SIL02239

associating school principal behaviours and behavioural dispositions with proclivity for change and school renewal

Steffan Silcox,

Swan Education District

and

Robert F. Cavanagh,

Curtin University of Technology

Paper presented at the 2002 annual conference of the

Australian Association for Research in Education

Brisbane Australia

Dr Rob Cavanagh, Faculty of Education, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Western Australia 6845. [email: R.Cavanagh@curtin.edu.au]

Steffan Silcox, Director, Swan Education District, Blackboy Way, Beechboro,

Western Australia 6063. [email: steffan.silcox@eddept. wa.edu.au]

Abstract

The study concerned leadership and school renewal. Literature on the leadership of change in corporate and educational organisations was examined to identify leadership attributes anticipated to be conducive to organisational and school change. These attributes were investigated by administering a leadership profiling instrument to 39 school principals from a Western Australian education district. The data were examined by statistical analyses to distinguish patterns of leadership behaviours and to explore associations between behavioural patterns and behavioural dispositions. Four orientations towards school leadership were revealed; self-promotion, organisational compliance, leadership of change, and maintenance of routines.

The four empirically derived leadership orientations are discussed in relation to theoretical conceptions of leadership of school renewal. The study concluded that school renewal leadership is characterised by: change agentry; discovery of issues; people focus; team approach; visioning; coaching; proactivty, risk-taking dominance; impatience; and nonconformity.

INTRODUCTION

The exercise of leadership within schools is a complex phenomenon and this complexity is evidenced in the multiplicity of theoretical orientations that have been proposed to explain the phenomenon. The development of educational leadership theory has been strongly influenced by business and corporate leadership and by theories of administrative and organisational behaviour. Educational leadership theory has also developed in response to changing temporal and environmental contexts. The theoretical grounding under-pinning empirical investigation of school leadership need to be chosen in cognisance of the context in which this leadership is exercised and the influence of contextual factors on leadership behaviour.

This study investigated school leadership behavioural dispositions and behaviours within a Western Australian school district. The study was guided by a leadership paradigm inclusive of the principles and practices associated with corporate and educational leadership. The study sought to profile the leadership of school principals and to examine their proclivity for change and innovation.

BACKGROUND

The context for exercise of leadership in Western Australian government schools is characterised by accountability for improving the educational outcomes of students; accountability to super-ordinates and accountability to the school community. However, the press for change and improvement of schools is tempered by contiguous organisational accountability; compliance with legislation and regulations stipulated in government, public service and Department of Education policies concerning management of finances, resources and staff. School leaders have concomitant responsibility for the school being effective in attaining instructional objectives and also being organisationally efficient. Their role encompasses both leadership of student learning and management of the school

organisation. They need to strike a balance between management of the organisation and being leaders of learning.

There are similarities between the leadership functions of Western Australian school principals and the leadership functions of business and corporate leaders. Although there are differences between the educational and business environment, both are exerting pressures for change and organisational reform. Leadership of schools and business can be viewed as leadership of change. This is in contrast to traditional leadership that focused on attainment of well-defined long-standing organisational objectives through maintenance of existing organisational structures and operational systems. This shift in leadership commenced in the 1980s when North American business corporations were forced to re-organise in response to global market-place competition. Corporate reform was based upon economic rationales which were subsequently adopted by governments throughout the Western world and applied in the reform of public institutions including education. Economic rationalism impacted on schools and school leadership. In the 1990s, business models of change and leadership were applied in educational organisations.

Contemporary conceptions of school leadership are a blend of constructs derived from the study of corporate leadership and organisational change in conjunction with those derived from study of how schools enable student learning. It is assumed the reform of education and the improvement of schools can be effected by application of corporate leadership practices. As was previously noted, this assumption is not new and the characteristics of effective school leadership identified in the previous decade are still prevalent in more recent research and theorising. Although the endurance of this leadership paradigm and indeed of how schools are conceptualised has been challenged (Sergiovanni, 1992 & 2000), the fusion of corporate and school leadership theory has persisted (Fullan, 2001).

Mendez-Morse (1992) synthesised the literature on school leadership and school change. In reviewing the history of leadership, attention was drawn to the inadequacy of leadership trait and factor models in identifying specific personality traits associated with leadership as distinct from followership. Alternatively, leadership was viewed as a consequence of the situation or setting in which it was exercised with both organisational task requirements and the needs of individuals influencing leadership behaviours. This approach was extended by proposition of a contingency model in which the leader needs to respond to multiple situations. Further refinement of theory resulted in recognition of the importance of leadership throughout the organisation; focus on multiple leadership rather than on one leader with multiple followers. Mendez-Morse (1992) recognised similarities between the characteristics of leaders of educational change and leaders of change in other organisations. These common characteristics included; leadership vision, fostering of a shared vision, valuing human resources, proactivity, risk taking, and most importantly, a sense of purpose and mission. The following discussion is structured around these six characteristics with the addition of examination of the more recent notions of organisational learning and school renewal.

Visions and Visionary Leadership

A vision refers to the shared values and aspirations agreed to by the members of an organisation, it guides their present actions and decisions to create a desirable future. Chance (1991 p.4) described vision as being "the force or the dream towards which effective administrators strive in the development and shaping of their schools". Conley, Dunlop and Goldman (1992) explained vision by using the metaphor of an 'internal compass' that assists an organisation in understanding how its actions relate to its organisational goals. A vision

has been described as a statement which "captures an ideal state of affairs" (Smith and Stolp, 1995 p. 4) and more recently as a "realistic, credible, attractive future for the organisation that is so compelling that people would be motivated to work toward that better future" (DuFour, 2000 p.71). A vision, although describing a desirable future, has its importance in the present by guiding actions and decisions that will create the future. DuFour (2000) and Wallace, Engel and Mooney (1997) asserted that a school's vision should be realistic, credible, attractive and compelling. DuFour (2000, p. 71) claimed that the vision should be based of facts and investigation and not just people's opinions and should include "meaningful, credible improvements rather than generating a wish list".

