8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

1/21

Journal of Educational AdministrationThe relationship between transformational leadership, perceived leader effectiveness

and teachers job satisfactionMaria Eliophotou Menon

Article information:

To cite this document:Maria Eliophotou Menon , (2014),"The relationship between transformational leadership, perceived leadereffectiveness and teachers job satisfaction", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 52 Iss 4 pp. 509 -528Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2013-0014

Downloaded on: 26 September 2014, At: 23:07 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 64 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 92 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this artic le also downloaded:

Patreese D. Ingram, (1997),"Leadership behaviours of principals in inclusive educational settings", Journalof Educational Administration, Vol. 35 Iss 5 pp. 411-427

Amr Swid, (2014),"Police members perception of their leaders leadership style and its implications",Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 37 Iss 3 pp. 579-595 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-08-2013-0085

E. Kevin Kelloway, Julian Barling, Elizabeth Kelley, Julie Comtois, Bernadette Gatien, (2003),"Remotetransformational leadership", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 Iss 3 pp.

163-171

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 394654 []

For Authors

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelineare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emerald insight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2013-0014http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2013-0014

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

2/21

The relationship betweentransformational leadership,

perceived leader effectivenessand teachers job satisfaction

Maria Eliophotou MenonDepartment of Education, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the link between transformational/transactional/passive-avoidant leadership behaviors, teachers perceptions of leader effectiveness andteachers job satisfaction. In this context, the paper also examines the conceptual model underlying the

scales of the most widely used instrument in research on transformational leadership, the MultifactorLeadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The theoretical framework for this investigation is that of thefull range model of leadership.Design/methodology/approach An adapted version of the MLQ was administered to a sample of438 secondary school teachers in the Republic of Cyprus. Confirmatory factor analysis and structuralequation modeling were used in the analysis of the data.Findings The results provide support for a three-factor structure model consisting oftransformational, transactional and passive-avoidant forms of leadership, representing threedistinct components of leadership behavior. Teachers perceptions of leader effectiveness andteachers overall job satisfaction were found to be significantly linked to the leadership behaviorsincluded in the full range model of leadership.Research limitations/implications The findings are cross-sectional and based on the subjectiveperceptions of teachers. The analysis of the data suggests that transformational leadership may not bea sufficient condition for (perceived) headteacher effectiveness.

Originality/value The link between transformational leadership, perceived leader effectivenessand teachers overall job satisfaction has not been investigated in many studies. The present studyattempts to address this gap.

Keywords Leadership, Effectiveness, Educational administration, Teachers job satisfaction

Paper type Research paper

Contemporary research on school leadership has examined the link between leadershipmodels and educational outcomes. There is evidence to suggest that transformationalleadership has a positive effect on specific educational outcomes ranging from leadereffectiveness to teachers job satisfaction and student achievement (see, e.g. Eyal andRoth, 2011; Griffith, 2004; Koh et al., 1995; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006; Leithwood andSun, 2012; Loweet al., 1996; Silins and Mulford, 2002). However, systematic research onthe link between transformational leadership and educational outcomes remains limited.Given the importance assigned to transformational leadership in school restructuringand reform initiatives, there is a clear need for more evidence on the effectiveness oftransformational leadership behaviors and practices at the school unit.

Leaders are expected to be more influential if followers perceive their behavior asleadership (Lord and Maher, 1993). The perceptions of followers regarding theeffectiveness of their leaders thus constitute an important indication of effectiveness.In research on transformational leadership, it is generally hypothesized thattransformational behaviors and practices will result in perceived effectiveness and

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

Received 28 January 20Revised 28 September 20

6 November 2017 December 20

5 January 20Accepted 19 January 20

Journal of Educatio

Administra

Vol. 52 No. 4, 2

pp. 509-

r Emerald Group Publishing Lim

0957-8

DOI 10.1108/JEA-01-2013-0

50

Teachers josatisfactio

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

3/21

satisfaction on the part of followers (Avolio and Bass, 2004; Bass, 1985; Lowe et al.,1996). In this context, the empowering and transformational dimensions of schoolleadership are considered to result in a positive assessment of the headteacher, whichcan serve as the basis for greater follower commitment to the school leaders vision and

greater effort than initially expected. Thus, the adoption of a transformationalleadership model is considered to contribute to perceived effectiveness. However, thereis very little evidence to support this link.

The present study investigates the link between transformational leadershipbehaviors and practices, the leaders effectiveness as perceived by school teachers, andthe teachers overall job satisfaction. Avolio and Basss (2004) Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire (MLQ) was used to collect information regarding transformationalleadership behaviors and practices from a sample of 438 secondary school teachersin Cyprus. Statistical analysis was applied to the data in order to examine the linkbetween transformational/transactional/passive-avoidant leadership behaviors, theleaders perceived effectiveness and the teachers job satisfaction.

Moreover, the paper aims at examining the conceptual model underlying the MLQ

5X scales. A six-factor model was proposed by Bass (1985) and was followed byalternative leadership factor models. Research on the MLQ has resulted in theidentification of eight alternative factor models (Avolio and Bass, 2004), which includea null model, and seven models which range from one to seven factors. The presentstudy attempts to provide further evidence on the factor structure of the MLQ in orderto shed light on the underlying dimensions of the transformational and transactionalleadership constructs.

The study informs the literature on transformational leadership by providingevidence on the applicability of the full range leadership model in a different culturalcontext, that of a small Eastern Mediterranean country (Cyprus). Braun et al. (2013)point to the importance of investigating the transformational leadership model indifferent countries and cultural contexts. At present, the evidence from non-western

regions is limited: For instance, in an investigation of knowledge production ineducational leadership and management in East Asia, Hallinger and Bryant (2013)found a small contribution (o6 percent) of the region to papers published in relevant

journals. The Republic of Cyprus constitutes an interesting case for the investigation ofthe effects of transformational leadership not only in relation to the countrys small sizebut also because of the more highly centralized nature of its educational system (incomparison to most European and Western countries).

Literature reviewTheoretical frameworkTransformational leadership is a conception of leadership characterized by an explicit

focus on the role of the leaders in the reform of the organization and the developmentof followers (Dansereau et al., 1995). The distinction between transactional andtransformational leadership is believed to have originated with Downton (1973), eventhough it became widely known through Burns (1978) work on political leaders.

Burns (1978) examination of the biographies of political leaders led him todistinguish between two forms of leadership, which he viewed as polar opposites:

(1) Transactional leadership considers the relationship between leader andfollower to be mainly one of exchange. The leader offers rewards to thefollower in exchange for desired behaviors and practices.

510

JEA52,4

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

4/21

(2) Transformational leadership takes place when leaders interact with followersin ways that enhance mutual levels of creativity and motivation in theorganization (Burns, 1978).

Drawing on Burns framework, Bass (1985) proposed a conceptualization oftransformational leadership based on the investigation of the behavior of leaders inboth public and private organizations. Unlike Burns, Bass viewed transactional andtransformational forms of leadership as separate but complementary constructs (Avolioet al., 1999; Bass, 1985). Transformational behaviors enhance the impact of transactionalpractices, through their effects on follower motivation and creativity. In this context, aleader can be both transformational and transactional (Lowe et al., 1996).

