8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
1/42
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
2/42
MonographEditors:AllanWalkerandPhilipHallinger
CorrespondenceTheJosephLauLuenHungCharitableTrustAsiaPacificCentreforLeadershipandChange,HongKongInstituteofEducation,Tai
Po,
N.T.,
HONG
KONG.
Fax:+85229488634
Tel:+85229488783
Email:[email protected]
Website:www.ied.edu.hk/apclc/
TheHongKongInstituteofEducation2010
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system,
without
permissionin
writing
from
Hong
Kong
Institute
of
Education.
For
any
copyright matters please contact Allan WALKER at Hong Kong Institute of
Education.
ThismonographispublishedbyTheJosephLauLuenHungCharitableTrust
AsiaPacificCentreforLeadershipandChange,HongKongInstituteofEducation.
This monograph was first published as an article in Cambridge Journal of
Education.[Hallinger,P.(2003). Leadingeducationalchange:Reflectionsonthe
practiceof instructionalandtransformational leadership.CambridgeJournalof
Education,33(3), 329351.]
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
3/42
One of the key aims of the APCLC is to disseminate useful
informationaboutschoolleadershipthroughtheprogrammeswe
offers. This monograph series is one of the ways we do this.
Monographs
may
either
present
papers
which
have
beenpublishedpreviouslyor,as theCentredevelops,accountsofour
researchand/orotherdevelopmentwork.
Monographs are aimed squarely at the large community of
scholarpractitioners we serve. As such they are not how toos
butmoresubstantivepieces.
AllanWalkerChairProfessorofInternationalEducationalLeadershipHead,DepartmentofEducationPolicyandLeadershipDirector,TheJosephLauLuenHungCharitableTrustAsiaPacificCentreforLeadershipandChangeHongKongInstituteofEducation
PhilipHallingerChairProfessorofLeadershipandChangeDirector,TheJosephLauLuenHungCharitableTrustAsiaPacificCentreforLeadershipandChangeHongKongInstituteofEducation
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
4/42
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
5/42
1
ContentsIntroduction2ConceptualizationsofEducationalLeadership4
InstructionalLeadership5TransformationalLeadership11Discussion20
TowardsanIntegrationofLeadershipModels22
Abstract2
ContingencyModelsLeadershipintheSchoolContext25References29
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
6/42
2
LeadingEducationalChange:
Reflectionsonthepracticeof
instructionaland
transformational
leadership
PHILIPHALLINGERHongKongInstituteofEducation
ABSTRACT
Over the past two decades, debate over the most suitable
leadership
role
for
principals
has
been
dominated
by
two conceptual models: instructional leadership and
transformationalleadership.Thisarticlereviewsthe conceptual
andempiricaldevelopmentofthesetwoleadershipmodels.The
author concludes that the suitability or effectiveness of a
particular leadership model is linked to factors in the external
environment and the local context of a school. Moreover, the
paper argues that the definitions of the two models are also
evolving in response to the changing needs of schools in the
contextof
global
educational
reforms.
INTRODUCTION
The past 25 years have witnessed the emergence of new
conceptualmodelsinthefieldofeducationalleadership.Twoof
the foremostmodels,asmeasuredby thenumberofempirical
studies, are instructional leadership and transformational
leadership(Heck
&
Hallinger,
1999).
In
contrast
with
many
earlier
leadership models applied to school administration (e.g.
situational leadership, trait theories,contingency theory), these
models focusexplicitlyon themanner inwhich theeducational
leadership exercised by school administrators and teachers
bringsabout improvededucationaloutcomes(e.g.Leithwood&
Jantzi,1999b;Southworth,2002).
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
7/42
3
Instructional leadershipmodelsemerged in theearly1980s from
early
research
on
effective
schools.
This
body
ofresearch identified strong, directive leadership focused on
curriculum and instruction from the principal as a
characteristic of elementary schools that were effective at
teaching children in poor urban communities (Edmonds, 1979;
Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982). Although not without its
critics(e.g.Cuban,1984;Miskel,1982),thismodelshapedmuchof
the thinking about effective principal leadership disseminated in
the1980sandearly1990sinternationally.Moreover,theemerging
popularity of this model, at least in the USA, soon
became evident from its widespread adoption as the model of
choice by most principal leadership academies (Hallinger, 1992;
Hallinger&Wimpelberg,1992).
With the advent of school restructuring in North America during
the 1990s, scholars and practitioners began to popularise terms
such as shared leadership, teacher leadership, distributed
leadership, and transformational leadership. The emergence of
these leadership models indicated a broader dissatisfaction with
theinstructional
leadership
model,
which
many
believed
focused
toomuchon theprincipalas thecentreof expertise,powerand
authority.
Leadershipmodels ineducationare subject to the same faddism
that is apparent in other areas of education. Todays
favourite brand is soon replaced by another. Nonetheless, it is
fortunatethatoverthepast25years,scholarshavesubjectedboth
instructionalleadership(e.g.Glasman,1984;Heck,Marcolouides&
Larsen,
1990)
and
transformational
leadership
(e.g.,
Leithwood
&
Jantzi,2000a;Silins,1994)toextendedempiricalstudy.
As a scholar who has contributed to this literature, I have been
challenged time and again to reconcile the theoretical and
practicalvalidityofthese leadershipmodels.Morerecently,Iwas
offered the challenge of trying to turn a school around, a task
that entailed the exercise of leadership. This admittedly
unconventionalarticleisareflectionupontheutilityofthesetwo
leadershipmodelsbaseduponbothresearchandmyownpractice.
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
8/42
4
CONCEPTUALISATIONSOF
EDUCATIONALLEADERSHIP
Although a variety of conceptual models have been employed
over the past 25 years of research into educational leadership,
two major approaches have predominated: instructional
leadership and transformational leadership. Studies from the
early to late 1980s were dominated by an instructional
leadership conceptualisation drawn from the effective schools
literature (e.g. Andrews & Soder, 1987; Hallinger & Murphy,
1986;ODay,1983).
Asnoted
above,
around
1990
researchers
began
to
shift
their
attentiontoleadershipmodelsconstruedasmoreconsistentwith
evolving trends in educational reform such as empowerment,
shared leadership,andorganizational learning.Thisevolutionof
the educational leadership role has been labelled as reflecting
secondorderchanges(Leithwood,1994)asitisaimedprimarily
at changing the organizations normative structure. The most
frequentlyusedmodelof thisvarietyhasbeen transformational
leadership (e.g. Bass, 1985, 1997; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000b;
Silins
&
Mulford,
2002).
Transformational leadership focuses on developing the
organizations capacity to innovate. Rather than focusing
specifically on direct coordination, control, and supervision of
curriculumand instruction, transformational leadershipseeks to
build the organizations capacity to select its purposes and to
supportthedevelopmentofchangestopracticesofteachingand
learning. Transformational leadership may be viewed as
distributed in that it focuses on developing a shared vision and
shared
commitment
to
school
change.
