Abstract
In this article we examine the mentoring program for novice headteachers and what they perceive as its purposes, as well as the constraints to successfully implementing it in Malaysian schools. Using a survey research design we analysed responses from 200 newly appointed headteachers from two state departments of education, and interviewed six headteachers through two focus group interview sessions. As expected, headteachers revealed that mentoring had significantly improved their professional values as a school leader, and had led to the creation of a knowledge sharing culture that boosted their confidence level and improved their practical knowledge related to school leadership. However, headteachers also revealed that time constraints negatively impacted on the effective implementation of mentoring. The study also offers practical suggestions for the headship training system in Malaysian context.
Introduction
In developing countries such as Malaysia, the educational sector is an essential factor in determining the development of human capital. The importance of education in developing human capital is imperative to improving quality of life and providing social benefits to the nation’s citizens. The rapid development of education promotes the productivity, creativity and technological advancements that advocate a nation’s growth. With the advancement of education as a crucial factor in a nation’s development, the capabilities and management skills of educational leaders, especially headteachers, are regarded as the main element to attaining the nation’s vision and mission (Yirci and Kocabas, 2010; Burk, 2012). In achieving the nation’s vision, headship training is seen as critical due to the huge responsibilities borne by the school principals and headteachers to be effective in turning schools into successful organisations (Brickman et al., 2004; Grogan and Crow, 2004). In this context, the mentoring approach is considered a central strategy for producing efficient, excellent and highly capable educational leaders through an informal training approach; which, by its nature, has positive implications for improving leadership proficiencies of novice school leaders. In addition, the informal approach is also seen as a cost-efficient strategy for equipping educational leaders with practical skills without them having to leave the school premises. In Malaysia, newly appointed educational leaders, as a result of mentoring, on either an informal or formal basis, are believed to integrate into the system far more easily than those who have taught for a long time. Through the implementation of mentoring by experienced leaders, novice school leaders can learn to construct their own understanding of the nature of leadership and define their own construct harmonies and values frames (Bajunid, 2008).
In schools, the mentoring approach has been successfully implemented in Singapore (Lim, 2005; 2009) and England (Walker and Stott, 1993; Bolam et al., 1995) since the 1980s. It aims to prepare the newly appointed heads with extensive knowledge of leadership practicality, reduce the feelings of isolation (Aiken, 2002; Mathibe, 2007) and build wider networks among school leaders (Bloom et al., 2005). In the field of headship, mentoring is implemented as a planned training program, either formally or informally, short term or long term, and aims to develop the potential of inexperienced and newly appointed heads (Kram, 1985; Johnson et al., 1991; Shea, 1994; Johnson, 1997; Russell and Adams, 1997). In practice, mentoring is considered a collaborative approach between highly knowledgeable educational leaders and their inexperienced colleagues; the former having a deeper comprehension of responsibilities, planning, strategising, knowledge sharing, decision making and problem solving in schools (Palermo, 2002; Whitaker, 2003; Daresh, 2004; Hansford and Ehrich, 2006; Villani, 2006; Miller, 2008). In order to secure success in the mentoring approach, an aspect of trust, an element of respect, ethics and a good rapport between mentors and their mentees, also known as protégés, is required (Shea, 1994; Hay, 1995; Johnson, 1997). Mentees should also openly accept any criticisms and opinions in order to enhance their work performances (Klitz et al., 2004), and there should be a high degree of openness in attitude with good communication between both mentor and mentee so as to avoid misunderstandings. Simply said, each mentee should have the skills to easily adapt to the culture and environment of their respective mentors (Klitz et al., 2004). Indirectly this relationship benefits both parties in terms of professional development and training, especially novice headteachers, as it provides them with invaluable insights beyond their own experience while expanding networks through the process of organisational socialisation (Lankau and Scandura, 2002; Gagen and Bowie, 2005, Bush and Middlewood, 2013).
Background
The success of schools as organisations is closely related to the credibility and leadership qualities of their headteachers. The role of heads has changed drastically over time due to globalisation and the rapid growth in education, which has transformed schools into complex organisations. Mentoring researchers (Dodson, 2006; Miller, 2008) believe that most novice headteachers were in a dilemma during this change, because not only did they have to shoulder the responsibilities as leaders, but also think about the many duties they would have to perform in the future. Obstacles and challenges in leading schools were considered the most common demands from various parties, especially the educational stakeholders. As such, this situation pressured heads into accepting appointments as educational leaders, which is undoubtedly different to simply being a teacher (Cheung and Walker, 2006). Besides, the finding from Southern Regional Educational Board (2008) reports that the complexity of existing training systems has kept school leaders busy with professional leadership requirements and improved their stress levels in managing schools. As a result, novice headteachers had to acquire practical leadership skills through the philosophy of ‘learn on the job’ and must now consequently function without guidance from experienced leaders.
Daresh (2001) clarifies that novice headteachers need at least two years of being appointed as head in order to manage the pressures of the position, due to their lack of knowledge and skills involving decision making and problem solving in the school environment. In addition, the lack of induction and high quality professional training among headteachers has gradually become the main issue, followed by increasingly complex roles and responsibilities attached to being an educational leader (Dimmock and Walker, 2005). Mentoring researchers (Lovely, 2004; Dodson, 2006) elucidated that educational novices were more prone to experiencing work pressures due to the increasingly complex workloads, particularly in comparison to being a general educator. Often having to publically display their confidence and abilities in meeting the requirements of national education standards to their community. They tend to feel isolated and separated from other teachers (Herbert, 2006; Howard and Mallory, 2008) and face difficulties with decision-making and problem solving (Izgar, 2009). This is due to the lack of broader perspectives and skills in leading schools. Without a doubt, to lead any institution that focuses on learning and produces a quality workforce for national development, heads should possess high capabilities. In the context of headship training programs in Malaysia, developing school leaders through a mentoring system is regarded as supporting initiative efforts implemented by the state educational department as part of the informal approaches. The Ministry of Education also advocated the mentoring approach through leadership practical course initiated by the Institute of Aminuddin Baki (Abdul Halim, Senin, and Manaf, 2009), the formal institution for school leadership training.
Benefits and limitations of headteacher mentoring
Various studies indicate that mentoring has a significant impact on the professional development of newly appointed heads (Middlewood, 2003; Mathibe, 2007). Mentoring is considered a practical experience sharing approach that offers various advantages to individual professional development, career development and also benefits organisations (Cureton et al., 2010; Allen and Eby, 2011). In psychology, researchers elucidate that the mentoring program assists in reducing the pressure encountered by leaders, who learn how to handle stress from their respective mentors (Ladegard, 2011). Furthermore, mentoring is claimed to be helpful in improving self-esteem and confidence levels (Tracy et al., 2004). In leading school practices, mentoring hones skills by:
boosting confidence and competencies in leading the school, integrating theory into real situations in schools, improving the communication skills of leaders, enhancing knowledge about effective strategies in leading, and reducing the sense of isolation and building a good rapport between senior and novice headteachers.
(Daresh and Playko, 1991; Daresh, 1995; Dussault, 1995; Hobson et al. 2003; Browne-Ferrigno and Muth, 2004.) Past studies, concentrating on school leadership, point out that mentoring is imperative for encouraging innovative ways of leading through the pervasive network of learning implicated from the bonding process of the mentor and the mentee in formal relationships. As such, system-wide incorporation of structured mentoring in leadership development, coupled with a focus on innovative practices, could generate behavioral norms in leadership practice that encourages the continual creation of learning in school (Hobson and Sharp, 2005; Lim, 2009).