According to Bass and Avolio (1994), a transformational leader does not seek tomaintain existing systems and practices; instead, he/she is willing to take risks in orderto provide a stimulus for change and innovation. Transformational leaders manage tomotivate followers to achieve more than originally planned and create a supportiveorganizational climate where individual needs and differences are acknowledged

and respected (Bass, 1998). Goals are shared, allowing both leaders and followers tofocus on the common good, through commitment to the mission and values ofthe organization. This leads to openness and trust in the organizational climate, asmembers learn to transcend self-interest for the sake of the organization.

In its original form, Basss theory included four transformational and twotransactional leadership factors. The original model was expanded to include ninesingle-order factors, consisting of five transformational leadership, three transactionalleadership and one non transactional laissez-faire leadership component. This isknown as the full range leadership model, with the following components:

(1) Attributed idealized influence refers to the degree to which followers considerleaders to be powerful, and charismatic. Followers develop feelings of trustand confidence in their leaders.

(2) Idealized influence as behavior refers to actual leader behavior characterizedby values and a sense of purpose. Through idealized influence, individuals inthe organization try to follow their leaders example.

(3) Inspirational motivation takes place when the leader inspires followers byproviding them with meaning and challenge. Leaders project hope andoptimism for the future, thus enhancing commitment to shared goals.

(4) Intellectual stimulation is an important aspect of transformational leadership,through which leaders encourage followers to be creative and innovative inthe organization. Followers are expected to be critical in relation to existingassumptions and traditions, including their own beliefs and solution to problems.

(5) Individualized consideration refers to a situation where leaders are able tounderstand the needs of individuals and focus on them on a one-to-one basis.Transformational leaders encourage the development of individual needs andthe achievement of personal goals. Through their actions and examples, theycreate organizational cultures which support improvement and growth.

(6) Contingent reward leadership is one of three dimensions of transactionalleadership. It refers to leader behaviors aimed at providing rewards tofollowers contingent on the fulfillment of role requirements and contractualobligations.

51

Teachers josatisfactio

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

5/21

(7) Management by exception (active) refers to the active involvement of the leaderin the effort to determine whether requirements are met.

(8) Management by exception (passive) refers to a situation where the leader takescorrective action only after becoming aware that problems exist or mistakeshave been made.

(9) Laissez-faire leadership refers to a passive form of leadership where the leaderdecides to avoid or delay making decisions and abdicates responsibility.In general, the leader has a preference for avoiding action (for a discussion ofthe nine components of the full range model of leadership presented above, see,e.g. Avolio and Bass, 2004; Antonakis et al., 2003; Yammarinoet al., 1993).

The MLQ was developed by Bass (1985) in order to measure transformational andtransactional leader behavior. It has been widely used to assess the component factorsof the model proposed by Avolio and Bass (2004) and to investigate the nature of therelationship between transactional/transformational leadership styles and jobeffectiveness and satisfaction. Despite several criticisms, the current version of theMLQ (Form 5X) remains the most popular instrument in research on transformationaland transactional leadership.

The effects of transformational leadership: research findingsEarly research on school leadership by Leithwood and Jantzi, (1990) and Leithwoodet al. (1993) pointed to the importance of transformational leadership practices andcollaborative school cultures for school effectiveness (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1990;Leithwoodet al., 1993). The effects of transformational leadership and the link betweentransformational and transactional leadership were examined by Silins (1992, 1994),who investigated the relationship between school leadership and school improvementoutcomes based on Basss full range leadership model. Transformational leadership

was represented by the variables of charisma/inspiration, intellectual stimulation andindividual consideration, while transactional leadership was represented by thevariables of contingent reward and management-by-exception. Canonical analysis andpartial least squares path analysis were applied to the data collected from a randomsample of 679 teachers in Canada. A strong positive relationship emerged betweentransformational and transactional leadership, suggesting that the two types of leadershipshould not be treated as independent variables. Transformational leadership was found tohave direct effects on school, program and instruction, and student outcomes. However,student outcomes were influenced directly and positively by transactional leadership butnot by transformational leadership.

The MLQ has been widely used to investigate the link between transformationalleadership and leader effectiveness and/or organizational performance in differenttypes of organizations in several countries. Leaders at high and low level positionshave been examined at both public and private organizations. In non educationalsettings, positive associations between transformational leadership and performancewere reported in several studies (see, e.g. Bass et al., 2003; Yammarino et al., 1993;Zacharatos et al., 2000). Transformational leadership was found to augment the impactof transactional leadership on both subjective performance and objective effectivenessindicators such as profit (Rowold and Heinitz, 2007). In many cases, the impact oftransformational leadership behaviors on performance was found to be significant butindirect (McColl-Kennedy and Anderson, 2002; Podsakoffet al., 1990).

512

JEA52,4

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

6/21

Research findings on transformational leadership have pointed to a statisticallysignificant relationship between leader effectiveness and the transformationalscales of Charisma (or Idealized Influence), Individualized Consideration andIntellectual Stimulation (Lowe et al., 1996). One of the two transactional scales

(Contingent Reward) was also associated with effectiveness, albeit to a lesser extent,while management-by-exception was reported to have low or negative correlationswith effectiveness.

In a meta-analysis of the transformational leadership literature based on the MLQ,Loweet al.(1996) found a positive association between transformational leadership andwork unit effectiveness. The link between transformational scales and effectiveness washigher than between transactional scales and effectiveness. Charisma was the scale moststrongly associated with effectiveness, the association being stronger for followerperceptions of effectiveness than for organizational measures. The same was true of theIndividualized Consideration scale. The two transactional scales were not consistent intheir links with effectiveness as results differed across studies.

In education, a limited number of studies have used the MLQ to investigate the link

between transformational leadership and leader effectiveness and/or schoolperformance. Findings point to a positive association between leadership style andeffectiveness: Ibrahim and Al-Taneiji (2013) reported a positive correlation between theleadership style of the principal and his/her effectiveness even though no link wasfound to school performance. However, most studies focus on the link betweentransformational leadership and teacher-related variables such as job satisfactionand commitment. Even though dependent variables vary across studies and cannotalways provide evidence on the link between leadership approach and leadershipeffectiveness, this research makes an important contribution to the literature in thatit points to possible mediating variables in the relationship between transformationalleadership and leader effectiveness.

Koh et al. (1995) investigated the effects of transformational leadership on teacher

attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Data were collected from schoolteachers and principals using instruments which included the MLQ. In comparisonto transactional leadership, transformational leadership was found to be associated withadditional positive effects in predicting organizational commitment, organizationalcitizenship behavior and teacher satisfaction. The effects of transformational leadershipon student academic achievement were indirect. An association between transformationalleadership and teacher outcomes was also reported in other studies. Barnett et al.(2005)found a strong correlation between transformational leadership and teacher job satisfactionin secondary education.

The available research on the effects of transformational leadership suggests that thisform of leadership is more likely to have a direct impact on organizational processesassociated with employee practices, motivation and satisfaction, which in turn are linked

to the quality of the service offered and the performance of the organization (seeLeithwood and Jantzi, 1999, 2000, 2005). In most studies, positive indirect effects onstudent outcomes have been identified, with at least one study reporting a significantnegative association between transformational leadership behavior and studentoutcomes: In Australia, Barnett et al. (2001) reported that while transformationalleadership was positively linked to teacher outcomes such as satisfaction and extraeffort, it was negatively associated with student learning culture.