Visioning is an essential component of educational leadership. Greenfield and Blumberg (cited in Greenfield, Licata and Johnson, 1992, p. 65), described successful and effective school principals as having "the ability to advance a vision of what the school can and ought to be and the initiative and resourcefulness to make this vision a reality". Grady and LeSourd, (cited in Chance 1991, p. 7) explain that visionary leaders "are motivated by personal values...have commitment to the achievement of organisational goals.... attempt to develop a common purpose among all organisational stakeholders ...[and] project a future that represents something better for the school". Furthermore, Chance (1991) claims that visionary leaders should be able to spontaneously discuss the school's vision and explain what goals are needed in the short and long term in order to realise that vision. Ellis and Joslin (1990) stated that one of the roles of the visionary leader is to encourage the staff and student commitment to the vision.

Valuing Human Resources

The notion that the members of an organisation or the staff of a school can be viewed as organisational resources originated from recognition of the influence of individuals and groups on achievement of organisational goals (Getzels & Guba, 1957). Social system organisational theories recognised the presence of groupings of people within an organisation which were not the result of prescribed organisational roles. These groupings were described as the 'informal organisation' with a separate structure, status, power and communication network from the formal organisation (Luthans, 1973). The potential power of the informal organisation in influencing the formal processes of the organisations was of particular concern to management (Knezevich, 1975). Investigation of the informal organisation became the subject of organisational climate research. Hoy and Miskel (1987, p.225) defined the organisational climate of a school as 'the set of internal characteristics that distinguishes one school from another and influences the behaviour of its members'.

Tagiuri (1968) described the 'environment' or climate of the school organisation as a combination of ecology, milieu, social systems and culture. Anderson (1982) used Tagiuri's categorisation of climate to review the findings of school climate research. This revealed a paucity of findings linking the ecology, milieu and social systems of school climate to student outcomes. The other dimension, culture, was proven to influence student outcomes. Anderson (1982) described culture as a social dimension of the school concerned with belief systems, values, cognitive structures and meaning. The importance of individuals, groups and school culture for student educational outcome attainment and school improvement is reinforced by the findings of school effectiveness research (Gray, Hopkins, Reynolds, Wilcox, Farrell & Jesson 1999; Harris, 1999; MacBeath & Mortimore, 2001; Stoll & Mortimer 1995; Wang, 1997).

The individual and interpersonal dimension of the organisation identified in early organisational behaviour and school administration theory is now viewed differently. Instead of people and groups requiring management to ensure they work towards organisational goals and comply with formal role expectations, they are now encouraged to be part of a

collegiate and collaborative culture (Donaldson, 1993; Lashway, 1996). Collaboration has been extended into empowerment with teachers being expected to assume leadership roles (Coyle, 1997; Wilson, 1993). The shift from emphasis on formal organisational roles to recognition of the capacity and contribution of individuals is reflected in the attention to being given to the personal qualities of leaders and followers. The theories of multiple intelligence (Gardner, 1993) and emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995) are being used to explain leadership and leadership development (Chermiss, 1998; Palmer, Walls, Burgess, & Stough, 2000). For example Chermiss and Goleman (2001) proposed four leadership styles. Authoritative leaders mobilise people toward a vision; affiliative leaders create harmony and build emotional bonds; democratic leaders enable consensus through participation; and coaching leaders develop people for the future.

Proactivty and Risk-taking

Leadership and management are different processes leading to different outcomes. Although they may be considered as complementary processes, management tasks may detract from leadership functions (Coyle, 1997; Meyer & MacMillan, 2001). Fullan (2001) differentiated between management and leadership. Management is concerned with responsibility for routine organisational operations through established for decision-making procedures. In contrast, leadership requires dealing with uncertainty and finding solutions to new problems. Reacting to existing circumstances and situations maintains the status quo. An alternative proactive leadership approach is required in which problems are exploited to stimulate organisational change and growth (Fullan, 1993). Proactive leadership will entail elements of experimentation and risk-taking; both are essential for organisational development and in the case of business organisations, organisational survival (Peters, 1988).

Leadership of change and proactivity are also associated with the notion of change agentry. Whenever successful change or reform occurs, it is usually possible to identify certain key individuals who were crucial for implementation. These individuals may have stimulated the change, supported the change process or provided leadership. Their role is directly associated with a particular project or innovation and they had the capacity to cause, facilitate or enable change to occur. Change agents have specific competencies, they may be members of the organisation or be external consultants and change agentry competencies can be developed through training (Cripe, 1993; Markus & Benjamin, 1996; Ray, 1997).

Educative Purpose and Mission

A common finding of research into schools perceived as being successful or demonstrating capacity for change and development, concerns the belief of teachers in their mission of educating students (Mitchell & Willower, 1992; Prestine, 1991; Regan 1992; Southworth, 1993). Fullan (1993) described this belief as the moral purpose of the individual educator and suggested that it concerns the enculturation of the young as well as the provision of access to knowledge. He perceived teachers as agents of educational change and societal improvement. School leaders committed to improving the education of students are often described as instructional leaders (Daresh, 1986; Hallinger and Murphy, 1986). These leaders display knowledge of pedagogy and become actively involved in the school's instructional program and student learning (Fink & Resnick, 2001; Schuyler, 1997). However, exercise of instructional leadership is often tempered by the demand for attention

to non-instructional issues arising within the school and from the educational system (Pierce, 2001).