Through the mentoring approach, novice school leaders felt more motivated and inspired by sharing sessions with their mentors, which encouraged them to develop creative thinking and problem solving through reflection and discussion. This developed further the management skills of the leader’s inner-self. In addition, the mentoring approach is considered an effective informal training method for producing better future school leaders. The approach also enhances leaders’ capabilities by supporting activities that provide training and support for mentors; establishes quality assurance and monitoring systems, paying attention to the recruitment and allocation of mentors, while having a clear understanding of organisational culture and strategic planning (Draper and McMichael, 2000; Lord et al., 2008).
Scholars in mentoring assert that the mentoring approach in organisations will enhance leadership performance. Sponsorship assists protégés in gaining access to positions and roles that can provide opportunities to display leadership behaviors in challenging situations (Kram, 1985). A successful leader is one who has much experience in this area and provides feedback to the protégé on his or her effectiveness as a leader, thus reinforcing leadership practices and enhancing the protégé’s belief that they will perform well in future leadership situations. Mentorship for leadership roles seems to be an important contributor to leadership self-efficacy, since it provides opportunities to successfully perform relevant behaviors with the validation that one is likely to succeed (Southworth, 1995). Exposure-and-visibility involves the creation by the mentor of structured opportunities for the protégé to develop relationships with others in the organisation (Kram, 1985). These collaborative efforts provide learning encounters that are critical to an individual’s future success as a leader; visibility to others, which affords leadership experiences, and exposure to opportunities for successful performance that might otherwise be unavailable. In producing effective leaders, suggestions and performance feedback provided by the mentor significantly contributes to the success of their mentees. In turn, successful enactment of leadership practices allows protégés to experience mastery of leadership situations, which enhances leadership self-efficacy (Wanberg et al., 2003; Godshalk and Sosik, 2007). Through feedback, the mentor also enhances the protégé’s belief in their ability to succeed in leadership situations. A review on mentoring for new headteachers conducted by Hobson and Sharp (2005), points towards school improvement outcomes and, hence, improving outcomes through mentored headteachers’ new management and leadership skills. Revealing the significant positive impact of mentoring on the development of principals in Singapore, Lim (2009) stressed that mentoring is an innovative way of leading schools through the pervasive network of learning relationships between the senior heads with their mentees.
Bush and Coleman (1995) disclosed that mentoring has a significant impact on improving the personal skills of novice workers. Significantly, mentoring, considered a long-term development process, aids in enhancing and nurturing the skills and professional life of school leaders (Pue, 2005; Hibert, 2005). Through the process of mentoring and coaching, headteachers are exposed and trained to have ethical values, integrity, creativity and innovation, confidentiality, and to be highly committed to the society (Bloom et al., 2003; Bush and Middlewood, 2005). Notman (2005), in his doctoral thesis, also believed that through the implementation of mentoring programs, the self-awareness and self-actualization of headteachers is cultivated, which is vital for their development. In his study, that explores induction training needed for school principals in New Zealand, Barwood (1999) noted that mentoring is important in-service training, as it manages to provide better prepared principals in facing the challenges and complexity in schools and should be part of an effective induction program in preparing effective leaders for New Zealand’s schools. In another situation, Grojean, et al. (2004) revealed that coaching and mentoring interventions that include feedback focusing on specific aspects of ethical conduct, will further reduce ambiguity of ethical events and help to increase ethical awareness among employees in schools. Through mentoring, ethical conduct among members is improved. In a case study of Singapore, Boon (1998) reported that Singaporean school principals were able to establish a wider collegial network, improve their leadership skills, gain greater self-confidence, attain higher levels of professional knowledge and to improve their job competence. Clutterbuck (1998) reviewed the benefits of mentoring from the personal attributes and values that assist in creating a strong self and behavioral awareness as well as a respectful culture in an organisation.
Even though previous studies proved that mentoring has significant benefits in improving the leadership development of the novice heads, other studies (Douglas, 1997; Enrich and Hansford, 1999; Hobson, 2003; Daresh, 2004; Hobson and Sharp, 2005) also highlighted the limitations and pitfalls of mentoring. These can be separated into three major themes: the organisational factors (lack of funding and support by the educational officials, inadequate preparation and training of would-be mentors); factors relating to both mentors and protégés (lack of time, busy routines); and the attitudes of mentors (inability to share knowledge) and limitations relating to pitfalls in the effectiveness of such programs.
Conversely organisational support is essential, as is structured monitoring and evaluation of the process, to develop a culture of continuous improvement in order to facilitate future investments of time and effort into the mentoring program (Getty et al., 2010). Ehrich and Hansford (1999) and Daresh (2004) in their study of mentoring programs reported that the low level of support provided by the educational officials and Ministry, especially related to the resources and perceived benefits of mentoring, affect the training and professional development of school administrators. In addition, Daresh (2004) pointed out that financial cutbacks faced by the state department office contribute to reduced support for the training process of school leaders. The lack of financial support will jeopardise the motivation of the mentors who once willingly participated. Furthermore, a study conducted by the Southern Regional Educational Board (2008) revealed that approximately 20% of novice principals indicated that they received no support and that requests for assistance from the authorizing body officially affiliated with mentoring. Findings indicated that district officials reviewing the process rarely met with mentors and protégés to coordinate or monitor the internship program and also did not meet with mentors on a scheduled basis. Hansford et al. (2003), who reviewed the organisational factors that support the mentoring system, also believed that many of the problems that existed were mostly associated with the lack of funding; which holds implications for mentors’ participation in mentoring programs (Murray and Owen, 1991; Douglas, 1997). Further, Eby et al. (2006) disclosed that the lack of support provided by the management could also play a key role in determining the effectiveness of mentoring. For instance, negative behaviors, such as neglecting mentoring participation and delegation, also decreased the accountability of the organisation in mentoring effectiveness.
The time availability for the mentoring program was a crucial element in measuring the effectiveness of the program (Bolam et al., 1993; Hopkins-Thompson, 2000; Bloom et al., 2003; Hobson, 2003; Robertson, 2005; Hobson and Sharp, 2005; Getty at al., 2010) where mentors and their protégé have little time to spend in structured meetings in order to share their knowledge and skills. The lack of time for mentors and protégé to meet was considered to be due to administrative workloads. Later, Hansford et al. (2003) also found that relevant significant factors such as lack of time would also affect the implementation of mentoring in the school context; forty-four (27.7%) of all the past studies noted that mentors identified lack of time, while Robinson’s (1993) study also concluded that time constraints among mentors prevented them from helping their novice colleagues. Problems associated with lack of time were revealed as a crucial issue that reduced the effectiveness of mentoring programs in most studies where both mentors and mentees had to allocate some of their free time in helping their novice (Younger, 1995; Hardy, 1999). Furthermore, Ehrich and Hansford (1999) also mentioned that lack of time and related benefits play an important role in determining the effectiveness of the program, since benefits provide motivation to attract senior and experienced heads to participate in the program. Lack of time has a significant impact on the program – less time on mentoring meant less time provided in helping novice heads (Douglas, 1997).