In addition to research using the MLQ to investigate the links between transformationalleadership and educational outcomes, several studies have employed different instruments

51

Teachers josatisfactio

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

7/21

and scales to examine the same relationship. Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) conductedresearch on the effects of transformational leadership using their own model oftransformational leadership, which is based on their research in schools. They foundtransformational leadership to have strong positive effects on organizational

conditions (school and classroom conditions) (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999). Schoolconditions included variables such as school planning and organizational culture,while classroom conditions referred to instructional services, and policies andprocedures. The effects of transformational leadership on student engagement inschool were significant but weak on the affective and behavioral dimensions ofstudent engagement.

In Australia, the findings of the LOSLO (Leadership for Organizational Learningand Student Outcomes) research project provided additional evidence in support of thepositive effects of transformational leadership practices on educational outcomes.Transformational leadership was reported to influence all school and outcomevariables included in the study except students participation in the school (Silins andMulford, 2002; Silins et al., 2002). In this study, organizational learning emerged as a

mediator of the effects of school leadership on teachers work and student outcomes.Unlike transformational leadership, distributed leadership was not found to have asignificant impact on student participation in, and engagement with, school.

Geijsel et al. (2003) used data from Canada and the Netherlands to examine therelationship between transformational leadership, and teacher commitment and efforttoward school reform. In both countries, the dimensions of transformational leadershiphad modest effects on teacher commitment to reform. Of all dimensions, visionbuilding and intellectual stimulation were reported to have a significant effect onteacher commitment and extra effort, while individualized consideration was found tohave the weakest influence. Their findings are in agreement with earlier studies on theimpact of transformational leadership practices on extra effort: Bass (1985) showedtransformational leadership to be associated with extra effort among educational

administrators in New Zealand to a greater extent than transactional leadership.Similar findings were reported by Seltzer and Bass (1990) and Tucker et al. (1992).

In another study, Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) investigated the effects oftransformational leadership on teacher variables, classroom practices and studentachievement, using data from a national literacy and numeracy program in England.Teacher variables included motivation, capacities (ability required for performance)and work settings (teachers collective practices in relation to large-scale reform, andthe collective efficacy of the staff). Through path analysis, the authors found leadershipto have significant effects on teachers classroom practices. Leadership, along with thethree teacher variables, explained about 25-35 percent of the variation in teachersclassroom practices. However, leadership did not have a significant effect on studentachievement.

Links between transformational leadership and teacher-related variables were alsoreported in additional studies on the topic: several studies reported positive linksbetween transformational leadership and job satisfaction (Bogler, 2001; Braun et al.,2013; Nguni et al., 2006). Nguni et al. (2006) found that in addition to job satisfaction,transformational leadership had strong effects on organizational commitment andorganizational citizenship behavior. Recently, Eyal and Roth (2011) foundtransformational leadership to predict autonomous motivation among teachers;Khasawnehet al.(2012) found a strong, positive relationship between transformationalleadership and the organizational commitment of teachers; Thoonen et al. (2011)

514

JEA52,4

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

8/21

reported that transformational leadership practices had a positive effect on teachersprofessional learning and motivation as well as on school organizational conditions.

In sum, the findings of research on the association between transformationalleadership and teacher-related outcomes generally point to positive effects. In their

review of transformational school leadership research, Leithwood and Jantzi(2005) examined 32 empirical studies published between 1996 and 2005. They foundtransformational leadership to have indirect but significant effects on studentachievement and engagement in school. Leithwood and Sun (2012) also reporteda significant effect of this form of leadership on educational outcomes in theirrecent review of relevant unpublished research findings. Their synthesis indicatesthat transformational leadership has significant positive effects on educationaloutcomes, which generally range from strong (for teachers internal states andbehaviors) to small (for student achievement). The review of unpublished researchthus provides additional evidence pointing to a weak link between transformationalleadership and important educational outcomes such as student achievement andschool performance.

An explanation for the weak effect may be found in the work of Marks and Printy(2003), who used hierarchical linear modeling to examine the effect of school leadershipapproach on two dependent variables, namely, pedagogical quality and studentachievement. They found transformational leadership to be a necessary butinsufficient condition for instructional leadership. They proposed an integrated formof leadership which combines transformational and instructional approaches toleadership. Substantial effects of leadership on school performance were found whenthe two types of leadership were combined. This suggests that transformationalleadership behaviors and practices may have to be combined with other practices inorder to have a significant effect on certain educational outcomes. If this is the case,transformational leadership may not necessarily result in teachers perceptions ofheadteacher effectiveness.

Leithwood and Sun (2012) also acknowledge the need for integrated models ofleadership. They draw attention to the fact that the same leadership practices are foundin most leadership models and argue that research on leadership effects on educationaloutcomes should focus on these practices rather than on whole leadership models.These practices should include transformational leadership practices as well aspractices aimed at improving the technical core of the school unit (learning andinstruction).

Transformational leadership: conceptual and methodological issuesEven though transformational leadership does not appear to suffer from conceptualand methodological weaknesses to the same degree as other forms of leadership (e.g.distributed leadership), several aspects of the transformational leadership model have

been identified as problematic: according to critics, the model places too muchemphasis on the transformational qualities of the leader, thereby reinforcing the notionthat the principal is the sole source of leadership at the school (Evers and Lakomski,1996; Stewart, 2006). In response to this criticism, Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) point outthat their transformational leadership model does not assume that the principal will bethe only source of leadership in the organization and is consistent with the sharing ofleadership with teachers and other stakeholders. However, the emphasis on sharedleadership practices in the conceptualization of transformational leadership can giverise to another type of concern: given that scholars have had limited success in

51

Teachers josatisfactio

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

9/21

measuring the effects of a single leader on outcomes, the measurement of the effects oftransformational leadership can be even more challenging, if it does not assume thatleadership is concentrated on the principal alone (Hallinger, 2003).

Additional concerns relate to the subdimensions of transformational leadership and

the hypothesized factor structure of Basss model. The definition of subdimensionsappears problematic both in relation to the clarity of the distinction between charismaand inspirational motivation, and the operationalization of contingent reward(Goodwin et al., 2001; Rafferty and Griffin, 2004). Contingent reward, in particular,appears to be especially problematic in that it has been found to be multidimensionaland related to transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Hinkin and Schriesheim, 2008;Tejedaet al., 2001). Yukl (1999) also points to ambiguity in transformational leadershipbehaviors stemming from partially overlapping content and high-intercorrelation.For instance, the Individualized Consideration scale includes items that relate to bothdeveloping and supporting behaviors on the part of the leader. These weaknesses castdoubt on the findings of empirical research regarding the effects of transformationalleadership (Evers and Lakomski, 1996; Tejeda et al., 2001). They also point to the need

for further examination of the theoretical and empirical properties of MLQ measures,especially in relation to the transactional and laissez-faire dimensions (Hinkin andSchriesheim, 2008).

Research on transformational leadership has provided conflicting evidence on thefactor structure of the full-range leadership model (Antonakis et al., 2003; Raffertyand Griffin, 2004). Avolio and Bass (2004) presented several alternative conceptualmodels of the factor structure of the MLQ, ranging from a one-factor leadership modelto a seven-correlated-factor model. Their findings provided evidence in support of anine-factor model (Avolio and Bass, 2004), even though their previous research founda six-factor model to produce the best fit for the data (see, Avolio et al., 1999). In adiscussion of the factor structure of the MLQ, Avolio and Bass continued to subscribeto the theoretical framework of the six-factor model, viewing the nine-factor model as

an attempt to define more precisely the leadership constructs of the questionnaire(Avolio and Bass, 2004, p. 45). Inconclusive findings regarding the factor structure ofthe MLQ have led researchers to adopt different approaches to the measurementof transformational and transactional leadership (see, e.g. Podsakoff et al., 1990;Rafferty and Griffin, 2004).

