CALENDARIO FISCAL

The concept of transformational leadership had originally derived from non- educational settings (Geijsel, Sleegers, & Berg, 1999). It was not till the 1980s and 1990s, that research on transformational leadership penetrated the academic sphere through the initiatives by Leithwood and his associates in Canada. They clearly assert that transformational leadership is indeed essential for schools in current society (Geijsel et al., 1999).

Transformational leadership is actually a leadership model that has surfaced from transactional leadership (Dawson & Andriopoulos, 2014). The shift towards transformational leadership was due to the onset of the “global, information-based economy”, which placed new demands on leaders, requiring them to be “transformational in their practices” (Roberson, 2012, p. 29). Given the emergent popularity of transformational leadership, there was considerable educational research conducted using the transformational leadership model, which rapidly yielded a knowledge base for the receptive audience of the educational community (Hallinger, 2003). According to Leithwood and Sun (2012), the transformational leadership model was most widely adopted and tested, especially evidenced by the literature published during the years 1990 to 2003. It has long been advocated that transformational practices have contributed significantly towards the reforms of school restructuring initiatives (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999, p. 452). Bryman (1992) referred to transformational leadership as the “new leadership” that gained recognition for its “systematic empirical inquiry” within school contexts (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999, p. 453). With the evolving trends of educational reform, transformational leadership has been the most frequently used model, aimed primarily at “developing the organization’s capacity to innovate” (Hallinger, 2003, p.

330). In the same vein, Yukl (2006, p. 262) provided the following insight: “Transformational leadership focuses on change. Followers feel trust, admiration, loyalty, and respect towards the leader. As a result, they are inspired to perform more duties than they are expected to do”.

The following sub-sections describe the evolution of transformational leadership, focusing on the works of Burns, Bass and Leithwood’s models of transformational leadership. Their research initiatives have set a bedrock in the field of educational leadership.

2.3.4.1 Burns Model of Transformational Leadership (1978)

Transformational leadership was first conceptualized in 1978 by James MacGregor Burns, who was known for his Pulitzer prize-winning book entitled, ‘Leadership’ (Bolden, 2004; Chin, 2007; Leithwood, 2010). This seminal work provided a firm conceptual footing on transformational and transactional leadership (Leithwood, Tomlinson, & Genge, 1996). Burns played a pivotal role in establishing the concept of “transforming leadership”, Geijsel et al. (1999, p. 310) to signify the relationship between the leader and ‘followers’ (Marks & Printy, Afshari 2003, p. 375). According to Hallinger (2003, p. 335), this was the time when “transformational leadership was first elucidated as a theory”.

Burns built the distinction between transactional and transformational leadership. According to Stewart (2006), Burns outlined a theory that juxtaposed both these leadership styles. Transactional leadership that flourished in bureaucratic systems was considered “managerial”, as it focused on operational aspects of the organization and the

use of “extrinsic rewards to motivate followers” (Goodnow & Wayman, 2009, p. 4; Stewart, 2006). On the contrary, according to Burns (1978), the transformational leadership model calls for the leader to be morally uplifting, by seeking to satisfy followers fundamental needs, aspirations and values, with the purpose of transforming followers self-interests into collective concerns. Nevertheless, Goodnow and Wayman (2009, p. 5) asserts that transformational leaders are expected to be “burdened with the ethical imperative to act morally”.

Burns (1978) illustrates how both leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality (Leithwood, 2010). Stewart (2006, p. 5) describes Burns conception of transformational leadership as a “reciprocal relationship between leader and follower, who share the commitment to realize a common ethical purpose”. This was supported by Howell and Avolio (1992) who asserted that true transformational leaders were concerned with the common good and tend to be selfless and focused on the betterment of their followers.

With the view that transformational leadership transforms both the leader as well as the follower, Burns (1978) examined the transformational leadership practices of leaders and the ways in which these leaders inspired their followers to develop new levels of energy, commitment and moral purpose Roberson (2012, pp. 29-30). Further implications are drawn from Burns definition of transformational leadership, as outlined in Roberson (2012, p. 30), as one who:

i. raises the followers’ level of consciousness about the importance and value of designated outcomes and ways of reaching them;

ii. motivates the followers to transcend their own self-interests for the sake of the team, organization, or larger polity;

iii. raises the followers’ level of needs according to Maslow’s hierarchy, from lower- level concerns for safety and security to higher-level needs for achievement and self-actualization.

2.3.4.2 Bass Model of Transformational Leadership (1985)

Bass, (1985) is an expansion of the original ideas of Burns (1978) that reconceptualised the transformational leadership theory model based on four dimensions known as the four ‘I’s, that measure the leader’s influence on their followers: “idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration” (Aydin, Sarier, & Uysal, 2013, p. 806; Bass & Avolio, 1993, 1994; Chin, 2007; Leithwood, 2010; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; Watts, 2009; Wilkey, 2013). These four dimensions are grounded in moral foundations. Bass theory posits that transformational leaders should exhibit at least one of those elements (Marks & Printy, 2003, p. 375). The survey instrument, “Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire” (MLQ), developed by Bass and his colleagues measures the concepts of both transactional and transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Chin, 2007, pp. 166-167; Robinson, Lloyd & Rowe, 2008).

Bass theorized that transformational leaders garner trust, respect, and admiration from their followers. According to Bass and Stogdill (1990), transformational leaders can elevate the interest and generate awareness among followers to look past their own self- interests for the good of the organization. Moreover, by raising their consciousness about the importance of organizational goals, transformational leaders can motivate and inspire their followers to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the organization (Marks & Printy, 2003). The following section explores further into the four dimensions that

measure transformational leadership: (i) idealized influence; (ii) inspirational motivation; (iii) intellectual stimulation and (iv) individualized consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1993, 1994).