Furthermore, Hobson and Sharp (2005) also highlighted that the problem of inadequate mentor training and the mentors’ feelings of being inadequately qualified to be guides of beginning heads was also a problem. For instance, studies conducted in the United States by Ganser (1992), and Bolam et al. (1993) in the United Kingdom, reported lack of training or understanding of program goals; exaggerated expectations by mentors and mentees were also issues that affected the program. Therefore, educational officials should stress the importance of providing prospective mentors and mentees with more information in order to give them a clearer understanding of their roles, as well as offer practical sessions showing how mentoring should be implemented. A study by Hanson (1996) in United Kingdom showed that mentors overloaded with work had reduced effectiveness – being unable to fully commit to the program due to a need to concentrate on their own day-to-day school operations. The extra responsibility associated with mentoring negatively affected mentors who felt overwhelmed by the added burden. In addition, Daresh (2004) also noted that having protégés to the school mentors also added new responsibilities to the senior heads, where they were already burdened with heavy workloads as school leaders. Thambekwayo (2012) also highlighted the problems with mentoring to novices, where the latter have too much dependency on their mentors and an unwillingness to take initiative in their own problem solving. Similarly, where mentors were too protective and controlling of their novices, and had difficulties in accepting different approaches to practice, there was also reduced effectiveness in the program.
The qualities of mentors selected for the program were identified as an essential variable for the success of mentoring in educational settings. Mentors selected must achieve certain criteria, such as being knowledgeable, experienced, supportive, reliable, flexible, accessible and trustworthy (Grover, 1994). Therefore, it is believed that mentors should acquire certain skills such as communication skills, knowledge of school operational systems and administration and be able to build confidentiality based on trust and a positive relationship. The problems associated with this issue related to mentors and protege's usually coming from the same district, where it may be difficult to share knowledge (Bloom et al., 2003), based on the assumption that the protégé may become a potential rival in the future. Differences in race and gender were factors that could impact on the formation of effective mentoring relationships. Protégés need to feel supported in the new roles, which may be more difficult when race and gender are not accounted for in selecting for the appropriate mentors (Reyes, 2003).
Headship mentoring in the Malaysian educational context
Educational administration in the Malaysian education system is highly centralised. The educational system has four distinct hierarchical levels consisting of the federal, state, district, and school level (Ramesh et al., 2011). Overall responsibility rests with the Ministry of Education since they are the body responsible for appointing school heads and principals. In Malaysia, headteachers are formally appointed as primary school leaders and principals as secondary leaders. Training of heads and principals is fully centralised, where they receive their in-service training after or before being appointed to their leadership post. Training programs are fully centralised through the establishment of the Institute of Aminuddin Baki, the formal educational administration training institute that conducts most of the heads’ training programs and play a pertinent role in providing professional support to the development of effective school leaders in Malaysia. The institute has a similar function to the National College for School Leadership in Nottingham, United Kingdom which provides leadership and management training, workshops, research, courses and support for aspiring school leaders. The mentoring system in Malaysian schools is self-initiated by the State Department of Education through an ‘on-boarding’ district or state program called School Improvement Partner (SiPartner+) as part of their informal professional development and training of school heads (Ministry of Education, 2012). However, the implementation of mentoring was delegated to each of the thirteen states’ departments of education to create self-owned programs based on the needs of each state department office. Therefore, the mentoring system is not a compulsory school leaders’ training approach and is self-financed by the individual state department office. The program has various activities according to the needs and objectives of the state department. Despite it being optional, mentoring is positioned as an effective informal training approach to enhance headteachers’ capabilities in leading their school within their peer-led culture to train, develop and disseminate knowledge among schools. With the state department offices playing a vital role in the mentoring program, evidence of the program’s success and numbers of headteachers trained under the system still remain unknown. During implementation, mentoring begins with appointment of novice headteachers and lasts for five years, where the novices are matched with their senior counterparts with more than five years of experience as school leaders. The program incorporated formal activities, such as a school visit where mentors and novices met each other, sharing knowledge sessions allowing them to address common problems they experienced at school. The participants were also able to enrol in seminars and workshops to hone their leadership skills with their seniors, the state department office and ministry officials (2008).
Mentoring has four major phases consisting of the introduction, relationship building, the helping and guidance session, and lastly, the informal session. In the introduction phase mentoring begins with the appointment of the novice by the Ministry of Education and the process of mentor selection by the state department office. Next, the state department educational office will match the mentors and their novices in formally organised sessions. One of the essential criteria is the school’s placing of the novice, who must be located in the same district and near the mentor’s school. The continuation phase, or relationship building phase, follows, in which mentor and novice build their trust in order to feel comfortable sharing their knowledge and experiences related to the management of their schools. The team building sessions lasts for about four months before the sessions focusing on helping and guiding commence. This true mentoring phase is called the leadership learning process and is where the novice learns how to lead and manage the school effectively. This phase involves activities such as school-based visits, formal leadership observation in the mentor’s school, participating in seminars and workshops related to mentoring and coaching for school leaders, and organised meetings between the mentors and their novices. The final phase involves informal sessions between the mentor and novice to share their knowledge, skills and experiences through table discussion, meetings and workshops focusing on sharing experiences and solving schools’ problems (Institute of Aminuddin Baki, 2009).
The headship mentoring program in Malaysian schools begins with the selection of the mentor and mentees, which is carried out by state educational authorities. The selection of mentors is a rigorous process implemented by the state whereby only mentors with adequate experience are selected to participate. Selection is made based on a set of leadership attainment criteria such as: willingness to share his/her practical knowledge in promoting the school’s academic and moral values; years served as a head (typically eight to ten years) as well as having shown success overcoming any encountered situations and problems; coped well with school budgeting while outperforming other schools financially; evidence of a strong work-ethic based on decent principles; and proof that they were able to positively affect the culture of their schools (Amin, 2007). In the implementation phase, the state office plays a role as the monitoring catalyst in eliminating any problems and discrepancies affecting the mentoring program.
Comparatively, the mentoring program in Malaysia shares some similarities and differences with mentoring programs in other countries such as Singapore, the United Kingdom, the United States and New Zealand. Similarities include the sharing of practical knowledge, attending seminars, and workshops dedicated to the sharing of mentoring and shadowing experiences. However, internship was not included in the activities in the Malaysian context, since most novice heads were already in their authorised position as school administrators. Even though novice heads have broad experience as assistant heads, it is a compulsory procedure for them to be mentored by their senior partner for at least four to five years before they can be considered for participation as mentors in the program (Bajunid, 2008). In Malaysia, novice heads spend many years as mentees before being appointed as a mentor, unlike other countries such as Singapore, the United Kingdom, the United States and New Zealand. The rationale behind having more than three years’ experience as a mentee for this program is that each school head usually leads their school for at least eight to ten years before being transferred to another school. The mentoring program in Malaysia uses a decentralised-based approach, where the Ministry of Education has empowered the thirteen states to organize their own mentoring programs; which, apart from the United States, is a feature not shared with any other country. The objective, activities and the assessment of each mentoring program are specific to the state and based on the policy provided by each of the state department offices. Despite the locally based program, the school heads were also exposed to the concepts of mentoring during formal pre-preparation courses provided by the Institute of Aminuddin Baki, which was formed to train aspiring school heads in Malaysia (Amin, 2008). Thus, mentoring in Malaysia is considered an optional program with elements based on the initiatives, efforts and directions provided by the State, but typically differs from educational offices state to state.