Additional problems relate to other aspects of transformational leadership and theMLQ in particular. For instance, critics have drawn attention to the omission fromthe MLQ of important behaviors derived from theories and research on effectiveleadership. In a review of two decades of research in transformational leadership, Bass(1999, p. 18) acknowledges the following problems with the MLQ: multicollinearityof its scales, lower than desired reliability under some circumstances for activemanaging-by-exception, and questions about the universality of the factor structure of

the model of full range leadership.Finally, an important issue concerns the fact that the measurement of leadership

based on the MLQ does not take into account the role of context and/or situationalvariables. Differences in contexts stemming from culture, leadership andenvironmental characteristics may have an impact on the types of leader behaviorsfollowers consider effective. Hallinger (2003) highlights the importance of the schoolcontext in studies of school leadership and recommends the incorporation of thecontingent characteristics of school leadership into contemporary theoretical models.Even though some findings support the stability of the nine-factor model within

516

JEA52,4

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

10/21

homogeneous contexts (see, e.g. Antonakis et al., 2003), there is limited evidence onthe topic.

Method

An adapted version of the MLQ was employed to collect data for the study. Specifically,the MLQ Rater Form (5X-Short) was adapted to the purposes of the study: Giventhat the aim of the study was to focus on the link between transformational leadershipand teachers perceptions of effectiveness, only teachers were questioned. Specifically,respondents were asked to rate their headteachers on the 45 items included inthe questionnaire. Of the 45 items, 36 concerned leadership behaviors of schoolheadteachers.

In addition, participants were asked to state their overall job satisfaction byresponding to three questions: in the first question, respondents were asked to rate thelevel of their job satisfaction, based on a seven point scale where 1 stood for very highdissatisfaction and 7 for very high satisfaction (S.1). They were also asked to state theextent of their agreement/disagreement with the following statements:

. I have not faced serious problems after my entry into the profession (S.2); and

. I would not have chosen the same job (S.3).

The combination of these items produced a latent factor of job satisfaction, whichincluded both an affective (feeling of satisfaction) and a behavioral component (choiceof teaching as a profession).

Moreover, respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they believed theirheadteacher to have an effect on four items representing two types of outcomes:student outcomes, and school (organizational) outcomes. Student outcomes includedlearning and behavioral outcomes; school outcomes included the effectiveness of theschool in relation to the accomplishment of its goals, and the quality of the

organization. Thus, the combination of student and school outcomes resulted in aperceived effectiveness latent factor consisting of the following four items:

(1) perceived headteacher effects on students behaviors (P.1);

(2) perceived headteacher effects on the schools achievement of goals (P.2);

(3) perceived headteacher effects on students learning (P.3); and

(4) perceived headteacher effects on the improvement of the quality of theschool (P.4).

The items were selected after a review of relevant literature on the links betweenleadership models and educational outcomes. Personal and demographic data werealso collected.

The sample consisted of 438 secondary education teachers employed at tensecondary schools in Cyprus. The ten schools were selected to represent differentregional and socioeconomic background characteristics. Thus, urban, suburban andrural schools were included in the sample. Within each school, all teachers wereinstructed to fill the questionnaire. The response rate was over 90 percent, which waspartly due to the fact that the person responsible for collecting the data were employedat the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education official delivered thequestionnaires to schools and collected the completed instruments, without becomingpersonally involved in the distribution of the instrument to teachers. This was

51

Teachers josatisfactio

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

11/21

considered necessary in order to avoid bias stemming from the position of the Ministryof Education official.

Quantitative analysis was used to address the main research questions, namely,the investigation of the factor structure of the MLQ, and the relation between

transformational leadership behaviors, teachers perceptions of leader effectivenessand teachers job satisfaction. The use of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) wasappropriate because we wanted to examine the validity of an a priori model, based onpast evidence and theory (Brown, 2006). CFA is part of a general class of approachesincluded in structural equation modeling and is used in situations where the factors ofa set of variables are already known because of previous research. In the case of thepresent study, CFA was used to test hypotheses corresponding to the dimensionsof transformational leadership. The goals of the analysis were first to estimatethe relative strength of the model and second to trace the relation between thetransformational leadership factors, job satisfaction, and the perceived effectivenessof the school leader. After establishing that the measurement model was valid, wetested the validity of alternative structural models to examine relationships among

constructs. Essentially, the measurement model provided an assessment of convergentand discriminant validity, and the structural model provided an assessment ofpredictive validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).

MPLUS (Muthen and Muthen, 1998-2007) was used to test for model fitting in thisstudy. In order to evaluate model fit, three fit indices were computed: the w2 toits degree of freedom ratio (w2/df ), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the rootmean-square error of approximation (RMSEA). Based on the relevant literature, theobserved values for w2/df should be less than two, the values for CFI should be higherthan 0.9, and the RMSEA values should be close to or lower than 0.08 (Marcoulides andSchumacker, 1996).

Univariate skew and kurtosis for all measures were at acceptable levels (see Table Ifor descriptive statistics). The reliability of the MLQ scale was excellent (a 0.90).

Table I provides information on the reliability of the MLQ subscales, as measured byCronbachs a.

FindingsThe findings are presented according to the aims of the study. We first focussed onestablishing the validity of the latent factors and the viability of the structure of thehypothesized latent factors of leadership behaviors. We then proceeded to examine therelation between the leadership factors and the two types of outcomes. Table I presentsthe descriptive statistics of the used measures. As seen in Table I, the ratings of

MLQ scale Mean SD Range Skew Kurtosis Cronbachs a

Idealized influence (attributed) 2.90 0.81 3.75 0.77 0.24 0.82Idealized influence (behavior) 2.96 0.73 3.50 0.59 0.09 0.66Inspirational motivation 2.98 0.68 3.75 0.87 1.02 0.79Intellectual stimulation 2.45 0.80 3.67 0.45 0.08 0.74Individualized consideration 2.58 0.88 4.0 0.53 0.11 0.67Contingent reward 2.80 0.83 3.67 0.72 0.73 0.76Management-by-exception (active) 2.85 0.74 4.00 0.52 0.09 0.60Management-by-exception (passive) 1.23 1.06 4.00 0.49 0.84 0.71Laissez-faire leadership 1.13 0.94 3.50 0.53 0.78 0.84

Table I.Descriptive statisticsand reliability ofMLQ scale

518

JEA52,4

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

12/21

headteachers on the transformational and transactional leadership scales generallyrange between 2.00 and 3.00, indicating that the ratings they received weresatisfactory. The ratings were below 2.00 in the case of management-by-exception(passive) and Laissez-faire Leadership, which shows that headteachers were not

considered to be passive-avoidant by headteachers. In other words, respondents didnot believe that their headteachers avoided making decisions or taking action untilserious problems emerged.

