Conclusiones parciales:

While transformational leadership in general is about leaders transforming followers to bring about positive better change in an organisation, it could be argued that involving more people in leadership could make it more effective. DeWitt (2017), for instance, attested that it is difficult for school principals to be confident in all areas of leadership. To help principals meet the challenging demands of their role, DeWitt strongly suggested that there is a need for a collaborative leadership. Rather than putting the responsibilities more on the principals alone as leaders, the collaborative leadership suggested by DeWitt involves a collaboration of several people or groups. Meanwhile, Lawrence (2017) connected collaborative leadership with the responsibility of sharing leadership amongst others rather than it belonging to an individual. In his view, the collaborative leadership process aids members in the organisation by promoting certain characteristics such as social justice, shared vision

25

and values, shared responsibility, mutual respect and empathy. He further mentioned that collaborative leadership is deeply rooted in the collectivist cultures. Lawrence believes that in collaborative leadership, everyone has the potential of becoming leaders and followers due to different levels of expertise that require different people to emerge as leaders. Collaborative leadership is therefore not only the territory of a few experts but opens an opportunity for more leaders through shared leadership (Kennedy, 2002). When leadership is shared it creates a more democratic and just society. It is arguable that the characteristic of collaborative leadership is crucial as a platform for teachers to become leaders, as power is co-owned and not the sole property of the principals.

In a study that identified the important values among participants in an organisation in Malaysia, Kennedy (2002) found values such as the ‘humane orientation’ which he took to demonstrate a tendency towards collective rather than personal satisfaction. Hofstede (2001) in his work, “Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind” mentioned that everyone carries in themselves patterns of thinking, feeling and potential acting which are learnt through a lifetime experience and result in a person’s leadership styles. One of the cultural dimensions found in Hofstede’s study is individualism which is similar to the study of Kennedy (2002). Individualism, according to Hofstede’s study, is the degree to which a person is assimilated in a group. Individualism manifests in members of a group or society having loose ties between one another, while collectivism would typically see individuals integrated into a strong group and protecting them loyally. In another study, Hofstede (1998) postulated that the success of a nation is determined by understanding cultural differences, as well as the variation among attitudes and the leadership styles. According to Hofstede, cultural attitudes, belief systems and values imply not only the leaders’ behaviour but also the

26

behaviour of those they lead. As such, it can be argued that leaders’ characteristics are crucial in shaping the characters of those they lead.

Strachan (2012) clarified that differences of leadership between the women participants in her study depended upon two factors: their personal value systems, and the school context. The personal value system according to Strachan, includes the commitment towards being student-focused, providing a safe learning environment, involving care-givers, and consensus on decision-making. To manage the school context, leadership should also involve managing the benefits to the organisation and realising its purpose. To manage the organisations and to fulfil its purpose, Chin (2004) said, it is important to look at the contexts of leadership across organisational cultures. Abu-Tineh (2012) supported the idea of the importance of studying one’s own contexts and organisations. In the case of a study based in Jordan for instance, Abu-Tineh suggested that there is a need for an in-depth understanding towards cultural issues regarding more women holding positions in management and senior leadership. As most of the existing writings about women and leadership paid little attention to the contextual consideration, Abu-Tineh suggested more studies need to be conducted in order to fill the gap regarding the influence of societal culture and context on women and leadership. The literature such as that of Fullan (1992) and Fullan (2001) showed that the culture and ethos of leadership vary across nations. Shah (2010), when speaking of cultures and contexts, asserts that since societies living in different cultures interpret leadership differently, the need to explore the influence of culture and context on leadership becomes more important in multi-ethnic societies. What is evidenced from the previous studies is that understanding the contexts in which women lead is imperative in understanding the way women enact

27

leadership. Therefore, how societies perceive and construct educational leadership should be understood and debated in their own contexts (Shah, 2006b).

Another example of understanding the contexts of leadership which is explained in the study of Wang, Gurr and Drysdale (2016, p. 274), is by having “collaborative visioning”. Collaborative visioning or shared vision enables people to make sense of their work and helps them find a sense of identity within their work context. In the primary school in which the study of Wang et al. (2016) was conducted, the staff members articulated their targets toward achieving excellence for their school. Tying in with collaborative visioning, Gentilucci and Muto (2007) suggested that knowing the students’ perceptions is also important to inform what works for the school. Like collaborative visioning, relational leadership suggested by Grogan and Shakeshaft (2011, p. 6) is about leaders ‘being in relationship with others in a horizontal rather than a hierarchical sense’, the women in the study talked about accomplishing tasks with and through others. Numerous studies have examined leadership effectiveness across cultures (Gentilucci & Muto, 2007; Munley, 2011; Manning, 2013). However, the extent to which leadership is culturally contingent could only be understood by studying one’s own contexts. Even though collaborative leadership is not the focal point of the aforementioned studies, the idea behind this study is arguably close to the concept of collaborative leadership and its relation to culture and context. As such, it is believed that drawing from studies such as those of Grogan and Shakeshaft (2011) and Gentilucci and Muto (2007) and others, could contribute towards understanding the current study of women and leadership in Malaysia.

In Thailand, a study conducted by Samriangjit, Tesaputa and Samarach (2016) found that the level of collaborative leadership of primary school administrators is higher than it was before the implementation of specific training. During the training the

28

participants, who were all primary school administrators, were given a test regarding their understanding of collaborative leadership. The results of the training were recorded and compared with the result of the actual implementation of the collaborative leadership approach which took around eight weeks in the administrators’ respective schools. Although the findings from the training yield useful guidelines for leadership development strategies, the nature of the training arguably tended to pressure the administrators to perform as collaborative leaders.

DeWitt (2017) found that collaborative leadership is highly valuable as sometimes the idea of how to implement specific work comes when the leaders collaborate with others. It is similar when someone witnesses others doing the work, in that they learn from others’ ways of working. Therefore, the outcomes of working alone and working together with others are claimed to be different both in the implementation aspects as well as in outcome. DeWitt further encouraged leaders to exercise collaborative leadership as it can strengthen relationships with stakeholders. He added that leaders should surround themselves with followers that are able to assist them in facing challenges without feeling that they should do things alone and know all the answers just because they are leaders. Regardless of individual differences, Lawrence (2017) affirmed that, when collaborative leadership is practised, the contribution of everyone is more valued and diversity is strengthened. In collaborative leadership, everyone is open to more opportunities of becoming leaders and followers, as different levels of expertise will call for different people to emerge in those roles. Demonstrably some principals perceived that as leaders, they must perform their job alone. This perception limits the participation of others, such as teachers, in their road to becoming future principals. It is therefore suggested by DeWitt (2017) that there is a need to have

29

principals that not only work in collaboration with others but who believe that working with others will lead to better solutions and results.