Idealized Influence is a representation of a transformational leader seen as a “role model” with a strong compelling vision, “idealized by followers” (Aydin et al., 2013, p. 807). It is also referred to as ‘charisma’, of which the leader behaves in admirable ways that cause followers to want to identify with their leader (Watts, 2009, p. 37). This particular dimension of transformational leadership encourages followers to mirror the behaviour of their role model. Modeling based on high ethical behavior, beliefs, and values, can instill pride, respect and trust in the followers. Consequently, the respect and admiration that the leader earns, places the leader at a higher level of influence and importance. Moreover, the ability of the leader to demonstrate a willingness to change one’s practices due to circumstances, symbolizes success (Leithwood & Sun, 2012, p. 400).

Inspirational motivation refers to the extent to which transformational leaders can “articulate an appealing vision”, which can “inspire followers” to have a strong sense of purpose, “team spirit and enthusiasm” (Aydin et al., 2013, p. 807). Leaders who “articulate a shared vision” that is “appealing and inspiring”, will motivate and build “goal consensus” among the followers, towards achieving their shared goals. Such leaders will also monitor the progress of these achievable goals, while holding high expectations of professionalism and innovation from staff (Leithwood & Sun, 2012, p. 400).

Intellectual stimulation refers to transformational leaders who encourage their followers to be “innovative, analytical and creative” (Aydin et al., 2013, p. 807). This

type of transformational leader “challenges assumptions, takes risks and encourages input” from followers (Watts, 2009, p. 37). Transformational leaders use intellectual stimulation to highlight the problems faced by their followers and improve their understanding in dealing with these problems (Nguni, Sleegers, & Denessen, 2006, p. 148). By providing intellectual stimulation, such leaders can stimulate the creativity within their staff members and help them evaluate and refine their practices so that they could carry out their tasks more effectively (Leithwood & Sun, 2012, p. 400).

Taking on the role as a mentor or coach, the transformational leader takes into consideration individuals’ opinions, desires and needs, extending their ‘individualized support’ towards the professional development of their followers (Leithwood & Sun, 2012, p. 400). Individualized consideration is a dimension that entails how much “mentoring or coaching orientation”, leaders give their followers, in terms of personal attention, advice and opportunities to develop (Bass, 1986; Nguni et al., 2006, pp. 148 – 149). Transformational leaders act as mentors or coaches by paying special attention to their followers needs, and showing concern for their achievement and growth (Bass, 1986; Roberson, 2012, p. 31).

2.3.4.3 Leithwood’s Model of Transformational Leadership

In the 1990s, Leithwood and colleagues, Jantzi and Steinbach attempted to conceptualize transformational leadership theory, by exploring its nature and effects through extensive research (Leithwood et al., 2000, p. 189). They built and extended on the concepts of transformational leadership theory that began with Burns and Bass, and explored transformational leadership practices which became the subject of systematic empirical inquiry in the context of schools (Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996). Hallinger and

Heck (1996b, p. 28), has also acknowledged the evidence of Leithwood’s empirical research studies conducted on transformational school leadership, which explored various leadership constructs and their effects on internal school processes and student achievement. Through their research initiatives, Leithwood and his colleagues have gained a wealth of experience and accumulated expertise within educational settings, which has contributed considerably towards transformational leadership for schools (Leithwood et al., 2000, p. 189).

In the early 90s, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) proposed an adapted version of the transformational leadership model. This was modified by Leithwood and his colleagues “to suit the leadership demands found in schools” (Leithwood & Sun, 2012, p. 388). The theoretical model of Leithwood (1994) suggested that transformational leadership was more compelling than instructional leadership, in relation to the social cohesion and human capital aspect manifested in schools (De Maeyer et al., 2007, p. 129). Viewing school leadership as moving from instructional to transformational leadership, Leithwood described leadership as having a direct effect only on curriculum, teacher instruction, professional development, and the supervisory role of the principal (Rideaux, 2011, p. 20). Leithwood and Jantzi (1999, p. 453) also point out that transformational leadership aims to “foster higher levels of personal commitment to organizational goals” on the part of the followers (Marks & Printy, 2003). Modelling after Bass, (1985) “two-factor theory”, and advancing the model of transformational leadership, Jantzi and Leithwood (1996) identified six dimensions that make up their model:

i. building school vision and goals; ii. providing intellectual stimulation; iii. offering individualized support;

iv. symbolizing professional practices and values; v. demonstrating high performance expectations; and

vi. developing structures to foster participation in school decisions Source: (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000, p. 114).

Based on these dimensions, Leithwood (1994) developed the survey questionnaire,

‘Nature of School Leadership Survey (NSLS)’ to measure specific leadership

practices and examine problem-solving processes used by transformational leaders (Ng, 2008). Watts (2009) attempted to compare the dimensions of Bass’s four-factor model against Leithwood’s six-factor model, as seen in Table 2.2, (p. 379). It was noted that Leithwood began to view the transformational model as lacking in the transactional aspect of leadership which Bass had addressed in his model. Leithwood felt that the managerial component of transactional leadership is fundamental for the stability of an organization (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999, p. 454). To this effect, Leithwood added four management dimensions, as a response to the criticism by Silins (1994), and this made a significant contribution towards transformational leadership in schools (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; 2005, p. 181). These four added dimensions include: (i) staffing (ii) instructional support (iii) monitoring school activities and (iv) community focus (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000, p. 114). In total, ten dimensions have been formulated to further investigate specific leadership practices (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999, p. 454).