In
this
section
of
thebookletIwillbrieflyreviewwhathasbeenlearnedabouteachof
thesemodelsthroughresearchconductedoverthepast25years.
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
9/42
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
10/42
6
Instructional
leadership
focuses
predominantly
on
the
role
of
theschool
principal
in
coordinating,
controlling,
supervising,
and developing curriculum and instruction in the school(Bamburg&Andrews,1990;Hallinger&Murphy,1985).
With itsbirthplace inthe instructionaleffectiveelementaryschool (Edmonds, 1979), instructional leadership wasgenerally conceived to be a unitary role of the elementaryschoolprincipal(Leithwood&Montgomery,1982).
Similarly,thefactthatstudiesofeffectiveschoolsfocusedonpoor urban schools in need of substantial change, it is notsurprising to note that instructional leaders weresubsequently conceived to be strong, directive leaders
(Edmonds,1979;
Hallinger
&
Murphy,
1986).
Instructional leaders lead from a combination of expertiseand charisma. They are handson principals, hipdeep incurriculum and instruction, and unafraid of working withteachers on the improvement of teaching and learning(Cuban,1984;Hallinger&Murphy,1986).
Instructional leaders are goaloriented, focusing on theimprovementofstudentacademicoutcomes.Giventhedirestraitsinwhichtheyfindtheirschools,theseprincipalsfocusonamorenarrowmissionthanmanyoftheirpeers.
Instructional leaders are viewed as culture builders. They
sought
to
create
an
academic
press
that
fosters
high
expectations and standards for students, as well as forteachers(Mortimore,1993;Purkey&Smith,1984).
The most frequently used conceptualisation of instructional
leadership was developed by Hallinger (2000). This model
proposes three dimensions of the instructional leadership
construct: defining the schools mission, managing the
instructionalprogram,andpromotingapositiveschoollearning
climate (Hallinger, 2000). These dimensions are further
delineatedintoteninstructionalleadershipfunctions.
Two functions, framing the schools goals and communicating
theschoolsgoals,comprisethedimension,definingtheschools
mission.These functionsconcern theprincipalsrole inworking
with staff to ensure that the school has clear,
measurablegoalsthatarefocusedontheacademicprogressof
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
11/42
7
its
students.
It
is
the
principals
responsibility
to
ensure
that
these goals are widely known and supported throughout the
schoolcommunity.Whilethisdimensiondoesnotassumethat
theprincipaldefinestheschoolsmissionalone,itdoesassume
that the principals responsibility is toensure that the school
hasaclearacademicmissionandtocommunicateittostaff.
The second dimension, managing the instructional program,
focuses on the coordination and control of instruction and
curriculum. This dimension incorporates three leadership
functions:supervising
and
evaluating
instruction,
coordinating
thecurriculum,monitoringstudentprogress.Thesefunctions,
more so than functions in the other twodimensions, require
the leader to be deeply engaged in the schools instructional
development. In larger schools, it is clear that the principal
cannot be the only person involved in leading the schools
instructional program. Yet this framework assumes that
development of the academic core of the school is a key
leadershipresponsibilityoftheprincipal(Hallinger&Murphy,
1985).
The third dimension, promoting a positive school learning
climate, includes several functions: protecting instructional
time, promoting professional development, maintaining high
visibility,providingincentivesforteachers,providingincentives
for learning. This dimension is broader in scope and
intent. Itconformstothenotion thateffectiveschoolscreate
an academic press through the development of high
standards
and
expectations
and
a
culture
of
continuous
improvement. It is the responsibility of the instructional
leadershiptoaligntheschoolsstandardsandpracticeswithits
mission and to create a climate that supports teaching and
learning.
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
12/42
8
ResearchFindingsonInstructionalLeadershipGiven the emergent popularity of this leadership model during
theearly
1980s,
scholars
subsequently
generated
asubstantial
body of international research (Bamburg & Andrews, 1990;
Goldring & Pasternak, 1994; Leitner, 1994). Indeed, in their
comprehensive review of research on school
leadershipanditseffects,HallingerandHeck(1996b)concluded
that this was the most common conceptualization of school
leadership used during the period of their review of empirical
researchonschoolleadershipeffects(19801995).Asubsequent
review of research focused solely upon instructional leadership
foundthat
over
125
empirical
studies
employed
this
construct
between1980and2000(Hallinger,2000).
Thisbodyofresearchhasyieldedawealthoffindingsconcerning
antecedents of instructional leadership behaviour (school level,
school size, school SES), the effects of the school context on
instructional leadership (e.g., gender, training, experience), as
wellastheeffectsofschoolleadershipontheorganization(e.g.,
school mission and goals, expectations, curriculum, teaching,
teacher engagement) and school outcomes (e.g., school
effectiveness,
student
achievement).
Again,
space
limitations
make an extended discussion of these findings impractical;
interested readers are therefore referred to other relevant
sources (Hallinger, 2000; Leithwood et al., 1990; Southworth,
2002).Giventhefocusofthisarticle,however,Iwouldnotethe
following conclusions from this research on instructional
leadership:
Thepreponderanceofevidence indicatesthatschoolprincipalscontribute to school effectiveness and student achievement
indirectlythrough
actions
they
take
to
influence
what
happens
intheschoolandinclassrooms.
The most influential avenue of effects concerns the principalsroleinshapingthepurposesoftheschool(Bamburg&Andrews,1990; Goldring & Pasternak, 1994). The actual role thatprincipals play in mission building is influenced by features oftheschoolcontextsuchassocioeconomicstatusandschoolsize(Hallinger&Heck,2002;Hallinger&Murphy,1986).
Instructional leadership influences the quality of schooloutcomes through the alignment of school structures (e.g.,academic standards, time allocation, curriculum) with theschoolsmission(Hallinger&Heck,1996a,1996b).
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
13/42
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
14/42
10
principalswereinstructionalleaders.However,theformoftheir
leadershipwasadjustedtotheneedsoftheirschools.Principals
in the low SES effective schools had clear measurable goals
focusedon
academic
achievement
of
the
students.
These
were
knownandsupportedthroughouttheschoolanditscommunity.
In each of the high SES effective schools, there was a clear
academic mission known and supported by staff, students and
parents. However, the missions were expressed more broadly
andseveraloftheschoolsdidnothaveanymeasurablegoalsat
all(Hallinger&Murphy,1986).
HaveWebeenAbletoCreateInstructionalLeaders?During the 1980s when instructional leadership emerged as a
modelofchoice,numerousscholarsquestioned thecapacityof
principals to fulfil this somewhat heroic role. Principals who
demonstratedthetypeofinstructionalleadership.neededtolift
performanceintheirschools,werebydefinitionasmallminority
(Barth,1986).Scepticswonderedifthemajorityofprincipalshad
thenecessarycombinationofwillandskilltocarryoutthistype
of handson, directive leadership (Barth, 1986; Bossert et al.,
1982).Others
suggested
that
the
very
nature
of
the
principalship
renders instructional leadershipan impossibledreamformany
principals(e.g.Barth,1986;Cuban,1988).