Organisational Learning

The process of organisational development can be portrayed as organisational learning (Goh, 1998; Senge, 1990). Proactive leaders facilitate organisational learning and view their leadership role as leadership of a learning organisation (Lashway, 1997; Mendez-Morse, 1992). Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross and Smith (1994) proposed that the 'essence' of the learning organisation was a 'deep learning cycle' with the development of new capacities with individual and collective shifts of mind. This results from a cyclical process in which new skills, capabilities, awareness, sensibilities and attitudes and beliefs evolve (Senge, 1990). From an educational change perspective, school development necessitates teachers themselves to be actively engaged in learning (Boyd & Hord, 1993; Fullan, 1993; Southworth, 1993).

School leaders need to be proactive towards professional growth; their own learning and the learning of teachers. Lambert (1998) defined leadership as a reciprocal learning process concerning construction of meaning towards a shared purpose. The pedagogy of constructivist learning applied in student instruction is also applicable in andragogy and teacher learning. Constructivist leaders; convene and facilitate dialogue; pose inquiry questions; are coaches, role models, and mentors; and invite the engagement of others in innovation (Lambert, 1998).

Leadership and School Renewal

In recent times, traditional conceptions of educational change, school development, organisational restructuring, educational reform or school improvement have been supplanted by the notion of school renewal. Renewal is grounded in assumptions about the maturation of individuals and society which Gardner, in 1963, perceived as a process of self-renewal. Soder (1999) argued that paradigms of educational change, educational reform and educational renewal, result from how the world, human nature and human behaviour are viewed. The renewal paradigm concerns questioning and redefining values about social structure, democracy and freedom whereas the reform paradigm assumes compliance with prevailing values (Soder, 1999). The reform approach intends to ensure that the functioning and outcomes of education will be in accord these prevailing values and it assumes that policies, structures and programs can be modified or realigned to realise this intention. Accountability is key aspect of reform, accountability for outcomes with blame being assigned when planned outcomes are not achieved (Sirotnik, 1999). Sirotnik (1999, p.608) proposed that renewal was characterised by teacher responsibility concerning a moral obligation to "create and nurture learning environments for their students as well as themselves".

Educational reform and organisational change are typically episodic or non-continuous (Weick & Quinn, 1999). Specific outcomes are identified, programs are developed and implemented to achieve these outcomes, new outcome are identified, new programs are developed and implemented and so on. Sirotnik (1999) considered the episodic nature of educational reform to result from ephemeral political 'fashions'. The persistence of episodic educational change is due to the absence of a strong sense of the purpose of education based on fundamental and enduring values about the future of schools and society.

Leadership of educational reform and of renewal both share the common goal of enabling change and many of the attributes and skills required to lead educational reform will be required in leadership of renewal. For example, Smith (1999) identified establishing a shared mission, change agentry, collaboration, inclusivity and connecting theory with practice as critical skills and components of renewal leadership. These skills are not unique to renewal. The difference between effective leadership of renewal, in comparison to leadership of other processes of change including educational reform, is a consequence of differing expectations of the end result of exercise of leadership and differing levels of commitment to attaining these ends. The outcome expectations associated with renewal are shaped by intrinsic philosophical beliefs about the future of education and society. In contrast, the outcome expectations associated with restructuring and reform are influenced by external demands for educational change, short-term goals or the promise of extrinsic rewards. Whilst commitment to effecting change due to external press may be high, the longevity of the change effort will depend on the persistence of the external conditions motivating the change effort. In this instance, commitment is contingent and contextual. Thus it is to be expected that leaders with proclivity for school renewal need be more determined, more committed and more resolute in effecting long-term sustainable change than those motivated towards school reform, restructuring or school improvement. In terms of facilitating change, both types of leadership share common features but certain features will be more strongly evidenced when the leadership intention concerns school renewal.

The core construct in renewal leadership is presence of a social-constructivist philosophy of education and learning. The effectiveness of leadership, teaching and adult learning necessitates articulation and application of a philosophy of education (Tisdell & Taylor, 1999; Witcher, Sewall, Arnold & Travers, 2001). The substance of the philosophy is equally important, belief systems and values about the capacity of schools to improve the lives of children and of the social institution of education to transform society. Leaders of school renewal, as distinct from leaders of educational change, will communicate and share this philosophy with others and apply it in all aspects of their professional lives.

Summary

Theoretical propositions concerning the leadership of change in schools and in corporate organisations are similar. This is a consequence of the historical development of leadership and change theory and their application in explaining school leadership. It is also a consequence of both schools and business organisations being subject to similar pressures from their external environments. Within the sphere of educational leadership and change, there are differing conceptions of leadership and of change with both common and disparate characteristics. Leadership of school renewal was portrayed as requiring a unique philosophical orientation in conjunction with an exceptionally high level of commitment to facilitation of change and mission realisation.

METHODOLOGY

Theoretical Orientation

School leadership can be characterised by the behaviours and behavioural dispositions typified in the literature on corporate and educational leadership and change. These behaviours and dispositions are influenced by personality, value systems and personal circumstances. Consequently, the capacity for leadership varies as does preference for particular types of leadership. There will be differing levels of proclivity towards effecting

change, proclivity for maintaining existing structures and operations, proclivity for reform and proclivity for school renewal.