Even though mentoring in Malaysia was decentralised in its implementation, the primary objective of mentoring is to prepare aspiring leaders to be knowledgeable, and build their skills and knowledge in leading their schools through challenging situations (Ministry of Education, 2010). However, the implementation of mentoring has become a complex task to the implementers such as the state department office. The constraints include training school heads without them leaving their school premises, busy schedules and the implementation of mentoring schemes based on the initiative of the State Department. What is not known is whether or not the implementation of mentoring among school heads is able to produce knowledgeable and highly competent school leaders.
Another issue is the limited research able to describe the impact of formal educational mentoring in Malaysia, and the lack of studies on the effectiveness of formal mentoring. Numerous studies, focusing on the effectiveness of mentoring in Malaysia, were conducted by the business and management sector, such as by May-Chiun Lo and Ramayah (2011) and Azman et al. (2009a), with less attention given to literature that explores the benefits of the mentoring program in the Malaysian educational sector. Nevertheless, there is still a discrepancy in studies on the Malaysian context of educational leadership as mentioned by Chan and Sathiamoorthy (2003), in which they revealed that the three crucial reasons for the ineffectiveness of newly appointed school leaders; these were lack of experience as an assistant head, the absence of effective professional training and the lack of an effective process for assuming their duties as headteacher. Based on the findings, mentoring is considered to be a cost effective formal program for improving the leadership and management skills of heads, while creating experiences that connect senior leaders with novice school leaders. However, Jamaliah et al. (2009), in their study of newly appointed heads, also revealed that there were inadequate leadership programs introduced to connect senior heads with their novice colleagues. They also showed lack of support by the state educational officials, in terms of knowledge sharing for the school heads, and noted that knowledge sharing sessions were based on heads’ own initiatives and efforts. In addition, 55% of school heads were appointed without any preparatory training within their formative first three years of headship (Ministry of Education, 2012). Although, once novice heads assumed the position as school heads, some programs were organised locally with the objective to improve their leadership qualities.
Research questions
The current study is designed to investigate whether the notion of primary heads mentoring in schools is able to produce a beneficial impact on the professional qualities of newly appointed headteachers. In addition, the study aims to answer the three following questions:
Does the self-developed headship mentoring instrument have a strong statistical validation? Does mentoring benefit novice headteachers? What are the limitations faced by novice heads during mentoring implementation?
It is hoped that this empirical study will provide some insight into the effectiveness of the headteachers’ training process related to the mentoring approach in the Malaysian educational setting.
Method
Sample
The target population for this study was 7748 headteachers from 7748 primary schools throughout Malaysia. Based on the data, the mentoring program was typically implemented by each state department office as part of their headship program. After examining the list of headteachers who participated in the mentoring programs provided by the Ministry of Education, only two state department offices were found that actively implemented the mentoring program as part of their leadership training for the newly appointed headteachers. Therefore, the respondents were selected from novice headteachers serving under these two state department offices, and limited to newly appointed heads with five or less years of experience. The justification to include novice headteachers, with five years or less, was based on the local mentoring programs that categorized headteachers with one to five years as being novices. Therefore, only 300 headteachers from two state departments’ offices were selected for this study, which consisted of 253 heads with less than five years’ experience from state A, and 47 heads from another state. Thus, 300 copies of the material for this study were distributed to headteachers who were willing to take part and provide their responses during their annual meeting. Before the questionnaire was distributed, a researcher also contacted the officers from both states’ department offices, and the chairman of the headteachers committee, in order to secure permission for the distribution process. During the interviews, researchers explained the nature and purpose of the study and the administration process of the questionnaire.
After approval for data collection was granted, questionnaires were distributed to the targeted primary headteachers before they commenced with the meeting agendas in the early term of the school academic year 2011/12. The time period was selected based on the justification that headteachers weren’t as busy in the early part of the school academic year. Selected novice heads were given about twenty minutes to give their responses before completed questionnaires were returned to the researchers. Out of the 300 questionnaires distributed, only 200 sets of usable questionnaires were returned, yielding a 66.6% response rate. The survey was taken by novice headteachers based on their agreement to be part of the sample of the study on a voluntary basis. Later, the responses were used as data in analysing the reliability of the measurement scales. The researchers maintained the anonymity of the heads who evaluated the mentoring programs and kept all school identities confidential (Cohen et al., 2011). For the purpose of the interview, six novice heads were selected; three from each state department of education. Selection of the novice heads was based on heterogeneity criteria in terms of age, experience and similar experiences as school heads. For interview, six novice headteachers, with five or less years in such a position and aged between 47–50 years, were purposely chosen for exploring the limitation of the mentoring program in the Malaysian educational system.
Instrumentation
The implementation of the instrument was based on several phases. At the initial stage of item construction in-depth interviews were conducted with four senior headteachers involved actively in mentoring newly appointed colleagues. Selection was based on those who had at least ten years of experience as a school headteacher. Information obtained from the preliminary interviews and relevant literatures were transformed into items to measure the effectiveness of the mentoring for novice headteachers. After refining, categorizing and comparing the data, four main variables from the related literature review were stringently selected as guidelines to develop the content of the instrument, which is divided into four subcategories: the social and psychological benefits; management skills; leadership skills; and the inculcation of professional values. After implementing the process, a pool of 30 items was constructed by the researchers, which was later submitted to a group of evaluators to determine the face and content validity of the instrument. Evaluators were selected from various backgrounds such as educational research, leadership and mentoring. The evaluators were instructed to judge the central aspects of the study, such as the clarity and difficulty of questions provided, the appropriateness of items based on the research questions, and finally, the length of time taken to answer all the items. Feedback and responses from the evaluators were welcomed as part of the instrument’s construction process. Based on their sincere feedback, a few items were dropped and deleted and only 24 items were retained. Next, the pilot study was conducted with ten novice headteachers, whose feedback was used to verify the content of the questionnaire for an actual survey. The ten headteachers who participated in the pilot study were excluded in the final sample of the study. The questionnaire was written in Malay in order to increase the validity and reliability of the instrument. The question items were measured using a five-item Likert scale, ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5).
The self-developed mentoring instrument had four major sections. The first part of the instrument contained information related to the demographic characteristics of the headteachers studied. These items gathered information regarding headteachers’ genders, years of service as school heads, years of service as assistant headteachers and their school locations. The second part of the instrument consisted of the social and psychological benefits of mentoring that were developed based on literature by various scholars in mentoring (Kram, 1985; Boon, 1998; Clutterbuck, 1998; Ehrich et al., 2004; Lim, 2005; Azman et al., 2009a; Azman et al., 2009b); and consisted of six items. The headteachers’ management skills were based on literature by Bush and Coleman (1995), Hopkins-Thompson (2000), Daresh (2004), Deans, Oakley, James, and Wrigley (2006), and Lord et al. (2008), and constructed of eight items. Fourthly, literature that revealed the beneficial aspects of mentoring, such as improving leadership skills (Bisk, 2002; Allen et al., 2004), were used to develop five more items that represented the leadership skills of headteachers. Finally, another five items were developed based on the literature that depicted how the mentoring approach was able to inculcate professional values of being an ethical school leader (Bush and Coleman, 1995; Clutterbuck, 1998; Barwood, 1999; Daloz, 1999; Bush and Middlewood, 2005; Grojean, et al., 2005; and Notman, 2005). The overall total was 24 items.