Professor Larry Cuban, a selfdescribed friendly critic of
instructional leadership and effective schools described the
managerialormaintenanceroleoftheprincipalasembeddedin
the DNA of the principalship (Cuban, 1988). He asserted that
efforts by principals to act as instructional leaders in schools
inevitably run aground against basic structural and normative
conditionsof
the
principalship
and
the
school.
Forexample,principalsoccupyamiddlemanagementpositionin
whichtheirauthoritytocommandisseverelylimited.Thelimited
authorityofprincipals iscompoundedwhenconsidered in light
oftheirneedtomeettheexpectationsofthoseaboveandbelow
them in the hierarchy. Moreover, any intention to provide
instructional leadership, especially in secondary schools, is
complicatedby the fact that inmanycasesprincipalshave less
expertisethan
the
teachers
whom
they
supervise
(Barth,
1990;
Lambert,1998).
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
15/42
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
16/42
12
Fig.
1:Instructionalmanagement
framework(from
Hallinger&Mruphy,
1985)
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
17/42
13
First the model does not assume that the principal alone will
provide the leadership that creates these conditions.
Leadershipmaywellbeshared,coming from teachersaswell
as
from
the
principal
(Leithwood
&
Jantzi,
2000a;
Louis
&
Marks,1998;Ogawa&Bossert,1995).Second,themodelstarts
from somewhat different motivational assumptions.
Behavioural components such as individualised support,
intellectual stimulation, and personal vision suggest that the
model is grounded in understanding the needs of Individual
staff rather than coordinating and controlling them towards
theorganisationsdesiredends. In thissense themodelseeks
toinfluencepeoplebybuildingfromthebottomupratherthan
fromthe
top
down.
The conceptual distinctions between the terms instructional
leadership and transformational leadership depend heavily
uponthedefinitionsthathaveevolvedovertime.Nonetheless,
Iwouldsuggestthatseveralcriteriamaybeusefulinidentifying
theirdistinguishingcharacteristics:
Fig.2:Transformationalleadershipmodel(adaptedfromLeithwoodetal,1998)
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
18/42
14
Topdownvs.bottomupfocusonapproachtoschoolimprovement.
Firstorderorsecondordertargetforchange.
Managerialor
transactional
vs.
transformational
relationship
to
staff.
Instructional leadership has been characterised by some
scholars as a directive and topdown approach to school
leadership (Barth, 1990; Day et al., 2001). Instructional
leadership emphasises the principals coordinationand control
of instruction (Cohen & Miller, 1980; Heck et al., 1990). The
broad brushes of research on instructional leadership in
effectiveschoolsproducesanimageoftheprincipalasdirecting
ororchestratingimprovementsintheschool.
In contrast, transformational leadership is often
considered a type of shared or distributed leadership. Rather
than a single individualthe principal coordinating and
controlling fromabove, transformational leadership focuseson
stimulatingchangethroughbottomupparticipation(Dayetal.,
2001; Jackson, 2000; Marks & Printy, in press). Indeed,
transformationalleadershipmodelsmayexplicitlyconceptualise
leadershipas
an
organisational
entity
rather
than
the
property
of a single individual, accounting for multiple sources of
leadership.
A second distinction has evolved around the conceptual
dichotomyoftransactionalvs.transformational leadership(e.g.
Bycio & Allen, 1995; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Silins, 1994). This
distinctioncontrastsleadershipthatfocusesonmanagementof
existing relationships and maintenance of the status quo with
leadership
that
seeks
to
envision
and
create
the
future
by
synthesizing and extending the aspirations of members of the
organisationalcommunity.
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
19/42
15
A third conceptualdistinction,clearly related to the first two,
contrasts the means by which leadership achieves its
effects, through firstorder vs. second order changes in the
school.Instructional
leadership
is
conceptualised
as
targeting
firstordervariablesinthechangeprocess.Thismeansthatthe
instructional leader (i.e., the principal) seeks to influence
conditions that directly impact the quality of curriculum and
instruction delivered to students in classrooms (Cuban, 1984,
1988). Examples of instructional leadership behaviours that
seek to produce firstorder effects include the principals
setting schoolwide goals, direct supervision of teaching, and
coordinationof thecurriculum (Hallingeretal.,1996;Leitner,
1994;
Marks
&
Printy,
in
press).
In contrast, transformational leadership seeks to generate
secondorder effects. Transformational leaders increase the
capacity of others in the school to produce firstorder effects
on learning (Lambert, 1998; Leithwood & Louis, 1999). For
example, transformational leaders create a climate in which
teachers engage in continuous learning and in which they
routinely share their learning with others. Transformational
leaders workwith others in the school community to identify
personal goals and then link these to the broaderorganisational goals (Barth, 1990; Lambert, 2002). This
approach isbelievedto increasecommitmentofthestaffwho
see the relationship between what they are trying to
accomplish and the mission of the school. These changes are
conceived as secondorder effects in the sense that the
principal is creating the conditions under which others are
committed and selfmotivated to work towards the
improvement of the school without specific direction from
above.
ResearchFindingson TransformationalLeadershipInasynthesisofseveralstudiesof the impactof theprincipal
from a transformational leadership perspective, Leithwood
(1994) highlights people effects as a cornerstone of the
transformationalleadershipmodel.Withinthemodelproposed
byLeithwoodandcolleagues,manyoftheoutcomesofinterest
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
20/42
16
in terms of restructuring schools are teacher effects (e.g.
changes
of
behaviour,
adoption
of
new
programs,
teaching
techniques). Thus, as suggested above, the principals efforts
becomeapparentintheschoolconditionsthatproducechanges
in people rather than in promoting specific instructional
practices (e.g., Bottery, 2001; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999a;
Mulford&Bishop,1997).
Leithwood (1994)also found thatprincipaleffectsareachieved
through fostering group goals, modelling desired behaviour for
others, providing intellectual stimulation, and individualised
support(e.g., towardpersonalandstaffdevelopment). Inthese
schools, principals were better at supporting staff, providing
recognition, knowing problems of school, were more
approachable, follow through, seek new ideas, and spent
considerabletimedevelopinghumanresources.
Thedifferenttargetforprincipalleadershipisexemplifiedin
a study of the effects of transformational leadership
conductedbyLeithwoodandJantzi(1999b):
Transformational leadership had strong direct effects onschool conditions (.80) which, in turn, had strong directeffects on classroom conditions (.62). Together,transformational leadershipandschoolconditionsexplain17%ofthevariationinclassroomconditions,eventhoughthe direct effects of transformational leadership onclassroom conditions are negative and non significant.Transformational leadership has a weak (.17) butstatistically significant effect on student identification: itseffectsonstudentparticipationarenotsignificant.(p.467)
Several studies reinforce the conclusion that transformational
leadership
has
an
impacton
teachers
perceptions
of
school
conditions,theircommitmenttochange,andtheorganisational
learning thattakesplace(Bogler,2001;Dayetal.,2001;Fullan,
2002).Withrespecttooutcomes,leadershiphadaninfluenceon
teachers perceptions of progress with implementing reform
initiatives and teachers perceptions of increases in
studentoutcomes.