Research Objectives

The study sought to examine the perceptions of school principals about their behavioural dispositions and behaviours as school and organisational leaders. Specifically: to identify common patterns of leadership behaviour; to explore the influence of personality and change-oriented dispositions on leadership behaviour; and to identify leadership attributes conducive to engagement in school renewal.

Research Methods

The empirical investigation was quantitative with correlational methods (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2001), being applied to explore associations between variables. A survey instrument assumed to measure attributes of corporate and educational leadership was administered to 39 school principals in the Swan Education District (Western Australia). The instrument solicited self-reported numerical data on leadership attributes. The sample was by convenience with the respondent principals volunteering to participate in the investigation. Multivariate statistics and analysis of variance were used to explore the structure of the data and to examine associations between leadership behaviours, personality and disposition towards facilitating change. The results of the statistical analyses were then evaluated in consideration of theoretical propositions concerning leadership of change and leadership of school renewal.

Instrumentation

The Drake P3 Behaviour Assessment Survey (Drake International, 2001) was developed for leadership career counselling and personnel selection in business organisations. The instrument contains 142 items and solicits data on sixteen leadership competencies, four personality traits and also propensity for proactivity and risk-taking. The constructs measured by the instrument are consistent with the majority of characteristics of leadership and change elucidated in the previous Background section of this report. Accordingly, the instrument was assumed to have construct validity and its reliability would be tested by analysis of resulting data. The instrument scales and respective operational definitions are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Drake P3 instrument scales and operational definitions

Instrument Scales Operational Definitions

A. Leadership behaviours

1. Vision Tendency to see the overall strategy and have a sense how own

part of the organisation fits with the larger picture

2. Change agent Tendency to identify opportunities and act on them, to show initiative, to take action and to persevere until meaningful change is brought about

3. Flexibility Tendency to flex personality traits to perform a variety of different roles and/or relate to the needs of a large number of diverse people

4. Manages routines Tendency to deal with routine tasks on a regular basis

5. Preparation Tendency to organise and prepare for activities

6. Relationship building Tendency to use an individual's social and interpersonal cues as guidelines for regulating verbal and non-verbal presentation for building relationships

7. People focus Tendency to 'connect' with people easily and frequently

8. Conflict management Tendency to adjust behavioural style in order to help manage conflict and to assist in reconciling others

9. Reporting Tendency to complete detailed paperwork on time and accurately

10. Issues discovery Tendency to ask probing questions, listen to responses and to suggest appropriate solutions to address specific needs

11. Procedures Tendency to follow established rules, guidelines and policies

12. Coaching style Preference for providing feedback when coaching

13. Team style Preference for participation in team activities

14. Training style Preference for training on detailed management processes, procedures, rules and regulations

15. Job mobility Inclination to pursue job opportunities either inside/outside the organisation and/or in relation to geographic relocation

16 Promotion opportunities

Tendency to adapt behaviour to suit role expectations in order to be promoted

B. Personality traits

1. Dominance Self-confidence and motivation by daily challenges and tangible results

2. Extroversion Gregarious behaviour, eloquence, enthusiasm, interaction with

others and motivation by praise and public recognition

3. Patience Relaxed, stable, likeable, good listener, dependable and seeking to minimise conflict

4. Conformity Disciplined, committed and concerned with preserving systems and traditions

5. Conscientiousness Purposeful, determined, scrupulous, punctual, reliable and academically or occupationally successful

C Proactivity Likelihood that an individual will intentionally and actively engage in implementing change; shows initiative, has propensity to take action, and shows perseverance.

D Risk orientation Willingness to experiment, to try different approaches and to take risks.

Data Analysis

Hierarchical cluster analysis of leadership behaviour data on the 16 Drake P3 leadership competency scales was applied to identify clusters of behavioural characteristics. Consistency of respondent responses to the instrument scales constituting these clusters was examined by calculation of internal reliability coefficients (Cronbach Alpha). Data from the scales comprising the respective clusters were aggregated for each respondent to enable relationships between the clusters to be examined by analysis of inter-cluster correlation.

Regression analysis was then applied to examine relationships between the five personality variables and each of the clusters of leadership behaviours. Relationships between each of the leadership behaviour clusters and the proactivity variable were also examined by regression analysis. The risk orientation data were categorical (risk avoidance or risk willing). Consequently, the strength of association between risk orientation and each of the behaviour clusters were examined by analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Leadership Behaviours

Hierarchical cluster analysis produced four clusters of leadership behaviours (see the dendogram presented in Appendix 1). Cluster One comprised job mobility, promotion, relationship building, conflict management and flexibility. Cluster Two comprised reporting, procedures, training style and preparation. Cluster Three comprised change agent, issues discovery, people focus, team style, vision and coaching style. Cluster Four contained only one behaviour, management of routines. The internal reliability of Clusters One, Two and Three were tested by calculation of Cronbach Alpha values (see Table 2).

Table 2

Cluster internal reliability (Cronbach Alpha) (n =39)

Cluster Cronbach Alpha

One 0.999

Two 0.994

Three 0.865

Four*

* This cluster contained only one behaviour

The high Cronbach Alpha values for Clusters One to Three indicates individual respondents were consistent in their responses to the items/scales comprising each of these clusters.

Relationships between the four clusters were examined by calculation of inter-cluster correlation (see Table 3).