The final part of the instrument was an attempt to investigate the school heads’ limitations and issues that occurred during the implementation of the mentoring program. In this section, researchers asked the novice heads to choose and mark at least two, and a maximum of three, pertinent limitations that arose during the mentoring sessions. Based on the novice headteachers’ list of problems, the study was expanded to include interviews with six novice heads to provide more insight into the most frequent weaknesses related to mentoring implementation. Before holding the interview session, a researcher contacted each head via telephone or met with them to set the date, time and location for the interview. During the interview sessions, the novice heads were asked some lead questions relating to the limitations that they faced as mentees in the mentoring program. The lead questions asked were:
What is the significant factor that limits your participation the mentoring program? Do you think those constraints of time and your high workloads prevent you from participating effectively in the state’s mentoring program? Do you think that the mentoring program has low support from the educational authorities, especially in terms of sharing rewards?
In addition, we also asked if they had any suggestions to improve the headship mentoring system. Before proceeding with the interview sessions, ethical consent to record the session was granted before the interview began. Notes were also taken during the interview session based on questions constructed by the researcher.
Reliability
In measuring the reliability, the mentoring instrument was piloted with 10 novice heads from other state departments of education who were later excluded from the study sample. Minor changes were made based on the suggestions provided by the pilot study group, which were used to amend the instrument. The internal consistency of the instrument was also measured using the calculated alpha value coefficient reliability, which measured 0.87 for the psychological and social benefits; the management skills measured 0.84; the inculcation of the professional values measured at 0.74; and lastly, the leadership skills were measured at 0.73. The overall measure of the mentoring instrument had a coefficient alpha of 0.89. Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) indicate that the acceptable standard measure of an instrument should be at least 0.60 for moderate reliability value. Therefore, based on the above figures, the instrument was suitable and had the ability to measure the impacts of mentoring implementation.
Data collection and analysis
The process of data collection was intricate since novice heads had busy schedules. Before proceeding with the data collection, permission was sought from the relevant state department office to acquire information about the newly appointed heads involved in the mentoring program. After obtaining the name list from the Education Department and district education offices, a number of newly appointed headteachers were chosen as research subjects based on pre-determined criteria. The instrument distribution took place during a formal meeting in 2011. During the distribution process, the researcher met the headteachers and explained the nature and objective of the study.
Responses were later analysed using SPSS and AMOS version 18. In answering research question one exploratory factor analyses were used to determine the latent factor of the mentoring instrument. For this reason, a varimax rotation procedure was used by the researcher, instead of orthogonal, based on suggestions from Hair et al., (2010) of its suitability in measuring latent variables. Next, the scree plot and eigenvalue that greater and equal to 1 was also employed to examine the factor loadings of the items. Further, a measurement model of mentoring, using a confirmatory factor analysis approach, was used to examine latent constructs of the instrument. The usage of confirmatory factor analysis allowed residuals, or errors, to correlate if these indicators were believed to have common causes other than the latent factors included in the model (Brown, 2006; Lei and Wu, 2007; Kline, 2010). The model was also evaluated based on recommended fit statistics and fit indices value (Brown, 2006; Hair, et al, 2010), which consisted of the chi-squared statistic (χ2), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Based on suggestions, it was suggested that value of fit indices that exceeded more than 0.90 and RMSEA value must below than 0.10 considered an indication of acceptable value of fit value (Hoyle, 1995; Blunch, 2008). Descriptive and measurement model of confirmatory factor analysis also being employed in answering research question two which constructed to determine whether mentoring system benefited their knowledge and skills as an aspiring school leaders. Finally, a series of interviews were also conducted with six novice heads to study in-depth the main limitations and weaknesses related to mentoring implementation, which also answered research question three.
Before commencing the interview sessions, the quantitative data were analysed, based on responses provided by the novice heads. They were then analysed qualitatively, to show the most frequent limitations, before proceeding with the interview session. The responses regarding the limitations were ranked from the most frequent to the least frequent within the mentoring system. The interview sessions were consecutively implemented over the period of one month, after the researcher had analysed the quantitative data. Since only two states office were involved, the first interview session involved novice heads from state A, which was purposely selected, followed by the session with novice heads from state B. Participants were divided into smaller teams consisting of six participants, three from each state department. The selected heads demonstrated homogeneity in terms of age, experience and positional grades. During the process of interviewing, researchers used probe as the main approach in order to obtain a clear picture on the limitations that headteachers faced as participants in the state’s mentoring program. Interviews were conducted in one head’s meeting room, in order to provide privacy and eliminate disturbance during the session, and discussions lasted from one to two hours. The interview, or discussion protocol, was prepared in advance and covered the topics and issues related to the mentoring experiences. The protocol contained few items, allowing time and flexibility to pursue unanticipated but relevant issues. Interview sessions were organised in an informal manner and all heads participated by commenting on their mentoring experiences. The facilitator of the session ensured that any domination or pressure from individuals was minimised (Krueger and Casey, 2009). Again, novice heads were informed that their participation in this study was on a voluntary basis and anonymity would be maintained even after the data had been recorded and analysed.
Results
A total of 200 questionnaires gathered from headteachers were used to analyse the effectiveness of the mentoring program. It consisted of the newly appointed headteachers from two prominent state departments’ office mentoring systems as part of their headship training approach. The demographic distribution variables are depicted in Table 1 below. Table 1 shows the demographic distribution of the newly appointed headteachers. Based on the table, 80 (40%) of the heads who participated in this study were from urban schools, and 120 lead primary schools located in rural areas. As for the heads’ genders, 98 heads selected were male and 102 were female. A total of 84 heads who participated in this study had four to eight years of experience as an assistant headteacher before they were appointed as headteacher. Forty-six headteachers had been assistant heads for three years or less before being promoted as headteachers; 32 had experience as an assistant for between 9–14 years; and 38 had been an assistant for 10–15 years. A total of 38 participating heads had more than 15 years of experience in the educational field, with one to two of those years as headteacher. Forty-one had been leading their school for about three to four years, and finally, 125 had four to five years of experience as a headteacher.
Demographics of the newly appointed headteachers.
Statistical validation of the mentoring instrument
The first research question was the empirical examination of the mentoring instrument based on the perceptions provided by the newly appointed headteachers. In answering this research question, a few multivariate statistical analyses were conducted by the researcher. These were the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin Test (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity in examining the sample adequacy before proceeding with factor analysis procedure. Firstly, the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin Test (KMO), a measure of sampling adequacy, was conducted for each item; results indicated that it had an acceptable range of reliable values of 0.90, which is considered a significant range value (Hair et al., 2010). Following that, exploratory factor analysis was also used to determine the items’ factor loading value, which should exceed the value of 0.30 with the eigen value exceeding 1.00 in order to meet the acceptable standard (Blunch, 2008; Kline, 2002; Muijs, 2011). The exploratory factor analysis using the varimax rotation was conducted for all the items.
Table 2 shows results of the exploratory factor analysis for 24 items after six items were eliminated, due to factor loading values of less than 0.30. Based on the analysis four main factors appeared, which explained 73.98% of the total variance. Statistical results from Table 2 also confirmed that the factor structure scales met the acceptable standard and representation of the data; only 24 items from the 30 examined, measured with a factor loading of more than 0.30, were retained. Thus, only 24 items were accepted: six items for social and psychological benefits; eight items that measured the beneficial aspects to the management skills; five items for inculcating the professional values; and five items that examined the leadership skills. A total of six items were deleted. Based on the findings from the factor analysis, all 24 items that were retained had high factor loadings ranging from 0.74 to 0.83, meaning that all 24 items had acceptable coefficients.