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
21/42
17
These observations again focus on two characteristics of
transformational leadership: its distributed nature and its
targeting of capacity development across a broader spectrum
of the school community members. Jacksons (2000)
assessment of attempts to development shared
transformational leadership ina setofEnglish schools further
illuminatesthesefeatures.
WhathasemergedfromSharnbrookswork,andthatofothers
within the project, is a set of understandings about a more
dispersed leadership model which is opportunistic, flexible,
responsive and contextspecific, rather than prescribed by
roles,inflexible,
hierarchical
and
status
driven.
It
is
amodel
that encourages and provides support for a broadly based
leadershipapproach.Intheseschoolsinwhichsustainedschool
improvementhasbeenmaintained,andwhichhavelearntfrom
the questioning of fundamental assumptions to which
collaborativeenquirygives rise,anewparadigmof leadership
seems to have emerged. We can, perhaps, draw three
conclusions about leadership from these actively improving
schoolcontexts:
Forthelonghaulofschoolimprovement,schoolleadershavetodevelopandexpandtheirleadershiprepertoires.
Theschoolimprovementjourneyoffersacontextforthedevelopment of new understandings, both aboutleadershipandaboutschooldevelopment.
The collaborative processes inherent to the enquiryapproach to school improvement offer the opportunityfor teachers to study, to learn about, to share and toenactleadership.
TheworkatSharnbrookandinotherschoolshasallowedusto
study more diffuse styles of leadership. The influence of the
school improvement group has generated shared
influencesettings,evolving leadershippatternsthataremore
collaborative, interactive and dynamicuncertain and
exploratory, too! These are not the characteristics readily
developed on management training courses, nor do they sit
neatly with the competencybased skills training currently
being promoted in this country. These are characteristics not
even located inone individual.Theyarecharacteristicsnotso
muchof
the
leader,
but
of
leadership.
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
22/42
18
Jacksons conclusions about the development or
evolution of shared transformational leadership within the
schoolcommunityalsodrawattentiontootherdistinguishing
characteristicsembedded
in
this
model.
For
instance,
he
notes
thatas leadershipbecomesmorediffusedwithin the school,
uncertaintymayincreaseratherthandecrease.Thisisaresult
of more voices (administrators, teachers, parents, staff,
students)engaging in theprocessofproviding leadership for
school improvement. As Jackson (2000) suggests,
transformational leadership requires a higher tolerance for
ambiguityanduncertaintyfromtheprincipal,andanabilityto
livewiththemessyprocessofchange.
This
imagery
contrasts
with
the
strong
leader
imagery
encompassed in much of the instructional leadership
literature. Indeed, in the classic instructional leadership
model, the principal actually seeks to limit uncertainty. S/he
does this through the increased coordination and control of
curriculum and instruction, even if it may reduce
opportunitiesforexercisingvoiceamongothers.
LimitationsA debt is owed to Leithwood and his colleagues for thesignificantadvances inourunderstandingoftransformational
leadership gained over the past decade. Programmatic
research of this type is too rare in our field. Nonetheless,
limitationsremainwithrespecttothisknowledgebase.
If studying the effects of a single leader on features of the
school organization and its outcomes has proven to be a
challengingtaskforscholars(Hallinger&Heck,1996a,1996b),
then
studying
transformational
leadership
is
even
more
daunting.Thetransformational leadershipconstructdoesnot
assume that leadership is located in a single individual.
Developing valid measures, as well as integrating and
interpreting leadership that is distributed across a variety of
people requires even greater sophistication. Measurement
issues become even more relevant because this body of
research has sought to go beyond traditional student
achievement outcomes. Studies of transformational
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
23/42
19
leadershiparemorelikelytoincludeoutcomevariablessuchas
teacher engagement, teacher perceptions of change and
improvement, student engagement with the school (e.g.,
Leithwood&
Jantzi,
1999a,
2000a).
IsTransformationalLeadershiptheAnswertoCritiquesofInstructionalLeadership?I noted earlier that interest in transformational leadership
increased at a time whenNorth American educators began to
investigate how to support school restructuring (e.g.,
Leithwood, 1992, 1994; Sheppard, 1996). The imagery of the
American school restructuring movement of the early 1990s
was
captured
inphrases
such
as
teacher
professionalism,
learning communities, and professional development schools.
Transformational leadership, a conceptual model that had
originated in studies of political and corporate leadership,
appearedbettersuitedtotheneedsofschoolsastheyevolved
in the era of restructuring (see Kirby et al., 1992;
KleineKracht,1993).
However,normativebeliefsmaynotbesupportedbyempirical
reality.
In
addition,
the
cultural
context
of
education
not
only
differs from one nation to another, but the policy
contextofeducationcontinuestoevolve.Appropriateformsof
leadership must adapt to both (Bottery, 2001; Dimmock &
Walker,2000).
Indeed, Leithwood has gone almost full circle by reprising the
issue of how conceptions of suitable leadership styles
reflect the latest fad or politically correct notion of schooling.
One of his most recent studies examined transformational
teacherleadership.
The
study
yielded
distinctly
disappointing
results concerning the contribution of teacher leadership
towardsarangeofvariables.These includedschoolconditions
that influence classrooms and students, student engagement
with the school and student participation in the school
(Leithwood&Jantzi,2000b).
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
24/42
20
Normativeconceptionsofwhatismostsuitableorcorrectmust
beappraisedintermsofevidence.Thisisespeciallytrueinlight
of theeffort required for a school to move in the direction of
empowermentand
shared
leadership.
It
does
not
occur
easily,
and many studies suggest considerable reluctance among
teachers to participate in leading (Bishop & Mulford, 1996;
Sheppard&Brown,1996).
Moreover,theavailableevidencesuggeststhattransformational
leadershipisnoeasiertoexercisethaninstructionalleadership.
Indeed, Jacksons (2000) observation concerning the
uncertaintiesthataccompanysharedleadershipshouldbetaken
asacautionarynotethatthepersonalcapacitiesassociatedwith
transformationalleadership
may
be
more
difficult
to
cultivate
through training. I was, however, unable to find published
empiricaldataconcerningthisparticularissue.
DISCUSSION
This booklet has examined conceptualisations as well as
empirical research concerned with the two predominant
conceptualmodels
studied
in
educational
leadership
over
the
past 25 years: instructional leadership and transformational
leadership (Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1996b). As a scholar
involvedinthisfieldsinceinstructionalleadershipwasbirthed
fromresearchoneffectiveschools,Ihavewitnessedthecyclical
popularity of these theories among researchers and
practitioners.