Table 3

Inter-cluster correlation (n = 39)

Cluster One Cluster Two Cluster Three

Cluster Two -0.1175

(p = 0.476)

Cluster Three 0.1344 -0.6818

(p = 0.415) (p= 0.000)

Cluster Four -0.2851 0.2658 -0.5225

(p = 0.079) ( p= 0.102) (p = 0.001)

Notwithstanding the relatively small sample (n = 39), some of the values for inter-cluster correlation are statistically significant. Clusters Two and Three have a moderate negative correlation (r = -0.6818, p = 0.000) as do Clusters Three and Four (r = -0.5225, p = 0.001).

These results provide evidence of the four clusters being independent but this was not conclusively proven.

Relationship between Leadership Behaviours and Personality

The five personality variables were treated as independent variables and step-wise regressed against each of the behavioural cluster variables (dependent variable). The results of this multiple regression analysis are presented in Tables 4 to 7. Examination of the F value and probability for each analysis reveals whether or not the independent variables have a confirmed relationship with the dependent variable. The complete results of regression analysis are only presented in the following tables when there was a confirmed relationship (p < 0.001), between the dependent and independent variables.

Table 4

relationship between Cluster One behaviours and Personality

Multiple R = 0.48

R Square = 0.23

F = 1.99 (Sig F = 0.1065)

The personality variables were not confirmed to relate to Cluster One leadership behaviours.

Table 5

relationship between Cluster two behaviours and Personality

Multiple R = 0.95

R Square = 0.91

F = 63.7 (Sig F = 0.0000)

Independent variable B Std error B Beta t Sig t

Dominance 0.08 0.04 -0.15 -2.38 0.0230

Extroversion 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.79 0.4350

Patience 0.05 0.04 -0.08 -1.24 0.2244

Conformity 0.62 0.05 0.95 12.1 0.0000

Conscientiousness 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.47 0.6422

Constant 2.08 3.92 -0.53 0.5984

The five personality independent variables accounted for 91% of the variance in the Cluster Two dependent variable (R Square = 0.91). There was also a confirmed relationship between the personality independent variables and Cluster Two leadership behaviours (F = 63.7, Sig F 0.0000), in particular a direct relationship with conformity (Sig t = 0.0000).

When the personality variables were regressed against the Cluster Three leadership behaviours (see Table 6), the five personality independent variables accounted for 76% of the variance in the dependent variable (R Square = 0.76). There was also a confirmed relationship between the personality independent variables and Cluster Three leadership behaviours (F = 21.0, Sig F 0.0000). Cluster Three leadership behaviours were directly related to dominance (Sig t = 0.0008) and very likely negatively related to conformity (t = -3.1, Sig t = 0.0045).

Table 6

relationship between Cluster three behaviours and Personality

Multiple R = 0.87

R Square = 0.76

F = 21.0 (Sig F = 0.0000)

Independent variable B Std error B Beta t Sig t

Dominance 0.15 0.04 0.37 3.69 0.0008

Extroversion 0.09 0.06 0.20 1.53 0.1343

Patience -0.09 0.04 -0.19 -1.96 0.0588

Conformity -0.18 0.06 -0.38 -3.1 0.0045

Conscientiousness 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.29 0.9769

Constant 18.1 4.55 3.99 0.0004

Table 7

relationship between Cluster four behaviours and Personality

Multiple R = 0.89

R Square = 0.80

F = 27.6 (Sig F = 0.0000)

Independent variable B Std error B Beta t Sig t

Dominance -0.02 0.01 -0.15 -1.60 0.1197

Extroversion 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.42 0.6772

Patience 0.14 0.01 0.80 9.18 0.0000

Conformity 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.73 0.4692

Conscientiousness 0.02 0.01 -0.09 -1.00 0.3227

Constant 0.01 1.56 0.01 0.9935

The five personality independent variables accounted for 89% of the variance in the Cluster Four dependent variable (R Square = 0.89). There was also a confirmed relationship between the personality independent variables and Cluster Three leadership behaviours (F = 27.6, Sig F 0.0000). Cluster Four leadership behaviours were directly related to patience (Sig t = 0.0000).

Relationship between Leadership Behaviours and Proactivity

The proactivity variable was regressed against each of the four leadership behaviour cluster variables (see Table 8).

Table 8

Relationship between clusters of Leadership behaviours and proactivity

Behaviour variable B Std error B Beta t Sig t

Cluster One -0.13 1.31 -0.16 -0.10 0.9204

Cluster Two -2.67 0.85 -0.46 -3.20 0.0031

Cluster Three 5.70 0.77 0.77 7.37 0.0000

Cluster Four -0.70 0.24 -0.44 -2.96 0.0053

Proactivity was confirmed to directly relate to Cluster Three leadership behaviours (t = 7.37, Sig t = 0.0000). Although levels of significance for the t-statistic when proactivity was regressed against Cluster Two and Cluster Four leadership behaviours exceed 0.001, it is very likely there were negative relationships between these two clusters of behaviours and proactivity (t = -3.20, Sig t = 0.0031; t = -2.96, Sig t = 0.0053).

Association between Leadership Behaviours and Risk-orientation

The risk-orientation variable was a categorical variable and hence it was not possible to confirm relationships between this variable and the clusters of leadership behaviours. Consequently, analysis of variance was applied to determine whether or not the variation in the four leadership behaviour clusters could be accounted for by variation in risk-orientation the strength of association between these variables was determined by squaring of the respective correlation coefficients (eta2). Results of analysis of variation are presented in Table 9.