Variance explained, eigenvalue and factor loadings of the mentoring instrument.
Note: Values of 0.30 and above shown in the table.
Further, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was also employed to validate items for the mentoring instrument as shown in Figure 2. The construct of instilling professional values had items with loading ranging from 0.54 to 0.76, while items that belonged to improving the leadership ranged from 0.63 to 0.71. As for psychological and social supports, items loading were ranged from 0.52 to 0.81, and finally, items that belonged to the construct of improvement in management skills ranged from 0.65 to 0.77. The fit statistics also provided better values with common fit data close to the fit accepted measures suggested by other scholars. Based on the model, chi–square (X2) with a value of 2.89 also indicates significant value based on the conceptual model [χ2 (200) = 531.42; χ2/df = 2.89; p<.001]. The fit statistics also yielded better values with the CFI with 0.851; TLI with 0.822 value and error terms estimator of RMSEA as lowest, 0.096, which is below the value of 0.10 that was found to be statistically acceptable (Brown, 2006; Byrne, 2009). Furthermore, all items in each measurement model are significant at p<0.05. To conclude, the initial hypothesized CFA model did not have to be adjusted through the Modification Indices (MI) since the factor loadings were considered suitable for convergent validity.
Loadings, beta and regression weights of novice headteachers’ mentoring measurement model.
Novice headteachers’ response towards the limitations of the mentoring system.
Beneficial elements of heads’ mentoring
In answering research question two descriptive statistics, which consisted of the mean and standard deviation values, were examined by the researcher. Table 3 below depicts the descriptive findings of the benefits gained from the informal leadership mentoring approach. Table 3 depicts the descriptive findings related to the benefits gained by the newly appointed headteachers, from psychological and social perspectives. Based on the total overall mean, it is concluded that the psychological benefits to headteachers are the highest in the mentoring leadership approach. The mean value for the psychological element was at 4.33 while the social aspects mean was at 4.32. Therefore, it is assumed that most headteachers believed that, through the mentoring approach, their psychological wellbeing was significantly improved based on their level of job performance, high motivation and confidence to be a proactive leader. Table 3 also provides feedback from novice headteachers, evaluating whether mentoring is an effective strategy to inculcate the ethics and professional values needed for a professional headteacher. In general, perceptions from headteachers indicated that the mentoring process was the best approach to instil professional values among school leaders; all items showed a high mean that ranged between 4.23 and 3.97. Based on several mean values, the professional value of being a role model leader can be instilled among headteachers via the mentoring process. This is proven based on the highest mean value of 4.23, encouraging headteachers to have high commitment towards their leading responsibilities. This is followed by the item: equity, accountability and integrity (4.20); creative, innovative and highly motivated (4.16); and being a risk taker (3.97).
Descriptive analyses of mentoring beneficial elements.
As school leaders, leadership skills are undoubtedly considered the most central in leading a school towards success. Based on the data, results from the six items indicated that mentoring had a significant impact in enhancing headteachers’ skills and knowledge in leading their school. In total, most headteachers believed that mentoring was an interesting and helpful approach with the mean value ranging from 4.23 to 3.89 respectively. Through the mentoring program, novices were exposed to the essential strategy for motivating their teachers in order to achieve the school's vision (4.23). Some benefits of the program are highly related to the leadership development of the headteachers such as: learning to build and achieve the vision and mission of their school (4.16); gain knowledge on how to inspire teachers (4.10); attain knowledge on how to influence teachers (4.07); discover how to perform tasks to align teachers (3.94); and get the right method in giving instruction to teachers (3.89). Overall, all items reflect the benefit of the mentoring program, especially in improving the management skills, with a mean ranging from 4.45 and 3.85. Noticeably, mentoring was also claimed to be beneficial to the novice headteachers in acquiring knowledge on change management (4.45), effective management (4.22), organisational management (4.11), performance appraisal (4.10), strategic management (4.03), professional development (4.02), policy and law (3.90), and managing school’s facilities and technology (3.85).
In measuring the benefited elements of mentoring perceived by the novice headteachers, a measurement model to examine the most beneficial element was employed. Figure 1 below reveals the factor loadings of items through the application of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in determining the four aspects of mentoring that are most beneficial; based on perceptions by newly appointed heads. Based on the CFA conceptual model, responses to the mentoring instrument can be explained by four main factors: social and psychological benefits from mentoring; improving professional values; improving the management skills, and improving leadership skills. Based on the conceptual measurement model from Figure 1, it is revealed that the novice headteachers selected ‘professional values’ as being the most benefited aspect acquired through the mentoring system, with an 82% variance with significant items loading ranging from 0.88 to 0.96. Next, an 82% variance for improving the leadership skills among headteachers with items loading ranged from 0.82 to 0.91; and an 80% variance for improving the headteachers’ management skills with items loading ranged from 0.82 to 0.89. Lastly, benefits from social and psychological aspects contributed to 46% of the variance towards the benefited aspects in informal mentoring among headteachers with items ranging from 0.46 to 0.83. Based on the items loading, all observed variables are considered adequate, as they range from 0.82 to 0.96. This is considered suitable (Hoyle, 1995; Blunch, 2008; Kline, 2010). To conclude, it is assumed that novice heads’ were positive about the mentoring system due to their remarks; they believed that it benefited their professional development and they could later use the skills and knowledge gained.
Limitations related to heads’ mentoring
The last research question was an attempt to determine the limitations and hurdles that occurred during the mentoring implementation. Based on the responses provided, the main issue was it decreased the effectiveness of the mentoring system for the school leaders in the Malaysian context (see Figure 2). Figure 2 depicts the responses of the newly appointed headteachers based on at least two, and a maximum of three, limitations that occurred during the mentoring implementation. Based on their reflections, a total of 555 responses from the novice heads were obtained and time constraints were ranked as the main problem hindering the effective process of mentoring in headteachers’ training approach, with 263 responses from the novice heads. Next, the administrative workloads ranked second with 177 responses, followed by their selection of mentors and lack of rewards provided by the state department of education with 63 and 42 responses respectively.
After using the quantitative responses, we explored in detail the weaknesses of mentoring through a series of interviews with six novice heads purposely selected by the researchers. Semi-structured interview questions were developed to guide the conversation. Interview questions were constructed based on the three mentoring limitations, which consisted of time constraints, administrative workloads and the selection process of mentors. Interviews were recorded and later transcribed for data analysis purposes.