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
25/42
21
Thepopularityoftheinstructionalleadershipconstructarosein
North America during the 1980s along with that of its
progenitor, theeffective schoolsmovement.As the topdown
emphasis
of
American
school
reform
gave
way
to
therestructuring movements attempts to professionalise schools
in the early 1990s, transformational leadership overtook
instructional leadership as the model of choice. As the 1990s
progressed, a mixed mode of educational reform began to
evolve, with a combination of topdown and bottomup
characteristics.
At the turn of the century, the global trend in educational
reformhas refocused toa largedegreeon thequestion:How
canwe
bring
more
powerful
methods
of
learning
and
teaching
tobearon thepracticeofschools Hallinger,2003;Murphy&
Shipman, 2003)? Somewhat surprisingly, this refocusing of
attention on the improvement of learning and teaching has
once again brought instructional leadership to the fore. As
noted earlier, there has been an unprecedented global
commitment among government agencies towards principal
training. Moreover, the focus of much of this training is
towards instructional leadership (Gewirtz, 2003; Huber, 2003;
Stricherz,2001a,
2001b).
In this final section of the paper, I will reflect upon
lessons we have learned about the use of these leadership
models by principals in schools. The discussion is organised
aroundthreeissues:
Comparingthesubstantivefocusofinstructionalandtransformationalleadershipmodels.
Leadershipintheschoolcontext. Developingleadershipcapacities
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
26/42
TOWARDSANINTEGRATIONOF
LEADERSHIPMODELS
This review has identified conceptual similarities and
differences between instructional and transformational
leadership. Table I summarises these findings. Clearly the
similaritiesbetweenthemodelsaremoresignificantthanthe
differences, at least in terms of the substantive focus of the
models (i.e., the focus of the principals
improvementoriented activities). Both models would have
theprincipalfocuson:
Creating
a
shared
sense
of
purpose
in
the
school.
Focusondevelopingaclimateofhighexpectationsanda school culture focused on the improvement ofteachingandlearning.
Shaping the reward structure of the school to reflectthegoalssetforstaffandstudents.
Organiseandprovideawiderangeofactivitiesaimedatintellectualstimulationanddevelopmentforstaff.
Being a visible presence in the school, modelling thevaluesthatarebeingfosteredintheschool.
Thesesimilaritiesbetweenthemodelsprovideausefulpoint
ofdepartureforanyprincipalwhowishestoreflectupon
his/herleadership.
Conceptual
differences
identified
in
this
reviewwerethe:
Targetofchange(i.e.firstorderorsecondordereffects). Theextenttowhichtheprincipalemphasisesacoordination
andcontrolstrategyvs.anempowermentstrategy.
Thedegreetowhichleadershipislocatedinanindividual(i.e.instructionalleader),orisshared(i.e.transformational).
ThesedifferencesaremostapparentinTableIintheemphasis
given intransformational leadershipto individualisedsupport
forstaff
and
to
building
organisational
goals
from
the
ground
up (i.e. out of the personal professional goals of staff and
community members). The instructional leadership model is
somewhatmoretopdownwithanemphasisoncoordinating
andcontrollingothers tomove towardsgoals thatmayhave
beensetatthetopoftheorganisation.
Oneofthemajor impediments toeffectiveschool leadership
istryingtocarrytheburdenalone.Whenaprincipaltakeson
thechallengesofgoingbeyondthebasicdemandsofthejob
(i.e.the
transactional
tasks
of
making
the
school
run),
the
22
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
27/42
23
burden becomes even heavier (Barth, 1980; Cuban, 1988).
Influential scholars have questioned whether it is realistic to
expect any significant number of principals to meet this
challenge.Lambert
(2002)
contends
that
the
days
of
the
lone
instructional leader are over. We no longer believe that one
administrator can serve as the instructional leader for the
entire school without the substantial participation of other
educators(p.37).
Marks and Printys (forthcoming) research has sought to
analysetheextenttowhichshared instructional leadership is
possible.Theirconclusionpointsthewaytowardsonepossible
avenue of reconciliation for these constructs. This study
suggests
that
strong
transformational
leadership
by
the
principalisessentialinsupportingthecommitmentofteachers.
Because teachers themselves can be barriers to the
developmentofteacherleadership,transformationalprincipals
are needed to invite teachers to share leadership functions.
When teachers perceive principals instructional leadership
behaviours to be appropriate, they grow in commitment,
professional involvement, and willingness to innovate
(Sheppard, 1996). Thus, instructional leadership can itself be
transformational.
In summary, the integrated view of leadership we propose
highlights the synergistic power of leadership shared by
individualsthroughouttheschoolorganisation.Weagreewith
the argument that past understandings of school leadership
have failed to meet two functional tests: that leadership
promoteorganisationalimprovement,andthatitissustainable
for the leaders themselves. The study demonstrates the
effectiveness of integrated leadershipboth transformational
andinstructionalin
eliciting
the
instructional
leadership
of
teachers for improving school performance. Arguably,
principals who share leadership responsibilities with others
would be less subject to burnout than principal heroes who
attempt the challenges and complexities of leadership alone.
When the principal elicits high levels of commitment and
professionalism from teachers and works interactively with
teachers in a shared instructional leadership capacity, schools
have the benefit of integrated leadership; they are
organizationsthat
learn
and
perform
at
high
levels.
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
28/42
24
TableI:Comparisonofin
structionalandtransformationalleadershipmodels(adaptedfrom
Hallinger&Murphy,
1985andLeithwood,
etal,1998)
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
29/42
25
CONTINGENCYMODELSLEADERSHIP
INTHESCHOOLCONTEXT
A second approach to understanding these leadership models
lies throughcontingency theory.At theoutsetof theeffective
schoolsera in 1982, StephenBossert andhiscolleaguesmade
thefollowingobservation:
Likeearlierleadershipstudiesnosinglestyleofmanagement
seems appropriate for all schools principals must find the
styleandstructuresmostsuitedtotheirownlocalsituationa
carefulexaminationofquantitativestudiesofeffectiveschools
suggests that certain principal behaviours have different
effects
in
different
organizational
settings.
Such
findings
confirm the contingency approach to organizational
effectiveness found in current leadership theories. (Bossert et
al.,1982,p.38).
This prediction has been borne out through subsequent
research on instructional leadership. It appears that schools
that are in greater need do respond to the type of directive
leadership encompassed in the traditional instructional
leadershipmodel.Thischaracterisationwouldincludethetype
ofschoolshighlightedintheearlyeffectiveschoolsstudies,i.e.,
poor urban elementary schools. These turn around schools
need an urgent stimulus to convert a climate of low
expectations intooneofsuccess.Moreover,whenschoolsare
failing to provide adequate education, there is often a
perceived need to produce quick results. Strong instructional
leadership isa leadershipapproachthatseemstomeetthese
needs.
Atthe
same
time,
as
Jackson
(2000)
and
Fullan
(2002)
observe,
schoolimprovementisajourney.Thetypeofleadershipthatis
suitable toa certain stageof thejourney may wellbecome a
limiting or even counterproductive force as the school
develops.ThisisanexampleofwhatBossertandhiscolleagues
referredtoasacontingencymodelofleadership.
