's mission experience a negative perception of their leader. Glover (2007) encourages the capitalization of strategies to actively engage teachers and to avoid a laissez-faire attitude through active listening, respect, the suspension of assumptions, and relating personal truths.
Transformational leadership style. This section of the literature review examined transformational leadership in relation to school capacity and student learning gains. The transformational leadership style produces an outcome that defines the management culture. As the originator of transformational leadership, Burns reported there was not a central leadership concept even with the abundance of relevant literature. Generalizations are only possible through the study of humanistic psychology (Burns, 1978). In transformational leadership, the leader motivates and educates subordinates toward making decisions without interaction with supervisors. Followers experience a higher level of self-efficacy when experiencing such transformational leadership (Barnett, Craven & Marsh, 2005). Leithwood's research reported that transformational leaders pursue three goals: helping staff collaborate, encouraging teachers' improvement, and helping staff solve problems effectively. Such practices were complementary to the leader's vision and the teachers' talents and are essential to conduct a school's daily operations (Leithwood, 1992). As a contrary response, Leithwood's suggestions for improving school leadership have resulted in little evidence of improving leadership quality. However, Stewart finds Leithwood's research has expanded the knowledge base within our epistemological views and emerging paradigms. (Stewart, 2006)
In an attempt to develop a theoretical account of how a teacher's perception of transformational leadership is formed, Janzi and Leithwood conducted a viable five-year qualitative study with over 3,000 participants. These authors found being seen as a leader is as important as making leadership decisions. The leader exhibits leadership characteristics with their everyday behaviors and practices (Burke, 2009). More importantly, the study found that want-to-be leaders should model leadership traits to gain leadership credibility and influence teacher perceptions of their leadership capability (Janzi & Leithwood, 1996).
The state of education's accountability system influences the emergence of shared leadership. Principals who actively listened to their followers to gain different perspectives of school improvement were significantly more successful due to collaboration. Demir and Kamile (2008) collected data from 218 teachers in Edirne, Turkey and used a five-point Likert scale to quantitatively measure the teacher's perception of transformational leadership, collective efficacy, self-efficacy and collaboration climate. The findings suggested transformational leadership contributes to teachers' self-efficacy (Demir & Kamile, 2008).
The supportive literature in the previous paragraphs is contradicted by studies indicating transformational leadership cannot stand on its own without a blend of effective instructional leadership. Teachers in productive schools have leaders who insist their decisions have an educational meaning. Such focus on teacher and student success allows the principal to model a positive attitude to teachers prior to implementing transformational leadership (Marks & Printy, 2003). A national quantitative study of teachers in 24 nationally selected restructured schools found that the transformational leader insisted on higher levels of commitment from the teachers and developed a culture and organization toward school improvement (Marks & Printy, 2003). Leithwood (1992) argued transformational leadership starts a collaborative practice but defeats the need for a principal to be an instructional leadership. The author claimed school leaders needed to focus on the delegation of power to make the most changes in student achievement (Leithwood, 1992). Such group organization and collaboration builds school capacity.
Marks and Printy counter Leithwood's research and declared that transformational leadership was necessary for schools in need of improvement and reform. The authors declared there are few studies which empirically study how transformational leadership and instructional leadership overlap to raise student learning gains. Teacher-focused instructional leadership is necessary in schools to present a collaborative and trusting environment. Teachers exhibit more professionalism and commitment to the organization if the leadership duties are shared (Marks & Printy, 2003, Burke, 2009). Student learning gains are the final result of the leadership style. A review of the literature on the effects of transformational leadership on student learning gains found this style created an innovative staff, but no increase in student achievement. The findings indicated transformational leadership decisions look different than transactional decisions and have an indirect impact on student achievement outcomes (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). This qualitative meta-analysis of 40 published articles between 1980 and 1995 found no universal paradigms for examining the leadership's organizational behaviors within a school. The studies were selected based on their inclusion of the examination of the principal's beliefs and included a measurement of school achievement data. However, a more current quantitative analysis of the types of leadership within three high-poverty urban elementary schools in New York State, explores the ramifications of transformational leadership on their school test scores. The achievement scores improved after the outgoing principals were replaced with principals who incorporated a form of transformational as well as transactional leadership styles. Each principal modeled high expectations. Transactional leadership led to limited empowerment of the staff to make decisions to improve student achievement (Brooks, Giles, Jacobson, Johnson, Ylimaki, 2007).