During the interview, novice heads agreed that issue of time constraints slowed the process of guiding in which they meet their mentors on a frequent basis. Evidently, mentoring requires a large amount of time and space for professional reflection between the mentor and mentee, but both heads have busy schedules as school leaders, which made it difficult to easily meet with one another. For example, three novice heads noted that they had to rush to attend their professional schedules such as meetings, seminars and workshops in order to enhance their capabilities as a school leader. Several novice heads commented that professional duties such as school administration took up most of their time; therefore they were not able to commit to the mentoring activities. For example, one novice headteacher commented on the difficulty in finding time to guide and advise each other. The statements are as follows: …The time constraints, contact hours between mentor and mentee since everybody is such a busy school leader. …The time constraints and busy schedule in managing the school has made the program less successful. …The difficulty to find some time to meet. …have more programs and meetings that suit everyone’s time so as to show its effectiveness. To make it easier, the meeting time can be negotiated among them. Indirectly, this will make the program more informal and this helps to build a good relationship between both mentors and mentees. …The chosen mentor needs to be well equipped especially with knowledge, experience and skills in guiding. In this context, the department should scrutinise intensely. Mentors who are weak will limit the guidance process towards new appointed leaders. …in my opinion, the main weakness is that the mentor appointed is inexperienced with a lack of knowledge. Indirectly, for the mentor to guide his or her mentee is rather questionable. Thus, the obstacles that hamper the program to be effective are the lack of knowledge and experience among the mentors. …I believe that the Ministry and the state department official should look at this issue carefully. Some mentors also do not have the value of sharing their practical knowledge. Some of the mentors mentioned that they went through the leadership and practical journey without any guidance and they have to learn to make mistakes. This negative attitude will affect the mentoring program. …another clear reason related to the issue and challenges of mentoring is the administrative workloads. We have high commitments towards the administrative duties that we as school administrators have to fulfill. The duties sometimes took most of our time and we should really focus on the duties that we have to fulfill as newly appointed heads. Some of us were new to the duties and we have spent much of our time to complete the tasks. We need more experience in handling the administrative task. Some of the administrative duties also added pressures on our working live as school leaders. Therefore, I sometimes have to put aside the mentoring session with my mentors. …we have high commitment towards our administrative task…sometimes I felt pressured and stressed in fulfilling the requirements. I personally had to learn the task for myself and forgot to ask my senior for assistance. …we as those participating in this mentoring program believed that rewards issue also played as an important element in motivating us to ensure the success of the mentoring program comes to its successful. Based on my perceptions to my mentor, she was very experienced, hardworking and dedicated school leaders and also helped and guided me to be a successful school leader like her. However, she was least acknowledgements related to her dedicative efforts in helping me to be a successful leader in the future. The acknowledgement that she obtained last year was based on her schools ‘achievement and not for helping me whereas she spent one quarter of her time helping me. I personally believe that element of reward should be enforced by the authorities in order to secure the successful version of mentoring especially for the mentors who sacrificed most of their time helping us [sic]. …I strongly believe the authorities should do more in terms of rewards, monitoring and in order to attract more experienced heads to be selected as the heads’ mentor. If I were in their shoes, I wouldn’t participate, because little appreciation was given for the mentoring whereas they have spent much time in helping us to be as equal as they are now. I believed that they should be rewarded based on what they have already done much for helping others [sic].
Discussion
In this article, we reported on the effectiveness of the mentoring program in a Malaysian educational context. It was found that the major benefits were improving leadership skills and school management, instilling professional values and enhancing psychological and social aspects of school leaders. Due to the lack of a reliable instrument constructed to measure the effectiveness of mentoring, we developed an instrument based on relevant literature and preliminary interviews with the novice headteachers who were involved in the mentoring system. This research was conducted to ascertain the effectiveness of mentoring program in improving leadership skills mainly in the education field. In assessing the effectiveness of the mentoring system, the researcher developed a self-constructed instrument designed to statistically explore areas less studied by previous educational researchers. The validity and reliability testing of the mentoring instrument confirmed that mentoring benefits can be categorized into four major elements:
the psychological and social benefits; instilling professional values; improving leadership skills, and improving management skills.
In addition, the measurement of the mentoring instrument through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses was identified as having a high internal consistency. Based on statistical analyses, the psychometric validity of the mentoring instrument was produced so that it can be used by other researchers wanting to investigate the effectiveness of mentoring programs for their own educational culture/context. Based on the factor analyses, the mentoring instrument developed by the researcher contains 24 reliable items represented by four major constructs: psychological and social support; improving management skills; improving leadership skills; inculcating the ethics and professional values among newly appointed headteachers.
Based on feedback given by novice heads, this study indicates that the mentoring process is definitely effective in improving leadership capacities among newly appointed heads. Valuing the personality aspect, which engaged socially and psychologically, the responses gained clarify that the psychological aspects of novice headteachers improved after taking part in the mentoring program. Improvement in their confidence and motivation levels resulted in more effective and confident school leadership. These results are consistent with findings from Tracy et al. (2004) who mentioned that mentoring is a helpful approach in boosting the self-esteem and increasing confidence levels of the mentee; also reducing the psychological stress and work pressure encountered by school leaders (Ladegard, 2011).
Based on the novice heads’ feedback, it was also reported that they acquired a high level of confidence and motivation in leading the school after gaining the knowledge and skills taught by their senior mentors. With the knowledge and skills transferred from their mentors, there was an improvement in self-motivation and confidence in leading the school, and there were psychological changes that helped considerably in creating a sense of empathy towards staff and teachers under their leadership. The problem of isolation and loneliness was also overcome through this mentoring approach; which is echoed by Hobson et al. (2003) and Browne-Ferrigno and Muth (2004). This is because the mentors, apart from being friends, could also be a source of reference for the novice heads whenever they encountered problems in managing their school. In terms of social aspects, a good relationship was also established between the mentors and mentees, which indirectly encouraged the formation of a community of practice. It made the culture of knowledge sharing part of professional development for novice heads who were seeking the best method in leading and administrating their school. Moreover, through the mentoring program, networking and bonding between novice heads and the authorities will easily be established as they have previously built a good social networking among the school leaders; this will provide an impactful effort in improving the quality and capacity of their leaderships skills. Based on the findings, mentoring is able to produce educational leaders with high levels of morality instilled by their senior mentor headteachers who emphasized professional values. In fact, participation in the mentoring process generated leaders with high integrity and accountability, who were creative and extremely innovative in problem solving. Indirectly, those attributes contributed to a leader with a high level of morality and ethics (Starrat, 2003). The findings were consistent with previous studies stating that mentoring improved the professional skills of school leaders (Hibert, 2005; Pue, 2005). Furthermore, Grojean et al.’s (2004) study that focused on the effectiveness of mentoring in an organisational context revealed that, through mentoring, the ethical conduct of the mentees was improved. Therefore, mentoring is considered imperative for the professional development of school heads.
Findings also revealed that the school leadership skills of novices’ are also improved through this mentoring program. Fundamentally, the mentoring approach exposes the novice headteachers to a variety of administration and leadership skills, which helped to achieve the school’s objectives. In return, the school moves towards academic excellence and success. Through mentoring, novice school heads learned much needed approaches to dealing with leading their schools. Based on novices’ perceptions, they commented positively that they acquired the leadership skills and knowledge needed to enhance their capabilities as school leaders such as how to motivate teachers to achieve the school’s objectives. They also believed they were able to influence teachers to accomplish the school’s vision and help teachers with their instructional strategies. These empirical results provided additional support for previous studies which showed that mentoring was able to enhance the capabilities of novice heads, as mentioned by relevant mentoring scholars such as Hobson and Sharp (2005), Lim (2009), Wanberg et al. (2003) and Godshalk and Sosik (2007). Mentoring allowed the novice heads to experience mastery of leadership situations, and later it enhanced leadership self-efficacy. Furthermore, practical training through mentoring further helps the entire process of gaining school management and leadership skills. This is because, the selected mentors are chosen by state education office and the Headteacher Council, via a process where they thoroughly review of their capabilities as leaders. The implementation of the mentoring program assists in reducing training costs, as a smaller budget is needed to organize courses and workshops. Moreover, the theories applied in the mentoring approach are believed to be highly efficient, comprising of mostly new methods that are rarely found in other management courses.