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
30/42
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
31/42
27
Roland Barth (2002) highlights both the principals impact on
theschoolscultureandtheculturesimpactontheprincipal:
Probablythemostimportantandthemostdifficultjobofan
instructional leader is to change the prevailing culture of a
school.Theschoolsculturedictates,innouncertainterms,the
waywedothingsaroundhere.Aschoolsculturehasfarmore
influence on life and learning in the schoolhouse than the
president of the country, the state department of education,
the superintendent, the school board, or even the principal,
teachers, and parents can ever have. One
cannot, ofcourse,changea schoolculturealone.Butone can
provide forms of leadership that invite others to join as
observersoftheoldandarchitectsofthenew.Theeffectmust
beto
transform
what
we
did
last
September
into
what
we
wouldliketodonextSeptember.(p.6)
Thus,one resolutionof thequest foranappropriatemodelof
leadershipineducationwouldbetolinktheappropriatetypeof
leadership to the needs of the school context. If school
improvement isajourney,one could hypothesise thatamore
directive leadership style might be more suitable in contexts
thatarelesswellorganisedaroundeffectivemodelsofteaching
and
learning.
Schoolsat
risk
may
initially
require
a
moreforceful topdown approach focused on instructional
improvement. Instructional leaders would typically set clear,
time based, academically focused goals in order to get the
organisationmovinginthedesireddirection.Theywouldtakea
more active handson role in organizing and coordinating
instruction.
The extent of appropriate staff participation in leading these
processes(i.e.,developmentoftheschoolsgoals,coordination
of
the
curriculum)
might
vary
depending
upon
where
the
location of the school is in its improvement journey.
Nonetheless, it is safe to say that longterm, sustained
improvement will ultimately depend upon the staff assuming
increasing levels of ownership over proposed changes in the
school. As suggested earlier, this contingent approach was
indicatedinourstudyofeffectiveschools intheUSA(Hallinger
&Murphy,1985).
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
32/42
28
This conclusion would be consistent with other contingency
models that conceptualise leadership as a developmental
process (e.g. Graeff, 1997). Day and his colleagues (2000)
cameto
asimilar
conclusion
in
his
own
analysis
of
current
leadership models. They recommended the application of,
contingency leadership which takes into account the
realities of successful principalship of schools in changing
times,andmovesbeyondpolarisedconceptsoftransactional
and transformational leadership (p.456).This reviewcomes
toasimilarconclusion.
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
33/42
29
REFERENCESANDREWS,R.&SODER,R.(1987)Principalinstructional
leadershipandschoolachievement,EducationalLeadership,
44,
pp.
911.
BAMBURG,J.&ANDREWS,R.(1990)Schoolgoals,principalsandachievement,SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement,2(3),pp.175191.
BARTH,R.(1990)ImprovingSchoolsfromWithin(SanFrancisco,CA,JosseyBass).
BARTH,R.(1986)Onsheepandgoatsandschoolreform,PhiDeltaKappan,68(4),pp.293296.
BARTH,R.(1980)RunSchoolRun(Cambridge,MA,HarvardUniversityPress).
BASS,B.(1985)LeadershipandPerformancebeyondExpectations(NewYork,TheFreePress).
BASS,B.(1997)Doesthetransactionaltransformationalleadershipparadigmtranscendorganizationalandnationalboundaries?AmericanPsychologist,52(2),pp.130138.
BASS,B.M.&AVOLIO,B.J.(1993)Transformationalleadership:aresponsetocritiques,in:M.M.CHEMERS&R.AYMAN(Eds)LeadershipTheoryandResearch:perspectivesanddirections(SanDiego,CA,AcademicPress).
BISHOP,P.
&
MULFORD,
B.
(1996)
Empowerment
in
four
primaryschools:theydontreallycare,InternationalJournalofEducationalReform,5(2),pp.193204.
BLASE,J.&BLASE,J.(1998)HandbookofInstructionalLeadership:howreallygoodprincipalspromoteteachingandlearning(ThousandOaks,CA,CorwinPress).
BOGLER,R.(2001)Theinfluenceofleadershipstyleonteacherjobsatisfaction,EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,37(5),pp.662643.
BOLAM,R.(1997)Managementdevelopmentfor
headteachers,Educational
Management
and
Administration,25(3),pp.265283.
BOLMAN,L.&DEAL,T.(1992)ReframingOrganizations(SanFrancisco,CA,JosseyBass).
BOSSERT,S.,DWYER,D.,ROWAN,B.&LEE,G.(1982)Theinstructionalmanagementroleoftheprincipal,EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,18(3),pp.3464.
BOTTERY,M.(2001)GlobalisationandtheUKcompetitionstate:noroomfortransformationalleadershipineducation?SchoolLeadership&Management,21(2),pp.
199218.
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
34/42
BRAUGHTON,R.&RILEY,J.(1991)Therelationshipbetweenprincipalsknowledgeofreadingprocessesand
elementaryschool
reading
achievement
(ERIC
Document
ReproductionServiceNo.ED341952).
BRIDGES,E.(1982)Researchontheschooladministrator:thestateoftheart,19671980,EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,18(3),pp.1233.
BYCIO,P.&ALLEN,J.(1995)FurtherassessmentofBasss(1985)conceptualizationoftransactionalandtransformationalleadership,JournalofAppliedPsychology,80(4),pp.468478.
CHONG,K.C.,STOTT,K.&LOW,G.T.(2003)DevelopingSingaporeschoolleadersforalearningnation,in:P.HALLINGER
(Ed.)
Reshaping
the
Landscape
of
School
LeadershipDevelopment:aglobalperspective(Lisse,Netherlands,Swets&Zeitlinger).
COHEN,E.&MILLER,R.(1980)Coordinationandcontrolofinstructioninschools,PacificSociologicalReview,4,pp.446473.
CUBAN,L.(1984)Transformingthefrogintoaprince:effectiveschoolsresearch,policy,andpracticeatthedistrictlevel,HarvardEducationalReview,54(2),pp.129151.
CUBAN,L.
(1988)
The
Managerial
Imperative
and
the
PracticeofLeadershipinSchools(Albany,NY,SUNYPress).
DAVIS,B.(2003)Developingleadersforselfmanagingschools:theroleofaprincipalcenterinaccreditationandprofessionallearning,in:P.HALLINGER(Ed.)ReshapingtheLandscapeofSchoolLeadershipDevelopment:aglobalperspective(Lisse,Netherlands,Swets&Zeitlinger).
DAY,C.,HARRIS,A.&HADFIELD,M.(2001)Challengingtheorthodoxyofeffectiveschoolleadership,International
Journalof
Leadership
in
Education,
4(1),
pp.
3956.
DIMMOCK,C.&WALKER,A.(2000)Introductionjustifyingacrossculturalcomparativeapproachtoschoolleadershipandmanagement,SchoolLeadershipandManagement,20(2),pp.137141.