Table 9

association between clusters of Leadership behaviours and risk-orientation

Behaviour variable Risk avoiders

(mean score)

Risk willing

(mean score)

F Sig of F eta2

Cluster One 14.1 12.9 0.21 0.6491 0.01

Cluster Two 13.5 7.7 12.1 0.0013 0.25

Cluster Three 30.4 39.5 22.2 0.0000 0.38

Cluster Four 5.1 3.6 9.50 0.0039 0.20

Mean scores for the Cluster Two and Four leadership behaviour variables were higher for risk aversion than for risk willingness. In contrast mean scores for the Cluster Three leadership behaviours variable were higher for risk willingness than for risk aversion. The risk-orientation variable accounted for 38% of the variance in Cluster Three leadership behaviour (eta2 = 0.38). Risk-orientation was also associated to a lesser degree with the Cluster Two and Cluster Four leadership behaviours (eta2 = 0.25; eta2 = 0.20). The association between Cluster One leadership behaviours and risk-orientation was low (eta2 = 0.01).

DISCUSSION

The empirical investigation solicited self-reported data from school principals on leadership behaviours, personality, proactivity and risk-orientation. The structure of data prior to analysis was according to the scales in the Drake P3 instrument which was a consequence of the theoretical assumptions about leadership that guided instrument development and refinement. Although this study was grounded upon similar assumptions, the researchers anticipated analysis of the data from a sample of Western Australian principals could reveal relationships between variables indicative of constructs that may or may not have been considered in instrument development. The Drake P3 was the tool for data collection and data analysis was applied to explain the leadership attributes of the principals surveyed.

The objectives of the study concerned profiling leadership and change attributes and identifying those attributes likely to be conducive to school renewal. The following discussion and interpretation of the empirical results of this study are structured upon the empirically identified clusters of leadership behaviours. Each of the four clusters has been summatively defined as an orientation or predilection towards individual expectations of the outcomes of leadership. The descriptions of these four orientations use the Drake P3 terminology. The four leadership orientations are discussed in terms of previously identified conceptions of school leadership and change. This followed by a discussion of the empirical results as they apply to school renewal.

Cluster One Profile: Self -promotion

Cluster One behaviour comprised job mobility, promotion, relationship building, conflict management and flexibility. Job mobility results from pursuit of job opportunities inside and/or outside the organisation and/or in relation to geographic relocation. Organisational promotion is achieved by adapting individual behaviour to suit role expectations. Relationships are built by regulating verbal and non-verbal presentation in response to the social and interpersonal cues of others. Conflict is managed and others are reconciled by adjusting behavioural style. Flexible application of personality traits enables performing a variety of different roles and/or relating to the needs of a large number of diverse people.

The self-promoting leadership orientation is motivated by the leader seeking organisational advancement by being skilled in meeting role expectations and being responsive to the expectations of others. This orientation requires membership of organisations with a clearly defined hierarchy of formal roles and responsibilities, which the leader understands and can, direct leadership behaviours towards. Motivation for attaining organisational objectives based upon a personal need for advancement within the organisation is typical bureaucratic

behaviour. The capacity to accommodate the needs of others and respond to differing circumstances is consistent with situational and contingency models of leadership.

Cluster Two Leadership Profile: Organisational Compliance

Cluster Two behaviours comprised reporting, procedures, training style and preparation. Reporting is completing detailed paperwork on time and accurately. Compliance with organisational procedures requires adherence to established rules, guidelines and policies. The preferred type of professional development is training in detailed management processes, procedures, rules and regulations. Future activities and tasks are contemplated with advance planning and organisation being conducted in anticipation of what will be required. These behaviours were associated with the personality trait of conscientiousness, being purposeful, determined, scrupulous, punctual, reliable and academically or occupationally successful. They were also associated with preference for not being proactive.

The organisational compliance orientation focuses on conforming to organisational requirements and discharge of formal role expectations and responsibilities. This orientation necessitates a stable work environment with well-established decision-making processes and operational procedures. The skills required to discharge duties can be developed by training and success in the job is ensured through diligence and attention to detail. The negative disposition towards proactivity is consistent with preference for job and work environment stability. These behaviours and dispositions are consistent with Fullan's (2001) conception of management. Organisational compliance could be considered as exercise of management functions.

Cluster Three Leadership Profile: Leadership of Change

Cluster three behaviours comprised change agent, issues discovery, people focus, team style, vision and coaching style. Change agents identify opportunities and act on them, show initiative, take action and persevere until meaningful change occurs. Issues are discovered and explored by asking probing questions, listening to responses and suggesting appropriate solutions to address specific needs. Focus on people is demonstrated by 'connecting' with others easily and frequently. A 'team style' is motivated by preference for participation in team activities. Visioning is seeing the overall strategy and having a sense of how one's own part of the organisation fits with the larger picture. Coaching is assisting others to become more competent in their work through provision of feedback on work performance. These behaviours positively related to the personality trait of dominance, being self-confident and motivated by daily challenges and tangible results. They were negatively associated with the traits of patience and conformity. Patience is being relaxed, stable, likeable, a good listener, dependable and seeking to minimise conflict. Conformity is being precise, careful, disciplined and preserving systems and traditions. In addition, the Cluster Three behaviours positively related to proactivity and were strongly associated with willingness to take risks.