The structure of leadershipTo investigate the factor structure of the MLQ, we examined the validity ofalternative measurement models by using CFA. First, we examined the fit of the datato a one-factor model. Second, we examined whether a two-correlated factor model(active vs passive leadership) could fit the data. Then, we examined the fit of modelshypothesizing that the factor structure of the MLQ can be modeled by three, four,five and six correlated latent factors. In addition, we examined the validity ofan alternative three-factor model that hypothesized that the Contingent Reward

dimension loads on the transformational instead of the transactional factor, as foundin a number of studies (Bass, 1985; Hinkin and Schriesheim, 2008; Tejeda et al.,2001). The results of the study showed that models with more than four factors didnot converge. This could be explained by the multicollinearity of the MLQ scales(Bass, 1999).

Table II presents the fit indices and the information criteria of the alternativemodels. The results of evaluating the alternative models indicated that the four-factorand the alternative three-factor models had the best fit to the data because they had thesmallest Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC)values (AIC3Factor_Alt. 26,478, AIC4Factor 26,471, BIC3Factor_Alt. 26,872,BIC4Factor 26,876). However, taking into consideration the fact that in the four-factor model, an extremely high correlation between the transactional and

transformational factors was observed (0.97) as well as the parsimony principle, wedecided to adopt the alternative three-factor model. In addition, the fit indices ofthe alternative three-factor model were extremely robust (CFI 0.933, w2/df 2.13,RMSEA 0.05). The adequacy of the adopted measurement model gave strongsupport to the hypothesis that all items were valid indicators of the hypothesizedconstructs they aimed to measure.

CFA showed that the parameter estimates of the adopted model were reasonable inthat all factor loadings were statistically significant at the po0.05 level, as indicatedby the t-value (41.96). The standardized estimates ranged from 0.45 to 0.97 (seeFigure 1) and were regarded as acceptable (Hair et al., 2010). Moreover, around half oftheR2 values approach or exceed 0.50, indicating that each item explained around halfof the variance of the latent construct to which it belonged. It should be noted that

a/a Description w2/df CFI RMSEA AIC BIC

1. One-factor model 4.03 0.819 0.09 27,121 27,5032. Two-factor model 2.20 0.929 0.06 26,503 26,8883. Three-factor model 2.11 0.928 0.06 26,506 26,8994. Alternative three-factor model 2.13 0.933 0.05 26,478 26,8725. Four-factor model 2.11 0.935 0.05 26,471 26,876

Table Fit indices a

information criterioof the alternati

measurement mod

51

Teachers josatisfactio

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

13/21

almost all R2 values of the items that belong to F3 exceeded 0.50. The internalconsistency (a) of the two factors was excellent (aF1 0.96 and aF3 0.90), while theinternal reliability of one factor (F2) was acceptable (aF2 0.71).

Moreover, the first part of the analysis showed that the observed and theoreticalfactor structures matched the data set of the present study and determined thegoodness of fit of the three-factor model, indicating that the transformational, thetransactional and the passive avoidant forms of leadership represent three distinct

Q. 1

Q. 2

Q. 9

Q. 10

Q. 13

Q. 15

Q. 16

Q. 18

Q. 21

Q. 23

Q. 25

Q. 26

Q. 30

Q. 31

Q. 32

Q. 34

Q. 35

Q. 36

Q. 4

Q. 22

Q. 24

Q. 5

Q. 7

Q. 12

Q. 20

Q. 28

F1:Transformational

F2: Transactional

F3: Passive-

avoidant

0.79 (0.52)a

0.53 (0.44)

0.61 (0.48)

0.52 (0.37)0.92 (0.71)

0.50 (0.31)

0.66 (0.36)

0.66 (0.49)

0.68 (0.33)

0.76 (0.52)

0.52 (0.43)

0.64 (0.50)

0.64 (0.40)

0.60 (0.33)0.83 (0.54)

0.66 (0.40)

0.51 (0.27)

0.67 (0.50)

0.45 (0.15)

0.67 (0.47)

0.66 (0.44)

0.88 (0.54)

0.80 (0.55)

0.97 (0.63)

0.79 (0.43)

0.90 (0.58)

0.57

0.78

0.50

Note:aThe first number indicates factor loading and the number in parenthesis

indicates the corresponding r2

Q. 33

0.82 (0.50)

Q. 19

0.67 (0.45)

Figure 1.Standardized solutionfor the alternativethree-factor model

520

JEA52,4

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

14/21

components of leadership behavior. The analysis showed that each of the itemsincluded in the factors loaded adequately only on one of the three factors, givingsupport to the assumption that the three types of leadership parameters couldrepresent three distinct, but correlated dimensions of leadership.

The theoretical basis for the alternative three-factor model was that leadershipconsists of three correlated factors, namely transformational (F1), transactional (F2)and passive avoidant leadership (F3). The framework of the adopted alternativethree-factor measurement model hypothesizes that the transformational factorincludes items that refer to attributed idealized influence, idealized influence asbehavior, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualizedconsideration and contingent reward. In addition, the transactional leadership factorconsists of items that refer to active management by exception. Finally, the passive/avoidant behavior factor includes items that relate to passive management byexception and laissez-faire leadership. In total, 28 items were included in the factors,with nine excluded because of low loadings or reliability problems. This resulted inthree general factors (transformational, transactional and passive avoidant), that

model teachers perceptions regarding the characteristics of school leadership.The results of the study showed that the correlations between the three dimensions

of leadership were statistically significant. The correlation coefficient between F1 andF2 (r 0.78, po0.05) was positive, while the correlations between F1 and F3(r0.57, po0.05), and F2 and F3 (r0.50, po0.05) were negative. The strongpositive correlation between F1 and F2 can be attributed to the strong conceptualrelation between transformational and transactional characteristics. The negativecorrelations between the first two factors and the third factor were expected, given thefact that the third factor represents the passive-avoidant dimension of leadership, asopposed to the positive dimensions captured by the transformational and transactionalleadership factors.

The structural modelTo examine the relation between the three factors of leadership behaviors, perceivedleader effectiveness and job satisfaction, we tested the validity of two alternativestructural models: the first model hypothesized that the three factors oftransformational leadership have a direct effect on perceived leader effectivenessand job satisfaction (Model 1), while the second model hypothesized that perceivedleader effectiveness and job satisfaction affect directly the three latent factors oftransformational leadership (Model 2). The reason that both causality directionswere considered was the long-standing debate in the job satisfaction literatureregarding the direction of causality between job satisfaction and specific outcomessuch as performance and productivity (see, e.g. Harrison et al., 2006; Judge et al.,2001; March and Sutton, 1997). Moreover, where research finds causal effects

from job satisfaction to such outcomes, they tend to be weak ( Judge et al., 2001;Riketta, 2008).

The analysis showed that the AIC and BIC values of the two models (AIC 34,162 and BIC 34,667) were identical and their fit indices were at acceptablelevels. Thus, it appears that both models could be adopted. However, thestandardized solution of Model 1 showed that only job satisfaction had a statisticallysignificant direct effect on the passive-avoidant factor, while the standardizedsolution of Model 2 revealed that all the hypothesized regression coefficientswere statistically significant. Thus, it was decided to adopt Model 2 (CFI 0.93,

52

Teachers josatisfactio

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

15/21

w2/df 1.82, RMSEA 0.04), in which the perceived leader effectiveness construct

and job satisfaction are predictive factors of the three transformational leadershipfactors (Figure 2).