DWYER,D.(1986)Understandingtheprincipalscontributiontoinstruction,PeabodyJournalofEducation,63(1),pp.318.
EDMONDS,R.(1979)Effectiveschoolsfortheurbanpoor,EducationalLeadership,37,pp.1524.
30
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
35/42
31
FULLAN,M.(2002)Thechangeleader,EducationalLeadership,59(8),pp.1620.
FWU,B.&WANG,H.(2001)Principalsatthecrossroads:profiles,preparationandroleperceptionofsecondaryschoolprincipalsinTaiwan.PaperpresentedattheInternationalConferenceonSchoolLeaderPreparation,Licensure,Certification,Selection,EvaluationandProfessionalDevelopment,Taipei,ROC.
GEWERTZ,C.(2003)N.Y.C.Chancelloraimstobolsterinstructionalleadership,EducationWeek,22(16),7,12.
GLASMAN,N.(1983)Increasedcentralityofevaluationandtheschoolprincipal,AdministratorsNotebook,30(1),pp.
14.
GLASMAN,N.(1984)Studentachievementandtheschoolprincipal,EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,6(3),pp.283296.
GOLDRING,E.&PASTERNAK,R.(1994)Principalscoordinatingstrategiesandschooleffectiveness,SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement,5(3),pp.239253.
GOLDRING,E.&SULLIVAN,A.(1996)Beyondtheboundaries:principals,parentsandcommunitiesshapingtheschoolenvironment,in:K.LEITHWOOD,J.CHAPMAN,D.CARSON,P.HALLINGER&A.HART(Eds)InternationalHandbook
of
Educational
Leadership
and
Administration
(Dordrecht,TheNetherlands,KluwerAcademicPress).
GRAEFF,C.(1997)Evolutionofsituationalleadershiptheory:acriticalreview,LeadershipQuarterly,8(2),pp.1726.
GRIER,L.(1987)TheNorthCarolinaleadershipinstituteforprincipals,in:J.MURPHY&P.HALLINGER(Eds)ApproachestoAdministrativeTraininginEducation(Albany,NY,SUNYPress).
HALLINGER,P.(1992)Schoolleadershipdevelopment:evaluatingadecadeofreform,EducationandUrban
Society,24(3),
pp.
300316.
HALLINGER,P.(2000)AreviewoftwodecadesofresearchontheprincipalshipusingthePrincipalInstructionalManagementRatingScale.PaperpresentedattheannualmeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,Seattle,Washington.
HALLINGER,P.(2003)Schoolleadershipdevelopment:globalchallengesandopportunities,in:P.HALLINGER(Ed.)ReshapingtheLandscapeofSchoolLeadershipDevelopment:aglobalperspective(Lisse,Netherlands,Swets&Zeitlinger).
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
36/42
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
37/42
33
HALLINGER,P.&MURPHY,J.(1985)Assessingtheinstructionalleadershipbehaviorofprincipals,Elementary
School
Journal,
86(2),
pp.
217248.
HALLINGER,P.&MURPHY,J.(1986)Thesocialcontextofeffectiveschools,AmericanJournalofEducation,94(3),pp.328355.
HALLINGER,P.&WIMPELBERG,R.(1992)Newsettingsandchangingnormsforprincipaldevelopment,TheUrbanReview,67(4),pp.122.
HECK,R.(1992)Principalinstructionalleadershipandtheidentificationofhigh andlowachievingschools:theapplicationofdiscriminanttechniques,Administrators
Notebook,34(7),
pp.
14.
HECK,R.(1993)Schoolcontext,principalleadership,andachievement:thecaseofsecondaryschoolsinSingapore,TheUrbanReview,25(2),pp.151166.
HECK,R.&HALLINGER,P.(1999)Conceptualmodels,methodology,andmethodsforstudyingschoolleadership,in:J.MURPHY&K.SEASHORELOUIS(Eds)The2ndHandbookofResearchinEducationalAdministration(SanFrancisco,CA,McCutchan).
HECK,R.,LARSON,T.&MARCOULIDES,G.(1990)Principalinstructionalleadershipandschoolachievement:validation
of
acausal
model,
Educational
Administration
Quarterly,26,pp.94125.
HALL,G.&HORD,S.(1987)ChangeinSchools(Albany,NY,SUNYPress).
HOWELL,J.&AVOLIO,B.(1993)Transformationalleadership,transactionalleadership,locusofcontrol,andsupport,JournalofAppliedPsychology,78(6),pp.891893.
HUBER,S.(2003)Schoolleaderdevelopment:currenttrendsfromaglobalperspective,in:P.HALLINGER(Ed.)ReshapingtheLandscapeofSchoolLeadership
Development:aglobal
perspective
(Lisse,
Netherlands,
Swets&Zeitlinger).
JACKSON,D.(2000)Theschoolimprovementjourney:perspectivesonleadership,SchoolLeadership&Management,20(1),pp.6178.
JONES,P.(1987)TherelationshipbetweenprincipalbehaviorandstudentachievementinCanadiansecondaryschools.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,StanfordUniversity,PaloAlto,CA.
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
38/42
KIRBY,P.,PARADISE,L.&KING,M.(1992)Extraordinaryleadersineducation:understandingtransformationalleadership,
Journalof
Educational
Research,
85(5),
pp.
303311.
KLIENEKRACHT,P.(1993)Indirectinstructionalleadership:anadministratorschoice,EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,18(4),pp.129.
LAM,J.(2003)Balancingstabilityandchange:ImplicationsforprofessionalpreparationanddevelopmentofprincipalsinHongKong,in:P.HALLINGER(Ed.)ReshapingtheLandscapeofSchoolLeadershipDevelopment:aglobalperspective(Lisse,Netherlands,Swets&Zeitlinger).
LAMBERT,L.(1998)BuildingLeadershipCapacityinSchools(Alexandria,VA,AssociationforSupervision
and
Curriculum
Development).
LAMBERT,L.(2002)Aframeworkforsharedleadership,EducationalLeadership,59(8),pp.3740.
LEITHWOOD,K.(1992)Themovetowardtransformationalleadership,EducationalLeadership,49(5),pp.813.
LEITHWOOD,K.(1994)Leadershipforschoolrestructuring,EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,30(4),pp.498518.
LEITHWOOD,K.,BEGLEY,P.&COUSINS,B.(1990)The
nature,
causes
and
consequences
of
principals
practices:
anagenda
for
future
research,
Journal
of
Educational
Administration,28(4),pp.531.
LEITHWOOD,K.&JANTZI,D.(1999a)Therelativeeffectsofprincipalandteachersourcesofleadershiponstudentengagementwithschool,EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,35,pp.679706.
LEITHWOOD,K.&JANTZI,D.(1999b)Transformationalleadershipeffects:areplication,SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement,4(10),pp.451479.
LEITHWOOD,K.&JANTZI,D.(2000a)Principalandteacher
leadereffects:
areplication,
School
Leadership
and
Management,20(4),pp.415434.