All the attributes of the leadership of change orientation are basically consistent with general theoretical propositions about the attributes of effective school leadership and leadership of change. For example, change agentry, leading organisational learning, visioning, inclusivity, collaboration, coaching, proactivity, risk-taking and sense of mission. The personality traits associated with leadership of school change require particular attention. Preference for dominance suggests leaders with this orientation are confident in their own abilities and determined, they have a strong sense of mission and enjoy the challenge of effecting

change. This leadership is also characterised by low levels of patience and conformity. Whilst leaders of change value working with others both individually and in teams, they do not strive to be popular, are not overly concerned with the needs of others nor do they seek to minimise conflict. Lack of conformity with organisational role expectations could be viewed as modeling a form of change agentry in which compliant organisational behaviour is discouraged and others are encouraged to explore and discuss issues. The orientation towards leadership is also characterised by proactivity and risk-taking, which are consistent with proclivity for changing existing conditions and practices.

Cluster Four Leadership Profile: Maintenance of Routines

Cluster Four leadership behaviour concerned the tendency to deal with routine tasks on a regular basis. This was related to the personality trait of patience and negatively associated with the behavioural disposition of proactivity. Orientation towards maintenance of routines was relatively independent of personal ambition and of the desire to effect change (see Table 3). Motivation to engage in this behaviour may be a consequence of personal need to ensure the job is predictable and does not require learning new skills or having to adapt to a changing environment. This disposition is not associated with preference for conformity although there is a preference for being liked by others and minimising conflict.

Leadership of School Renewal

The study sought to identify leadership attributes conducive to engagement in school renewal. Of the four previously discussed orientations towards school leadership, only orientation towards leadership of change focuses on effecting change. In the Background section of this report, leadership of school renewal was proposed to include many of the constructs identified in the literature on school leadership and change with addition of certain constructs specific to school renewal. The general change leadership constructs of change agentry, leading organisational learning, visioning, inclusivity, collaboration, coaching, proactivity, risk-taking and sense of mission were empirically identified as characteristics of orientation towards leadership of change. However, in addition, leadership of school renewal was anticipated to be characterised by resolute determination and commitment to effecting long-term sustainable change. Change driven by a strong sense of mission grounded in intrinsic philosophical beliefs about the future of education and society. The empirical findings of the study, particularly data pertaining to leadership of change needs to be re-examined in cognisance of leadership attributes proposed as specific to school renewal.

The data from the empirical investigation reported in this study does not enable identification of specific leadership values associated with philosophical beliefs about the future of education and society. However, the data on orientation towards leadership of change does portray presence of a strong sense of mission and determination to realize this mission. Leadership of change is not influenced by need for acceptance by others or by need for conformity with role expectations. Soder (1999) distinguished between renewal and reform, viewing reform as perpetuation of compliance in contrast to renewal requiring questioning and redefining of the values underpinning this compliance. The empirically identified non-compliant and non-conformist nature of leadership of school change is very consistent with what could be expected of leadership of school renewal.

The behaviours and behavioural dispositions categorised as leadership of change are indeed features of change leadership, but in addition, they are also characteristic of school renewal leadership. The authors propose leadership of school renewal will be evidenced by:

• Change agentry; • Discovery of issues; • People focus; • Team approach; • Visioning; • Coaching; • Proactivity; • Risk-taking • Dominance; • Impatience; and • Nonconformity.

CONCLUSION

The study applied quantitative methods in an investigation of school principal's self-reported perceptions of their behaviours and behavioural dispositions. Analysis of data from administration of the Drake P3 Behaviour Assessment Survey to 39 Western Australian school principals revealed four clusters of leadership behaviours. These behaviours were operationally defined as orientations towards leadership; self-promotion, organisational compliance, leadership of change and maintenance of routines. Relationships and association between these leadership orientations and personality traits, disposition towards proactivity and disposition towards risk-taking were examined. The study concluded with identification of leadership attributes anticipated to be conducive for school renewal.

References

Anderson, C. S. (1982). The search for school climate: a review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 52(3), 368-420.

Boyd, W. L. (Eds), Restructuring schools: an international perspective on the movement to transfer the control and performance of schools (158-173) London: The Falmer Press.

Chance, E. W. (1991). Restructuring, the principal, and an educational vision: key to success. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 340 103).

Chermiss, C. & Goleman, D. (2001). The emotionally intelligent workplace: how to select for, measure and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups and organisations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Chermiss, C. (1998). Social and emotional learning for leaders. Educational Leadership, 55(7), 26-29.

Conley, D. T., Dunlop, D. M. & Goldman, P. (1992). The 'vision thing' and school restructuring. Eugene: Oregon School Study Council, The University of Oregon. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 343 246).

Coyle, M. (1997). Teacher leadership vs school management: flatten the hierarchies. The Clearing House, 70(5), 236-240. [Expanded Academic ASAP]

Cripe, E.J. (1993). How to get top-notch change agents. Training and Development, 47(12), 52-56

Daresh, J.C. (1986). Support for the beginning principals: First hurdles are highest. Theory into practice, 25(3), 168 - 173.

Donaldson, G.A. (1993). Working smarter together. Educational Leadership, 51(2). [Expanded Academic ASAP]

Drake International. (2001). Drake P3 Behaviour Assessment Survey. USA: Drake Predicitive Performance profile, Inc.

DuFour, R. (2000). Data put a face on shared vision. Journal of Staff Development, 21(1), 71-72.

Ellis, N. & Joslin, A. (1990). Shared governance and responsibility: keys to leadership, commitment and vision in school reform. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 328 985).

Fink, E. and Resnick, L.B. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(8), 598- 618. [Expanded Academic ASAP]

Fraenkel, J.R. and Wallen, N. E. (2000) How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Fullan, M. G. (1993). Change forces probing the depths of educational reform. London: The Falmer Press.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: the theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, J.W. (1963). Self-transformation: the individual and the innovative society. New York: Haper & Row.