The results of the adopted structural model showed that perceived leader

effectiveness and job satisfaction have direct effects on the three leadership factors.In particular, perceived leader effectiveness had a positive direct effect on thetransformational factor (r 0.22, z 4.05, po0.05) and the transactional factor(r 0.28, z 4.38, po0.05) and a negative direct effect on the passive-avoidantfactor (r0.11,z 2.05, po0.05). Job satisfaction had a positive direct effect onthe transformational factor (r 0.31,z 5.17, po0.05) and the transactional factor(r 0.24, z 3.53, po0.05) and a negative direct effect on the passive-avoidantfactor (r0.52, z10.12, po0.05). In sum, perceived leader effectiveness and

job satisfaction had positive direct effects on the two leadership factors and anegative direct effect on the passive-avoidant factor. It should be noted thatperceived leader effectiveness had stronger prediction validity on the transactionalfactor, while job satisfaction proved to have the strongest direct effect on the passive

avoidant factor.The nature of the link of perceived leader effectiveness and job satisfaction with the

three leadership factors in the adopted model is different from the prevailinghypothesis advanced in the transformational leadership literature, according to whichtransformational leadership behaviors and job satisfaction are expected to have animpact on educational outcomes. Our model suggests that an overall situation (orperception) of leader effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction may predict teachersidentification of transformational and transactional qualities in their leader.The implications of this and other findings are discussed below.

F1: Transformational F2: Transactional F3: Passive-avoidant

0.22* 0.28 0.11 0.52

Perceived school-

students outcome

Job Satisfaction

P. 1 P. 2 P. 3 P. 4

Note:*p < 0.05

0.40 0.66 0.60 0.42

S.1 S.2 S.3

0.89 0.85 0.60

0.240.31

Figure 2.The structural model

522

JEA52,4

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

16/21

DiscussionSummary of findingsThe paper examined the relation between teachers perceptions of headteachertransformational/transactional leadership behaviors, student and school outcomes,

and teacher job satisfaction. Data were collected from a sample of 438 secondary schoolteachers in Cyprus, using an adapted version of the MLQ. The results of this researchprovided evidence in support of a three-factor model consisting of transformational,transactional and passive-avoidant forms of leadership. It is important to note the factthat with respect to Contingent Reward, our findings indicate that this dimension loadson the transformational rather than on the transactional factor, as found in a number ofstudies (Bass, 1985; Hinkin and Schriesheim, 2008; Tejeda et al., 2001).

Structural equation modeling was used to investigate the direct link between thethree dimensions of leadership behavior represented by the three factors, teachersperceptions of leader effectiveness, and teacher job satisfaction. Alternative modelswere tested, with two causality directions considered: In the first case, leadershipbehaviors were considered to have an impact on perceived leader effectiveness and job

satisfaction, while in the second case perceived leader effectiveness and job satisfactionwere seen as leading respondents to identify specific leadership behaviors in theirheadteachers. Although, the analysis showed that both models could be validated, itwas decided to adopt the alternative model in which all hypothesized regressioncoefficients were statistically significant.

In the second model, both perceived leader effectiveness and teacher job satisfactionpredicted the extent to which the leader was considered to be transformational ortransactional. It thus appears that a situation of general satisfaction with schoolleadership and teaching as a profession can lead teachers to identify specific leadershipqualities in their headteachers. Thus, it is possible that in the case of Cyprus, thetraditional conception of cause and effect relationships in transformational leadershiptheory may not apply to the extent that has been reported in other countries.

The reason for this may relate to contextual factors: Cyprus is a small country, witha highly centralized educational system, which limits the extent to which schoolleaders can undertake initiatives for the improvement of the school unit. In thiscontext, a school leader may be considered effective for reasons not directly linked tothe transformational leadership paradigm: For instance, the basis for perceivedeffectiveness may relate more to the school leaders effectiveness in dealing with thecentral authority (Ministry of Education). In their research, Yammarino et al. (1993)explained the lack of a link between transactional leadership and appraised orattributed performance by referring to the limited control leaders at lower hierarchylevels have over rewards and benefits. In a similar manner, the position of the schoolleader in the Cyprus educational system may be responsible for differences in therelationship between leadership behaviors and perceived leader effectiveness.

In interpreting the findings of the present study, certain methodologicallimitations should be taken into account. The main limitations of the research relateto the nature of the data: the data used in the study were cross-sectional whereaslongitudinal data are needed for rigorous tests of causal hypotheses. Longitudinaldata can provide stronger evidence on the direction of causality in the relationbetween leadership behaviors, perceived school leader effectiveness and teacher jobsatisfaction. Our findings suggest that the causal links may not necessarily have theform hypothesized in most research studies. However, more conclusive evidence isneeded on the topic.

52

Teachers josatisfactio

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

17/21

Another limitation concerns the fact that data were collected only from teachers,which did not allow for the adoption of nested multilevel models in statistical analysis.The utilization of school, teacher and student level data can provide the basis for amore in-depth examination of the causal links between leadership behaviors and

different types of variables linked to educational units.

ImplicationsPrevious research on transformational leadership can also be used to provide anexplanation for the differences between the model presented in this study and thetraditional conception of cause and effect relationships in transformational leadershiptheory: Based on their research, Marks and Printy (2003) suggested thattransformational leadership is not sufficient for leader effectiveness, calling for morestudies on ways in which transformational and instructional leadership complementeach other and affect student learning. The results of our analysis indicate thatteachers may not consider transformational leadership behaviors to be sufficient foreffectiveness. Instead, when they consider a leader to be effective based on observed

effects on specific educational outcomes, they are led to identify certaintransformational (and transactional) qualities in their leaders. Consequently, it ispossible that, in the case of Cyprus and in accordance with Marks and Printy (2003),transformational leadership practices are not sufficient for effectiveness unlesscombined with additional leadership behaviors such as those linked to instructionalleadership. In the present study, teacher perceptions suggest that this is the case.

The above interpretation also applies to the link between leadership behaviors andjob satisfaction, as presented in this paper. It appears that in the case of Cyprus, jobsatisfaction may be influenced by variables not directly linked to school leadership dueto the fact that the school leader does not offer rewards or benefits to teachers. Previousresearch on teacher job satisfaction in Cyprus suggests that centrally determinedextrinsic benefits (such as salaries and vacations) have a major impact on teacher job

satisfaction (Zembylas and Papanastasiou, 2004). However, our findings also point tosignificant links between job satisfaction and school leadership. In a situation of highoverall job satisfaction, teachers may identify transformational and transactionalqualities in their headteachers.

Overall, the findings point to the need for integrated models of leadership, assuggested by Leithwood and Sun (2012). They argue that research on leadership effectson educational outcomes should focus on a range of leadership practices rather than onwhole leadership models. These practices should include transformational andtransactional leadership practices as well as practices associated with instructionalleadership and aimed at the improvement of learning and instruction. Moreover, inhighly centralized systems as is the case in Cyprus, it is important for policy makers torecognize the limitations of the adoption of popular leadership models and to focus on

the totality of factors that affect teacher job satisfaction and teacher perceptions ofschool effectiveness. At the same time, it must be recognized that the centralized natureof the educational system could be a major weakness in that it may preventheadteachers from undertaking initiatives for the improvement of the school unit.