LEITHWOOD,K.&JANTZI,D.(2000b)Theeffectsoftransformationleadershiponstudentengagementwithschool,JournalofEducationalAdministration,38(2),pp.112129.
LEITHWOOD,K.,JANTZI,D.,SILINS,H.&DART,B.(1993)Usingtheappraisalofschoolleadersasaninstrumentforschoolrestructuring,PeabodyJournalofEducation,68(2),pp.85110.
34
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
39/42
35
LEITHWOOD,K.,JANTZI,D.&STEINBACH,R.(1998)Leadershipandotherconditionswhichfosterorganizational
learning
in
schools,
in:
K.
LEITHWOOD
&
K.SEASHORELOUIS(Eds)OrganizationalLearninginSchools(Lisse,Netherlands,Swets&Zeitlinger).
LEITHWOOD,K.,LEONARD,L.&SHARRATT,L.(1998)Conditionsfosteringorganizationallearninginschools,EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,34(2),pp.243276.
LEITHWOOD,K.&LOUIS,K.S.(1999)Organizationallearninginschools:anintroduction,in:K.LEITHWOOD&K.S.LOUIS(Eds)OrganizationalLearninginSchools(Dordrecht,TheNetherlands,KluwerAcademicPress).
LEITHWOOD,K.&MONTGOMERY,D.(1982)Theroleoftheelementaryprincipalinprogramimprovement,ReviewofEducationalResearch,52(3),pp.309339.
LEITHWOOD,K.,TOMLINSON,D.&GENGE,M.(1996)Transformationalschoolleadership,in:K.LEITHWOOD,J.CHAPMAN,D.CORSON,P.HALLINGER&A.WEAVERHART(Eds)InternationalHandbookofEducationalLeadershipandAdministration(NewYork,Kluwer).
LEITNER,D.(1994)Doprincipalsaffectstudentoutcomes?An
organizationalperspective,
School
Effectiveness
and
SchoolImprovement,5(3),pp.219239.
LOUIS,K.S.,&MARKS,H.(1998)Doesprofessionalcommunityaffecttheclassroom?AmericanJournalofEducation,106(4),pp.532575.
MARCH,J.(1978)TheAmericanpublicschooladministrator:ashortanalysis,SchoolReview,86,pp.217250.
MARKS,H.&PRINTY,S.(inpress)Principalleadershipandschoolperformance:anintegrationoftransformationandinstructionalleadership,EducationalAdministrationQuarterly.
MARSH,D.(1992)Schoolprincipalsasinstructionalleaders:theimpactoftheCaliforniaSchoolLeadershipAcademy,EducationandUrbanSociety,24(3),pp.386410.
MARSHALL,K.(1996)HowIconfrontedHSPS(HyperactiveSuperficialPrincipalSyndrome)PhiDeltaKappan,77(5),pp.336345.
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
40/42
MISKEL,C.(1982)Ananalysisofprincipaleffects.UnpublishedspeechtotheNationalGraduateStudentSeminarin
EducationalAdministration,
Princeton,
New
Jersey,
April.
MORTIMORE,P.(1993)Schooleffectivenessandthemanagementofeffectivelearningandteaching,SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement,4,pp.290310.
MULFORD,B.&BISHOP,P.(1997)Leadershipinorganisationallearningandstudentoutcomes(LOLSO)Project,Launceston,Australia,UniversityofTasmania.
MURPHY,J.(2002)Reculturingtheprofessionofeducationalleadership:newblueprints,EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,38(2),pp.176192.
MURPHY,J.
&
SHIPMAN,
N.
(2003)
Developing
standards
for
schoolleadershipdevelopment:aprocessandrationale,in:P.HALLINGER(Ed.)ReshapingtheLandscapeofSchoolLeadershipDevelopment:aglobalperspective(Lisse,Netherlands,Swets&Zeitlinger).
ODAY,K.(1983)Therelationshipbetweenprincipalandteacherperceptionsofprincipalinstructionalmanagementbehaviorandstudentachievement.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation(NorthernIllinoisUniversity,Normal,Illinois).
OGAWA,R.&BOSSERT,S.(1995)Leadershipasan
organizational
quality,
Educational
Administration
Quarterly,31(2),
pp.
224243.
PURKEY,S.&SMITH,M.(1983)Effectiveschools:areview,ElementarySchoolJournal,83,pp.427452.
ROWAN,B.&DENK,C.(1984)Managementsuccession,schoolsocioeconomiccontextandbasicskillsachievement,AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,21(3),pp.17537.
RUTTER,M.,MAUGHAN,B.,MORTIMORE,P.,OUSTON,J.&SMITH,A.(1979)FifteenThousandHours:secondaryschoolsandtheireffectsonchildren(Cambridge,MA,HarvardUniversityPress).
SCOTT,C.&TEDDLIE,C.(1987)Student,teacher,andprincipalacademicexpectationsandattributedresponsibilityaspredictorsofstudentachievement:acausalmodelingapproach,PaperpresentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,WashingtonDC,April.
SHEPPARD,B.(1996)Exploringthetransformationalnatureofinstructionalleadership,TheAlbertaJournalofEducationalResearch,42(4),pp.325344.
36
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
41/42
SHEPPARD,B.&BROWN,J.(1996)Soyouthinkteamleadershipiseasy?Trainingandimplementationconcerns,NASSPBulletin,
84(614),
pp.
7174.
SILINS,H.(1994)Therelationshipbetweentransformationalandtransactionalleadershipandschoolimprovementoutcomes,SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement,5(3)pp.272298.
SILINS,H.,MULFORD,B.,ZARINS,S.&BISHOP,P.(2000)LeadershipfororganisationallearninginAustraliansecondaryschools,in:K.LEITHWOOD(Ed.)UnderstandingSchoolsasIntelligentSystems(Greenwich,Connecticut,JAI).
SILINS,H.&MULFORD,B.(2002)Leadership,restructuringand
organisationaloutcomes,
in:
K.
LEITHWOOD,
P.
HALLINGER,
G.FURMANBROWN,B.MULFORD,P.GRONN,W.RILEY&K.SEASHORELOUIS(Eds)SecondInternationalHandbookofEducationalLeadershipandAdministration(Dordrecht,TheNetherlands,KluwerAcademicPress).
SOUTHWORTH,G.(2002)Instructionalleadershipinschools:reflectionsandempiricalevidence,SchoolLeadership&Management,22(1),pp.7392.
STRICHERZ,M.(2001a)D.C.Principalstrainingdesignedtoboostinstructionalleadership.EducationWeek,21(2),p.13.
STRICHERZ,M.(2001b)LeadershipgrantaimedatschoolsinSouth,
Education
Week,
21(3),
p.
21.
VANDEGRIFT,W.(1990)Educationalleadershipandacademicachievementinelementaryeducation,SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement,1(3),pp.2640.
.
37
8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change
42/42