Getzels, J. W. & Guba, E. G. (1957). Social behaviour and the administrative process. School Review, 65(12), 423-441.

Goh, S.C. (1998) Toward a learning organization: the strategic building blocks. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 63(2), 15-20. [Expanded Academic ASAP]

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Banatam.

Gray, J., Hopkins, D., Reynolds, D., Wilcox, B., Farrell, S. & Jesson, D. (1999). Improving schools performance and potential. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Greenfield, W., Licata, J. & Johnson, B. (1992). Towards measurement of school vision. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(2), 65-76.

Hallinger, P. & Murphy, .J (1986). The Social Context of Effective Schools. American Journal of Education, 94, : 328-355

Harris, A. (1995). Effective teaching. SIN Reserach Matters No. 3. London: Institute of Education.

Hoy, W. K. and Miskel, C. G. (1987). Educational administration theory research and practice. New York: Random House.

Knezecich, S. J. (1975). Administration of public education. New York: Harper & Row Publishers Inc.

Lambert, L. (1998). How to build leadership capacity. Educational Leadership, 55(7), 17-20.

Lashway, L. (1996) The Limits of Shared Decision-Making. ERIC Digest, Number 108. Eugene OR. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. ED397467.

Lashway, L. (1997). Creating a learning organisation. ERIC Digest, Number 121. Eugene OR. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. ED420897.

Luthans, F. L. (1973). Organisational behaviour. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, Ltd.

MacBeath, J. & Mortimore, P. (2001). Improving school effectiveness. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Markus, M.L. & Benjamin, R.I. (1996). Change agentry: the next IS frontier. MIS Quarterly, 20(4), 385-407

Mendez-Morse, S. (1992). Leadership characteristics that facilitate school change. USA: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Meyer, M.J. & Macmillan, R.B. (2001). The principal's role in transition: Instructional leadership ain't what it used to be. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 5(13). http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/

Mitchell, J. T. and Willower, D. J. (1992). Organisational culture in a good high school. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(1), 6-16.

Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z. & Stough, C. (2000). Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 22(1), 5-10.

Peters, T. (1988). Thriving on chaos: handbook for a management revolution. Great Britain: Macmillan London Limited.

Pierce, M. (2001). Support systems for instructional leaders. Leadership, 30(5), 16-20. [Expanded Academic ASAP]

Prestine, N. A. (1991). Shared decision making in restructuring essential schools: the role of the principal. Planning and Changing, 22(3/4), 160-176.

Ray, R.G. (1997). Developing internal consultants. Training and Development, 51(7), 30-34.

Regan H. B. (1992). Teacher: a new definition and model for development and evaluation.

Schuyler, G. (1997). A paradigm shift from instruction to learning. Eugene OR. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. ED414961

Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation. New York: Doubleday.

Senge, P.M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R.B. & Smith, B.J. (1994). The fifth discipline field book. London: Nicholas Brearley Publishing.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1993). Organisations or communities? Changing the metaphor changes the theory. Invited address, American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000) The lifeworld of leadership: creating culture, community and personal meaning in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sirotnik, K.A. (1999). Making sense of educational transformation. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(8), 606-610.

Smith, S. C. & Stolp, S. (1995). Transforming a school's culture through shared vision. Eugene: Oregon School Study Council, The University of Oregon. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 384 970).

Smith, W.F. (1999). Leadership for school transformation. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(8), 602-605.

Soder, R. (1999). When words find their meaning: transformation versus reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(8), 568-570.

Southworth, G. (1993). School leadership and school development: reflections from research. School Organisation, 13(1), 73-87.

Stoll, L. and Mortimer, P. (1995). Viewpoint no 2: school effectiveness and school improvement. London: Institute of Education.

Tagiuri, R. (1968). The concept of organisational climate. Organisational climate: Exploration of as concept. Tagiuri, R. & Litwin, G.H. (Eds). Boston. Harvard University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration.

Tisdell, E. & Taylor, E.W. (1999). Adult education philosophy informs practice. Adult Learning, 11(2), 6-15.

Wallace, R. C., Engel, D. E. & Mooney, J. E. (1997). The learning school: a guide to vision-based leadership. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Corwin Press. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 413 664).

Wang, M.C. (1997). Research on school effects in urban schools. National Research Center on Education in the Inner Cities, Philadelphia, PA. ED406504

Weick, K. & Quinn, R.E. (1999). Organisational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, Annual 1999, 361 -383.

Wilson, M. (1993). The search for teacher leaders. Educational Leadership, 50(6). [Expanded Academic ASAP]

Witcher, A.E., Sewall, A.M., Arnold, L.D. & Travers, P.D. (2001). Teaching, leading, learning: it's all about philosophy. The Clearing House, 74(5) 277-284.

APPENDIX 1

Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups)

Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25

Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

Job mobility 15 òø

Promotion opportunities 16 òú

Relationship building 6 òú

Conflict management 8 òôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòø

Flexibility 3 ò÷ ó

Reporting 9 òø ùòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòø

Procedures 11 òú ó ó

Training style 14 òôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò÷ ó

Preparation 5 ò÷ ó

Change agent 2 òòòûòòòòòòòòòòòòòø ó

Issues discovery 10 òòò÷ ùòòòòòø ó

People focus 7 òûòòòòòø ó ó ó

Team style 13 ò÷ ùòòòòòòòòò÷ ùòòòòòòòòòòòòòø ó

Vision 1 òòòòòòò÷ ó ùòòòòòòòòòòò÷

Coaching style 12 òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò÷ ó

Manages routines 4 òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò÷