Abstract
Instructional and transformational leadership are two of the most important, and enduring, leadership models, as noted by Hallinger (1992). However, they are different in one important respect. Instructional leadership is primarily about the direction of leaders’ influence because of its focus on improving teaching and learning (Bush, 2011; Bush and Glover, 2014). The processes by which improvement occurs are secondary to this orientation. In contrast, transformational leadership is mainly about how leaders exert their influence on followers. Leaders are thought to inspire their colleagues to increase their followers’ commitment to organizational goals (Leithwood et al., 1999). A link between instructional and transformational approaches is possible if organizational goals focus on learning but this is by no means inevitable.
The first article in this issue, by Paul Calderella, compares the effects of instructional and transformational leadership on student achievement. Drawing on a survey of 590 teachers in 37 elementary schools in the Intermountain West of the USA, the author compared the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale to assess their relative impact. He concludes that instructional leadership is more effective than transformational leadership practices, partly because its specific focus is on student achievement, as noted above.
In the second article, David Dunaway discusses superintendents’ perceptions of the school improvement process in the South-Eastern USA, drawing on the business model developed by Edwards Deming. The author received 226 valid responses to his online survey and notes a lack of fidelity between superintendents’ beliefs about the process and how they perceive those tasked with implementation He concludes that further research is required to establish if the improvement process led to improved teaching and learning.
Scott Marsh’s article is the first of three to focus on leadership in Australia. He examines leadership for learning in Australian independent schools. He identified 10 key elements of this theme, through an extensive literature review, and used this to develop questions for an online survey of teachers in seven independent schools in Sydney. He received 293 replies (a 47% response rate) and concludes that they reflect a distributed view of leadership and a positive attitude towards team work.
The second Australian article, by Sue Saltmarsh, addresses the role of the principal in fostering parent-school engagement. The data from 22 focus groups of parents in New South Wales show that parents regard the principal’s role as the key to the success of parent–school relations. The author notes that, despite recent interest in distributed leadership, as also noted by Scott Marsh, the parents confirmed the persistence of a top-down view of the single-handed leader. Whether they are willing to contribute to school activities, or feel too intimidated to enter the school gates, depends on the principal’s attitudes towards them.
The third Australian article, by Coral Pepper, examines the rarely explored relationship between leadership and sustainability, in Western Australia. He notes that education for sustainability is being promoted in Australian schools. He adopted a case study approach with eight schools and gathered data through interviews with teachers and leaders. The author concludes that leadership for sustainability requires an understanding of the rationale for change.
Alaster Gibson, in the next article, discusses principals’ and teachers’ views of spirituality in principal leadership within three secular primary schools in New Zealand’s North Island. He interviewed the principal and three teachers in each school, and supported this approach with non-participant observation and principal’s reflective journals. The author concludes that participants’ spiritual belief systems reflected New Zealand’s pluralistic society but also indicated common values.
Justice Owusu-Bempau, in the first of two comparative articles, explores authentic leadership in the contrasting contexts of New Zealand and Ghana. The author examined this phenomenon in a university and a non-governmental organization in both countries, identifying participants through snowball sampling. His summary of findings led to the three different descriptors of authentic leadership in each of the four organizations, which he attributes partly to cultural variables.
The second comparative article, by Chang Zhu, examines school culture in Flemish and Chinese primary schools. The author points to the value of cross-cultural studies to promote understanding. Forty-four Flemish schools, and 40 from China, were chosen, based on a mix of stratified, quota and convenience sampling, involving 790 teachers. He notes differences within and between the two cultural settings and concludes that cultural features serve to differentiate schools in terms of leadership, innovation, participation and relationships.
The final article in this issue, by Mohammed Aliakbari and Sadeghi Aghdas, provides a rare contribution to the literature on teacher leadership in Iran. They surveyed 213 teachers in 22 schools in the Kermanshah province to establish the extent and nature of teacher leadership practices. They note that, while participants reported some teacher leadership practices, they are inhibited by hierarchy and bureaucracy, which lead to leadership being distributed among the few rather than the many.