The present study points to the importance of investigating the perceptions ofteachers regarding the effectiveness of their headteachers in different contexts. Whileteacher perceptions of headteacher effectiveness remain subjective evaluations ofeffectiveness, theory and research in educational administration suggests that effectiveheadteachers will enjoy the support of their teachers. Situational theories, in particular,

524

JEA52,4

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

18/21

highlight the importance of supportive environments in the effectiveness of leaders(see, e.g. Fiedler, 1967). It is hoped that additional research will shed more light onthe link between leadership practices, job satisfaction and (perceived) headteachereffectiveness in different contexts.

References

Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modeling in practice: a review andrecommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003), Context and leadership: anexamination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the MultifactorLeadership Questionnaire, The Leadership Quarterly,Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 261-295.

Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (2004), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Third Edition Manualand Sampler Set, Mind Garden Inc., Menlo Park, CA.

Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), Re-examining the components of transformationaland transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 441-462.

Barnett, A., Marsh, H. and Craven, R. (2005), What type of school leadership satisfies teachers?A mixed method approach to teachers perceptions of satisfaction, available at:www.aare.edu.au/05pap/bar05419.pdf (accessed September 4, 2012).

Barnett, K., McCormick, J. and Conners, R. (2001), Transformational leadership: panacea,placebo, or problem?,Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 24-46.

Bass, B.M. (1985),Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.

Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Educational Impact,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Bass,B.M. (1999), Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership,European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 9-32.

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), Improving Organizational Effectiveness throughTransformational Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. and Berson, Y. (2003), Predicting unit performance byassessing transformational and transactional leadership,Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 207-218.

Bogler, R. (2001), The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction, EducationalAdministration Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 662-683.

Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S. and Frey, D. (2013), Transformational leadership, jobsatisfaction, and team performance: a multilevel mediation model of trust, The

Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 270-283.

Brown, T. (2006), Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, Guilford Press,New York, NY.

Burns, J. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY.Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F.J. and Markham, S.E. (1995), Leadership: the multilevel

approaches,The Leadership Quarterly,Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 251-263.

Downton, J.V. (1973),Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in the Revolutionary Process,The Free Press, New York, NY.

Evers, C.W. and Lakomski, G. (1996), Exploring Educational Administration: CoherentistApplications and Critical Debates, Elsevier Science, New York, NY.

Eyal, O. and Roth, G. (2011), Principals leadership and teachers motivation: self-determinationtheory analysis,Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 256-275.

52

Teachers josatisfactio

http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0033-2909.103.3.411&isi=A1988N286100011http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2803%2900030-4&isi=000182807800001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2803%2900030-4&isi=000182807800001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1348%2F096317999166789&isi=000084196100003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1348%2F096317999166789&isi=000084196100003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1348%2F096317999166789&isi=000084196100003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1348%2F096317999166789&isi=000084196100003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1348%2F096317999166789&isi=000084196100003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578230110366892http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F135943299398410http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F135943299398410http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F135943299398410http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.88.2.207&isi=000182215000002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F00131610121969460&isi=000173062400003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F00131610121969460&isi=000173062400003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2012.11.006&isi=000314261400019http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2012.11.006&isi=000314261400019http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2012.11.006&isi=000314261400019http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F1048-9843%2895%2990009-8&isi=A1995TB25600002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F1048-9843%2895%2990009-8&isi=A1995TB25600002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578231111129055http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578231111129055http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.88.2.207&isi=000182215000002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1348%2F096317999166789&isi=000084196100003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1348%2F096317999166789&isi=000084196100003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2012.11.006&isi=000314261400019http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2012.11.006&isi=000314261400019http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578230110366892http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2803%2900030-4&isi=000182807800001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F1048-9843%2895%2990009-8&isi=A1995TB25600002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F135943299398410http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F00131610121969460&isi=000173062400003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F00131610121969460&isi=000173062400003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578231111129055http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0033-2909.103.3.411&isi=A1988N286100011

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

19/21

Fiedler, F.E. (1967), A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2003), Transformational leadership effectson teachers commitment and effort toward school reform, Journal of Educational

Administration,Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 228-256.

Goodwin, V.L., Wofford, J.C. and Whittington, J.L. (2001), A theoretical and empirical extensionto the transformational leadership construct,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22No. 7, pp. 759-774.

Griffith, J. (2004), Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff jobsatisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance, Journal of Educational

Administration, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 333-356.

Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: AGlobal Perspective, 7th ed., Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hallinger, P. (2003), Leading educational change: reflections on the practice of instructional andtransformational leadership,Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 329-351.

Hallinger, P. and Bryant, D. (2013), Mapping the terrain of educational leadership and

management in East Asia,Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 618-637.Harrison, D.A., Newman, D.A. and Roth, P.L. (2006), How important are job attitudes?

Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 305-325.

Hinkin, T.R. and Schriesheim, C.A. (2008), A theoretical and empirical examination of thetransactional and non-leadership dimensions of the Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 501-513.

Ibrahim, A. and Al-Taneiji, S. (2013), Principal leadership style, school performance, andprincipal effectiveness in Dubai schools, International Journal of Research Studies in

Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 41-54.

Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E. and Patton, G.K. (2001), The job satisfaction jobperformance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review, Psychological Bulletin,

Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 376-407.Khasawneh, S., Omari, A. and Abu-Tineh, A.M. (2012), The relationship between

transformational leadership and organizational commitment: the case for vocationalteachers in Jordan,Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, Vol. 40 No. 4,pp. 1-15.

Koh, W.L., Steers, R.M. and Terborg, J.R. (1995), The effects of transformational leadership onteacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore, Journal of Organizational

Behavior,Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 319-333.

Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (1990), Transformational leadership: how principals can help reformschool cultures,School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 249-280.

Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (1999), The relative effects of principal and teacher sources ofleadership on student engagement with school, Educational Administration Quarterly,

Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 679-706.

Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2000), The effects of different sources of leadership on studentengagement in school, in Riley, K. and Louis, K. (Eds), Leadership for Change and School

Reform, Routledge, London, pp. 50-66.

Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2005), A review of transformational school leadership research,1996-2005, Leadership and Policy in Schools,Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 177-199.

Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2006), Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform:effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices, School Effectiveness andSchool Improvement, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 201-227.

526

JEA52,4

http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578230310474403http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578230310474403http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578230310474403http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.111&isi=000171670400003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578230410534667http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578230410534667http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578230410534667http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F0305764032000122005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FJEA-05-2012-0066http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2FAMJ.2006.20786077http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2FAMJ.2006.20786077http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2008.07.001&isi=000260088000001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2008.07.001&isi=000260088000001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5861%2Fijrse.2012.86http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5861%2Fijrse.2012.86http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0033-2909.127.3.376&isi=000170928300005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1741143212438217http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1741143212438217http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.4030160404&isi=A1995RM22200002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.4030160404&isi=A1995RM22200002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.4030160404&isi=A1995RM22200002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F0924345900010402http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013161X99355002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013161X99355002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F15700760500244769http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F15700760500244769http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243450600565829&isi=000238193500004http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243450600565829&isi=000238193500004http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FJEA-05-2012-0066http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243450600565829&isi=000238193500004http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243450600565829&isi=000238193500004http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.111&isi=000171670400003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F0924345900010402http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5861%2Fijrse.2012.86http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5861%2Fijrse.2012.86http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F0305764032000122005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F15700760500244769http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578230310474403http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578230310474403http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.4030160404&isi=A1995RM22200002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.4030160404&isi=A1995RM22200002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2008.07.001&isi=000260088000001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1741143212438217http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2FAMJ.2006.20786077http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578230410534667http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578230410534667http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013161X99355002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0033-2909.127.3.376&isi=000170928300005

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

20/21

Leithwood, K. and Sun, J. (2012), The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: ameta-analytic review of unpublished research, Educational Administration Quarterly,Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 387-423.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Silins, H. and Dart, B. (1993), Using the appraisal of school leaders as an

instrument for school restructuring,Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 85-109.Lord, R.G. and Maher, K.J. (1993), Leadership and Information Processing, Routledge, London.

Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), Effectiveness correlates oftransformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the literature,The Leadership Quarterly,Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 385-425.

McColl-Kennedy, J.R. and Anderson, R.D. (2002), Impact of leadership style and emotions onsubordinate performance, The Leadership Quarterly,Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 545-559.

March, J.G. and Sutton, R.I. (1997), Organizational performance as a dependent variable,Organization Science, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 698-706.

Marcoulides, G.A. and Schumacker, R.E. (1996), Advanced Structural Equation Modeling: Issuesand Techniques, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Marks, H.M. and Printy, S.M. (2003), Principal leadership and school performance: an

integration of transformational and instructional leadership, Educational AdministrationQuarterly,Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 370-397.

Muthen, L.K. and Muthen, B.O. (1998-2007),Mplus Users Guide, Muthen & Muthen, Los Angeles, CA.

Nguni, S., Sleegers, P. and Denessen, E. (2006), Transformational and transactional leadershipeffects on teachers job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizationalcitizenship behavior in primary schools: the Tanzanian case, School Effectiveness andSchool Improvement, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 145-177.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKensie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), Transformational leaderbehaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizationalcitizenships behaviors, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142.

Rafferty, A.E. and Griffin, M.A. (2004), Dimensions of transformational leadership: conceptualand empirical extensions, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 329-354.

Riketta, M. (2008), The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: a meta-analysisof panel studies, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 472-481.

Rowold, J. and Heinitz, K. (2007), Transformational and charismatic leadership: assessing theconvergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS, The LeadershipQuarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 121-133.

Seltzer, J. and Bass, B.M. (1990), Transformational leadership beyond initiation andconsideration, Journal of Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 693-703.

Silins, H. and Mulford, B. (2002), Leadership and school results, in Leithwood, K. and Hallinger, P.(Eds), Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration,Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 561-612.

Silins, H.C. (1992), Effective leadership for school reform, The Alberta Journal of EducationalResearch, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 317-334.

Silins, H.C. (1994), The relationship between transformational and transactional leadershipand school improvement outcomes, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 5No. 3, pp. 272-298.

Silins, H.C., Mulford, B. and Zarins, S. (2002), Organizational learning and school change,Educational Administration Quarterly,Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 613-642.

Stewart, J. (2006), Transformational leadership: an evolving concept examined through the worksof Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood, Canadian Journal of Educational Administrationand Policy, Vol. 54 No. 54, pp. 1-29, available at: www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/pdf_files/stewart.pdf

52

Teachers josatisfactio

http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013161X11436268&isi=000305835800001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F01619569309538721http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2896%2990027-2&isi=A1996VK65200008http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2896%2990027-2&isi=A1996VK65200008http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2896%2990027-2&isi=A1996VK65200008http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2802%2900143-1&isi=000178839100004http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2802%2900143-1&isi=000178839100004http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.8.6.698&isi=000071625600009http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013161X03253412&isi=000184377800003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013161X03253412&isi=000184377800003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013161X03253412&isi=000184377800003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243450600565746&isi=000238193500002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243450600565746&isi=000238193500002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243450600565746&isi=000238193500002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F1048-9843%2890%2990009-7http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2004.02.009&isi=000221737700002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2004.02.009&isi=000221737700002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.93.2.472&isi=000254057000019http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.93.2.472&isi=000254057000019http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2007.01.003&isi=000245839700003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2007.01.003&isi=000245839700003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2007.01.003&isi=000245839700003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2007.01.003&isi=000245839700003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920639001600403&isi=A1990EP48100001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2F978-94-010-0375-9_21http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F0924345940050305&isi=A1994PK25100005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013161X02239641&isi=000180111600003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013161X02239641&isi=000180111600003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2896%2990027-2&isi=A1996VK65200008http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920639001600403&isi=A1990EP48100001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F1048-9843%2890%2990009-7http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F0924345940050305&isi=A1994PK25100005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2007.01.003&isi=000245839700003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2007.01.003&isi=000245839700003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243450600565746&isi=000238193500002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243450600565746&isi=000238193500002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.8.6.698&isi=000071625600009http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F01619569309538721http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.93.2.472&isi=000254057000019http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2802%2900143-1&isi=000178839100004http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013161X11436268&isi=000305835800001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2F978-94-010-0375-9_21http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2004.02.009&isi=000221737700002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013161X03253412&isi=000184377800003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013161X03253412&isi=000184377800003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013161X02239641&isi=000180111600003

8/10/2019 JEA-01-2013-0014

21/21

Tejeda, M., Scandura, T.A. and Pillai, R. (2001), The MLQ revisited: psychometric properties andrecommendations,The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 31-52.

Thoonen, E.E.J., Sleegers, P.J.C., Oort, J.J., Peetsma, T.T.D. and Geijsel, F.P. (2011), How toimprove teaching practices: the role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and

leadership practices, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 496-536.Tucker, M.L., Bass, B.M. and Daniel, L.G. Jr (1992), Transformational leaderships impact on

higher education satisfaction, effectiveness, and extra effort, in Clark, K.E., Clark, M. andCampbell, D.P. (Eds), Impact of Leadership, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro,NC, pp. 169-176.

Yammarino, F.J., Sprangler, W.D. and Bass, B.M. (1993), Transformational leadership andperformance: a longitudinal investigation, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 81-102.

Yukl, G. (1999), An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismaticleadership theories, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 285-305.

Zacharatos, A., Barling, J. and Kelloway, E.K. (2000), Development and effects of transformationalleadership in adolescents, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 211-226.

Zembylas, M. and Papanastasiou, E. (2004), Job satisfaction among school teachers in Cyprus,

Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 357-374.

About the author

Maria Eliophotou Menon is an Associate Professor in Educational Administration and Policy.

She has taught in higher education for more than 20 years and currently coordinates the

Postgraduate program in Educational Administration and Evaluation offered by the Department

of Education of the University of Cyprus. Her research interests include leadership and job

satisfaction in primary and secondary education, concerns of beginning teachers, and student

decision-making processes in higher education. She has published widely in academic journals

and participated in international research projects on educational administration and leadership.

Associate Professor Maria Eliophotou Menon can be contacted at: melmen@ucy.ac.cy

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

528

JEA52,4

http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2801%2900063-7&isi=000169038700002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2801%2900063-7&isi=000169038700002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013161X11400185&isi=000292391800004http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F1048-9843%2893%2990005-Ehttp://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F1048-9843%2893%2990005-Ehttp://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2899%2900013-2&isi=000082926900007http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2899%2900013-2&isi=000082926900007http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2800%2900041-2&isi=000088835100002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578230410534676http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2800%2900041-2&isi=000088835100002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0013161X11400185&isi=000292391800004http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2899%2900013-2&isi=000082926900007http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1048-9843%2801%2900063-7&isi=000169038700002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F1048-9843%2893%2990005-Ehttp://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578230410534676