As a warning to leaders, Leithwood and Mascall's 2008 study focused on this risk of creating a transformational style of leadership that negatively influences student learning gains. These authors exposed the arguments against a style relating to an unrealistic need to coordinate active teacher-leaders. Transformational leadership style can lead to hints of anarchy from teachers. The unrealistic time demands on over-worked teachers who accept the collective responsibilities of leadership may eventually lead to negative perceptions of administration and negative self-efficacy (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008).
As a caution, Barnett, Craven and Marsh (2005) advised that distributive or transformational leadership style is welcome within a school but only as a limited strategy closely followed by the more traditional hierarchal leadership. The end result of the leadership style preferred by teachers is transactional. These authors theorized that teachers respond most favorably to the principal's personalized attention and less to a transformational style of leadership (Barnett, Craven & Marsh, 2005).
Transactional leadership style. Transactional leadership style takes place when a leader communicates specific standards of conformity while monitoring for deviance and rewarding compliance (Avolio, Bass, Berson, & Jung, 2003). A review of the literature studying transactional leadership reveals frequent comparisons to transformational leadership (Burns, 2003). Transactional leadership style promotes followers to recognize what needs to be done and gives them the authority to complete tasks thereby enhancing their self-efficacy. Leithwood (1992) cautioned that though transactional leadership builds school capacity, it does not have the critical push of transformational leadership to make extreme school improvements.
A more recent study, with students as subjects, researched transactional leadership as it applied to collaborations between students and teachers. The transactional style created a more effective learning environment for students as they explored the influence and impact on combining school personnel and students in leadership roles. The 2,570 written samples were gathered from teachers and students at 90 elementary and secondary schools over a three-year period. Data were collected through websites and analyzed using a path-analytic technique. The results provided a viable quantitative data set that determined the impact of transactional leadership opportunities within a school raise and student achievement (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008).
Two foundational themes claim positive teacher response to transactional leadership style. The first theme provides teachers with consistent and frequent opportunities to reflect on their experiences in the classroom. The findings from a qualitative study of more than 800 teachers surveyed through an open-ended questionnaire indicated principals who built up their teachers' reflective behaviors found the instructional staff reported a high degree of self-efficacy, sense of security, and self motivation (Blase & Blase, 1999). The second theme found positive results from teachers who were provided constant professional growth activities. Such collegial interaction with respect to better teaching methods, data exploration, and implementing action
research created a positive professional growth atmosphere within the school. Additionally, the study found the second theme also helped encourage reflective teacher behavior and higher self-efficacy (Blase & Blase, 1999). motivation (Blase & Blase, 1999). The second theme found positive results from teachers who were provided constant professional growth activities. Such collegial interaction with respect to better teaching methods, data exploration, and implementing action research created a positive professional growth atmosphere within the school. Additionally, the study found the second theme also helped encourage reflective teacher behavior and higher self-efficacy (Blase & Blase, 1999).
Furthermore, a 2007 study claimed the use of transactional leadership is necessary due to the demands of the No Child Left Behind Act for accountability. School capacity is even more important due to the excessive administrative responsibilities that have led to more collective site-based management (Brooks, Giles Jacobson, Johnson, & Ylimaki, 2007). Leadership pressures are leveraged into using staff with expertise on school improvement and program implementation.
Regardless of the demands of the No Child Left Behind Act, school leaders frequently lack the instructional knowledge of content and pedagogy to assist teachers and provide a transactional leadership environment. There is a daily balancing act diverting the principal's attention from the management of the school. These administrative issues often distract the leader from creating a system to lead others in areas of curriculum and pedagogy (Stewart, 2006). This section of the literature review addressed transformational and transactional leadership styles through the lens of situational leadership theory. The introduction defined transformational and transactional leadership styles as the types of decisions
Decision-making is a process which consists of several steps to uncover what to do and why for a decision (Nutt, 2008, p. 425). According to Shahzad et al. (2010, p.400), a decision is a choice between two or more selected alternatives according to criteria. Among the selected alternatives, a decision-maker has to choose the one which best fits the criteria to achieve organisational goals to minimise uncertainty and to manage risks. A decision-maker should consider a wide range of inputs from other people in the process of decision-making. It is assumed that including more people, who may have different amounts of information, would result in more effective decision-making. For example, a principal wants to decide whether or not to recruit a teacher. He/she should listen to the opinions of other staff to consider the advantages and disadvantages of having the new teacher, what skills and personality he/she should have, identify candidates that fit the criteria, evaluate each candidate, and choose the one that best fits the criteria.
Effective decision-making, according to Rausch (2005, p. 989) involves the following steps:
defining issues to be addressed, identifying alternatives,
finding relevant information, evaluating the alternatives,
selecting the most desirable alternative, implementing the alternative, and
monitoring the progress of the implementation toward the desired outcome.
Simon (1987, p. 57) supports the view that, after making decisions (or participating in the decision-making), a manager communicates the decisions to others, and monitors how the decisions are carried out.
One of the decision-making concepts which is considered comprehensively applicable in organisations is that of Scott and Bruce (1995, p. 4). Their concept is based on the work of other researchers such as Driver (1979). Scott and Bruce (p.820) define decision-making as â€•the learned habitual response pattern exhibited by an individual when confronted with a decision situation.â€- This definition suggests behaviours, not traits, in decision-making. Here, different decision contexts can result in different decision-making styles for the most desirable alternative selection. Because the decision-making styles are built on behaviours, an individual can learn and practice them in his/her organisation. In conclusion, decision-making is an attempt to reach the most desirable alternative and to minimise risks. Information from different people can help to yield a better decision. Thus, participation of people in the decision-making process is important.
2.5.1 Arts of Decision-making by its styles
A Decision-making style is the learned, habitual response pattern exhibited by an individual when confronted with a decision situation. There are five decision- making styles: (1) rational, (2) intuitive, (3) dependent, (4) avoidant, and (5) spontaneous.
-Rational decision-making style is decision-making by decision-makers using a logical and deliberate approach. For example, a rational decision-maker makes decisions in a logical and systematic way.
-Intuitive decision-making style is relatively quick decision-making by decision-makers through the use of feelings, without a logical approach. For example, when making decisions, an intuitive decision-maker tends to rely on his/her intuition.
-Dependent decision- making style is decision-making which counts on others. For example, a dependent decision-maker rarely makes important decisions without consulting other people.
-Avoidant decision-making style is avoiding decision-making whenever possible. For example, an avoidant decision-maker avoids making important disions until the pressure is on. Finally,
-spontaneous decision-making style is decision-making where a decision-maker has a sense of immediacy and a desire to get through the decision-making process as soon as possible. For example, a spontaneous decision-maker generally makes snap decisions (Scott &nBruce, 1995).
The schooling community - decision-making relationship
A school community's culture plays an important role in shaping and affecting the decision making process of the community. O'Haire (1995) describes eight culture shaping tools which could assist the school principal in influencing, reinforcing, building or improving the culture of the school.
1 . The use of stories, sagas, lore and myth is an effective method to influence the culture of a group. School leaders often gather their material from their real interactions with and observations of parents, students and teachers. The recall of many of these incidents may be retold in ways that will reinforce desired values and beliefs.
2. Effective leaders teach, coach and/or model the behaviors and values they want to incorporate in their school's culture. They play out their visions and offer members of the community concrete examples of how desired cultural norms look and sound. They seek out opportunities to demonstrate the values and beliefs they want to build into the community culture.
3. A site administrator's influence over the allocation of resources, time, rewards and recognition of staff offers a multitude of opportunities to reinforce desired values and beliefs.
4. Effective principals manage the communication network, taking time to test out new ideas with staff members through the gossip and casual conversation of the staffroom as well as formal information channels. Using the political network of the staff by speaking with the informal staff leaders and negotiating with the staff resisters to gain support for innovations, is a part of the principal's effective communication process.
5. Hiring and promoting staff members who already have the desired values and beliefs, while transferring or dismissing those who resist, offers leaders the most immediate and forceful means to shape a school's culture.
6. Principals may improve the school's culture by establishing appropriate school goals. Instead of accepting the status quo, these leaders communicate clearly and frequently that the school can perform better eachyear. The cultural norm underlying these goals is that everyone has responsibility to improve his/her own performance and to assist the improvement of others.
7. School leaders can strengthen current staff heroes, create new heroes from existing staff or import new heroes. All three sources provide individuals who can demonstrate the desired cultural values and beliefs.
8. A principal's choices about his or her own time allocations powerfully symbolize the values and beliefs that are desired. This focus of attention by the school principal illustrates to the staff the priorities that are valued by the leader. Good management is the art of selective neglect.
2.5.2 Styling Leadership in decision-making - A contention for Excellency
Leadership styles are related to decision-making styles as reported by Kao and Kao (2007) who surveyed executives at Taiwanese-investment companies in Shanghai, China. This is supported by Tatum et al. (2003) who argue that as leaders have different leadership styles, they may also have different decision-making styles because the different leadership styles should be used with different decision-making styles. This led Tatum et al. (2003) to question whether transformational, transactional, or laissez-faire leaders practice different decision-making styles. The decision-making styles of a leader vary with the amount of information the leader has, the number of choices he/she considers, and sources of input he/she has.
According to them, it is reasonable that prior to making a decision, a transformational leader uses a comprehensive or rational decision-making style; he/she considers more information and more alternatives and listens to more people. In contrast, a transactional leader tends to use more limited information and fewer alternatives, and laissez-faire leaders try to avoid decision-making (Tatum et al.,2003, p. 1007). Finally, Tatum et al. (2003, p. 1012) contend that transformational, transactional, and laissez-fair leadership styles tend to be related to particular decision-making styles.
Similarly, using a sample of 98 officers of a large manufacturing organisation in India, Tambe and Krishnan (2000) found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and rational decision-making style, a negative relationship between transformational leadership and avoidant decision-making-style; while, avoidant decision-making style moderated the relationship between transformational leadership and rational decision-making style.
In general, there are relationships between leadership styles and decision-making styles. However, very few studies have investigated these relationships, particularly in an Indonesian school context.
2.5.2 Teacher's collaboration in Decision-making
In its simplest terms, shared or collaborative decision making means the participation and involvement of a stakeholders. Roy (1995) contended that education has followed the lead set by American business in recognizing that the worker must be a valuable partner in the problem solving process.
Providing for site-based management promotes the involvement of stakeholders. One of the lessons learned about the process of change and reform is that teachers need to be involved in that process. Glickman (1992) stated that the reason for involving staff was "not simply as an exercise, but to establish a covenant to guide future decisions about goals, staffing, scheduling, materials, assessment, curriculum, staff development and resource allocation" (p. 14).
Scott & Smith (1987) contended that if a school site was to take collective action to solve school based problems and create new programs, five norms needed to exist:
â€¢ A belief that the quality of education was determined by what happened at the school site.
â€¢ A conviction that instruction was most effective in a school environment characterized by norms of collegiality and continuous improvement.
â€¢ A belief that teachers were professionals given responsibility for the instructional process and held accountable for its outcomes.
â€¢ The presence of a wide range of practices and structures that enabled administrators and teachers to work together on school improvement.
â€¢ The involvement of teachers in decisions about school goals and the means for implementing them.
According to Roy (1995), when a decision needed to be made, there was a continuum of decision options ranging from:
â€¢ Individually determined at the school site
â€¢Subgroups at the school site with or without consultation
â€¢ Staff consensus
â€¢ Staff vote
â€¢ Staff and administration through consultation or by consensus
â€¢ Unilaterally by administration beyond the school site
Which option should be considered, would be determined by the following ingredients:
â€¢ Importance: The critical nature of the decision
â€¢ Acceptance: How strong the feeling of individuals would be about the decision or process
â€¢ Time: was there a need for an immediate decision
â€¢ Trust: The degree to which individuals had confidence in each other
â€¢ Teamwork: The desire of the administration to improve the functioning of the team
Although there was no hard and fast rule regarding which decision making strategy was best in all situations, Roy (1995) suggested one rule of thumb to consider was that the people closest to the problem or the solution should be involved in making the decision. Fact finding was the first step of any decision making group. Roy discussed three possible strategies. The first was referred to as the nominal group and was used when groups tried to identify priorities from a large number of actions or goals. Each person selected five options from a list of brainstormed ideas, assigning them a number from one to five. After everyone made their selections and the numbers were totaled, the goals having the highest totals became the goals for the entire staff.
If the number of options was small, Roy suggested a strategy called "Spend a Buck" (p. 21). This strategy asked the members of the group to distribute a total of $1.00 among the options. The totals assigned to each option determined its importance to the group.
A third useful strategy described in Roy's article was a force-field analysis. In this strategy the group identified factors which were helping or hindering the group in attaining a specific goal or outcome. Once factors were listed, the group determined how to strengthen 'helping' factors and reduce barriers. Plans for accomplishing both sets of factors were determined and an action plan defined.
Roy (1995) identified five obstacles which must be overcome in order to be successful at site-based decision making.
â€¢ Fear: People feared change even if it was positive.
â€¢ Control: Initially administrators expressed a loss of control.
â€¢ Lack of information: Access to information was vital.
â€¢ Group vs. Individual Recognition: Participatory decision making required group recognition.
â€¢ Staying Focused: A clear definition of roles and responsibilities was necessary.
The assistance of a facilitator should be considered by staffs who need help with group process and decision-making strategies. Facilitators help staffs develop skills in team building, trust, collective decision-making strategies, consensus-seeking strategies and conflict management. Administrators and staffs must recognize that participatory or collaborative decision making requires time and effort.
2.5.3 TIPS - Quantifying Teacher's Involvement and Participation
Two years ago, while doing research for a paper, I came across an article in the September, 1992 issue of "Educational Leadership" describing an instrument used for measuring the involvement of teachers in shared decision making in schools. Russell, Cooper and Greenblatt (1992), the authors of the article and developers of the instrument, referred to their tool ,as "a systematic approach to school improvement using the principles of shared decision making." The instrument was developed with two distinct purposes. First, to collect data on what was actually happening with shared decision making in the school and second, to enable practitioners to assess the dimensions of decision making already in place and plan for implementation of those that were not. The description of the instrument appeared to be exactly what I needed to assist me in finding answers to my question. I wrote to the authors requesting further information about the instrument and a copy of the questionnaire. Upon receiving the Teacher Involvement and Participation Scale Two (TIPS-2) instrument and examining the contents, I recognized the tool's usefulness in first, gathering information and determining how successful our staff has been in reaching the goals of our school project and secondly, using this information for my masters project. TIPS-2 was described as an instrument which helped to assess the extent of teacher participation in eight key dimensions:
â€¢ Vision/Mission/Goals: the degree to which teachers are involved in developing and establishing the goals, mission and vision of the school.
Standards: the degree to which teachers shared in setting standards for their own performance and for student performance and discipline.
â€¢ Curriculum and Instruction: the degree to which teachers participated in determining the school program, curriculum goals, textbook selection, educational materials and classroom pedagogy.
â€¢ Staff Development: the degree to which teachers were permitted
to design and implement staff development activities that met their needs.
â€¢ Operations: the degree to which teachers were involved in the management of the building, its use, improvements and maintenance.
â€¢ Budgeting: the degree to which teachers participated in matters related to the design and implementation of the school budget.
â€¢ Staffing: the degree to which teachers were involved in making decisions about recruiting, interviewing, hiring and assigning staff.
â€¢ Facilitating Procedures and Structures: the degree to which teachers had adequate time, reduced teaching loads, waivers from contracts and regulations, and changed schedules to permit collegial work to occur.
Review of the TIPS-2 instrument revealed areas of study that were beyond those which the school staff had been involved in. As an example, the staff's participation in development of our school budget was limited to areas of curriculum since our district had not yet moved to a school-based management model. Teachers had not been invited to assist in the selection and recruitment of other teachers. Despite these limitations, I chose to use the tool as published to obtain as much information from the staff as possible, to enable us to begin a review of our practices and develop plans and recommendations that would improve the decision-making process. The TIPS-2 instrument can be found in Appendix B.