Educational leaders consider the mentoring sessions as knowledge sharing sessions between the mentors and mentees, where newly appointed headteachers can increase their skills. For the novice leaders, the mentoring approach teaches them to be effective school leaders who know how to build visions, teach teachers, instruct teachers and ensure teachers are using the right methods to attain the school’s objectives. To help teachers achieve the school’s aims and objectives, practical experience is very important and through the mentoring approach the novice heads are taught how to motivate people, influence teachers and even to assure teachers’ satisfaction and commitment. This helps teachers regard their workloads as a tool to create an effective school environment, rather than seeing it as a burden. However, the novice heads were unsatisfied with their knowledge gained through the mentoring system, especially relating to the two elements in managing the school, which were gaining knowledge related to facilities and technological management and policy, law and regulations related to school leadership. Based on the data, it was revealed that knowledge gained from the senior headteachers was considered too practical and less theoretical and regulation based.
In determining the effectiveness of every program executed by the state department office, several problems that arose require the attention of relevant educational mentoring authorities. These included time constraints encountered by both parties that hindered them from meeting due to their busy schedules. Other studies related to the new heads’ mentoring also revealed that they had difficulties in finding sufficient time to actively participate in the mentoring activities (Bush and Coleman, 1995; Bloom et al., 2003; Hobson, 2003; Hobson and Sharp, 2005; Robertson, 2005). In contrast, Hansford et al.’s (2003) study mentioned that lack of mentor time emerged more frequently as a problem for mentors than mentees, whereas findings revealed that both mentors and novices in the local context faced difficulties associated with finding time to share their knowledge due to busy routines.
The administrative workloads, which limited the novice’s creativity and innovation in leading their school, were the second limiting factor in mentoring. The findings consistently aligned with previous studies by Hanson (1996) and Daresh (2004), that mentioned that school heads with heavy workloads could not perform in their mentoring sessions, having to focus on their school operations and administration; which give some negative implication for the mentoring participation.
Finally, insufficient support provided by the officials was also indicated as a variable that affected the process of mentoring among school heads. Previous studies showed that low levels of support by officials could jeopardise the mentoring system, which decreased the motivation of the mentors who were willing to participate (Ehrich and Hansford 1999; Hopkins-Thompson, 2000; Hansford et al., 2003; Daresh, 2004; Eby et al. 2006; Jamaliah et al. 2009).
Implications and future study
This research illustrated the effectiveness of the mentoring program in improving the capabilities of the newly appointed headteachers and their capacities to become as good as their mentors. Based on the findings, a few suggestions were forwarded for practical and theoretical recommendations. Practical recommendations: (1) Based on novice heads’ comments, they found that mentoring helped them in managing their school because they were well guided by highly experienced and knowledgeable heads; who were believed to have exhibited outstanding work performance knowledge about school leadership. Indirectly, they felt that the mentoring approach helped to improve the efficiency of the newly appointed head’s school operation. Strongly suggesting that mentoring should be sustained in order to improve the leadership development of headteachers. Therefore, mentoring should be used as the main professional development strategy implemented by the Ministry of Education to equip new headteachers with skills related to school leadership; instilling professional values to become effective school leaders in the future. This study also recommended that the Ministry of Education should acknowledge mentoring programs as part of national educational policy, where the Ministry plays a major role in implementing the mentoring. With significant changes in the policy, all states department offices should execute mentoring programs as part of the heads’ training considering they are cost effective and allow novices to train without leaving the school premises. (2) The selection of senior mentors by the Ministry of Education or the education department office should stringently focus on their integrity and ethics in school leadership. For example, mentors selected for this program must meet the standard provided by the Ministry, since a rigorous selection process ensures the effectiveness of the program. Nevertheless, if chosen mentors were inexperienced and lacked skills in leadership, the implication would be a lack of commitment from them. (3) During the interviews, it was mentioned that time constraints were considered as one of the hindering factors in effective implementation of mentoring in the local context. Therefore, the Ministry of Education needs to provide more time and sessions for the heads to discuss and share their experiences in official and informal situations. Studies related to mentoring strongly suggested that the use of advanced technology in mentoring is able to help in solving the time constraint problem. The use of email, blogs, chat rooms and other related networks, and the introduction of e-mentoring or electronic mentoring for heads would provide an avenue for improvement in the mentoring relationship. With the implementation of computers in mentoring, the program can be used both within and outside the organisational setting (Ensher and Murphy, 2007). This would also solve problems such as gender differences, geographical, cultural backgrounds or even personality barriers. In another study by Wassmer (2011), she claimed that the existence of an online community among heads using this technology allowed them to develop a persistent network of trust, resource sharing and support for school heads without the limitations of geographical and gender differences. (4) The study also revealed that administrative workloads were the second limitation in the mentoring process. The practical implementation of distributed leadership is also considered as part of the improvement process, where some administrative workloads would be delivered to the selected committed teachers as a strategic approach to sharing knowledge, and later as part of a leadership succession plan. In addition, the educational authorities should critically examine the support provided to attract and sustain the heads’ mentors in this program, as they played major roles in helping and guiding the novice heads. Lack of internal support and motivation in the program will lessen the participation of experienced heads, which will later affect the effectiveness and sustainability of mentoring. Therefore, the Ministry should examine the support provided, and restructure the mentoring program in order to attract more participation from the experienced heads.
For future studies relating to mentoring programs, further action is required: (1) this study involved only two states of department office, which needs further replication with more heads; this would then place the research into the larger picture of quantitative post-positivism using a much bigger sample. With the increased number of samples, the generalization of heads’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the mentoring programs would be justified. (2) The present study could be undertaken with novice and senior leaders not just from school contexts but also in public and private universities in Malaysia. (3) This study examined the perceptions from the viewpoints of the novice headteachers only, therefore a comparative study gathering perceptions from both the seniors and the novices would help determine the overall effectiveness of the mentoring system. (4) This study could be improved by using supported information from other sources to measure the effects of mentoring from various perceptions, including those of other related educational authorities such as the Ministry and the state department officials, as they make important decisions on the policy implementations of mentoring in local context. Teachers’ perceptions could provide more reliable information on the effectiveness of novice heads, since teachers are considered to have a good relationship with heads. Other stakeholders’ perceptions could be important in measuring the effectiveness of the mentoring program. For example, parents, being stakeholders in the school, are also able to provide a comprehensive viewpoint on how the process of mentoring might enhance the leadership quality of the novice after completing the mentoring program. The viewpoints of mentor heads should be assessed in any future study, since this study deals with the perceptions of the heads who were novices or mentees. Comparison between perceptions of all related individuals will help clarify the effectiveness of headship mentoring in the Malaysian context. (5) Another variable should be added to the study – measuring the headteachers’ psychological constructs, such as job satisfaction, organisational citizenship or headteachers’ commitment, as part of their dependent variables in examining the effectiveness of the mentoring approach. (6) This study should be replicated using a naturalistic or qualitative study method in order to gather in-depth information regarding the effectiveness of the mentoring approach in the Malaysian headship context.
Conclusion
This study provided an insight into the advantages of the mentoring program for educational leaders. Novice heads verified that this program benefited them in terms of building the psychological and social aspects of school leaders, acquiring knowledge and skills in managing and leading the school, and instilling the professional values of school leaders. In particular, newly appointed heads disclosed that they acquired helpful knowledge on school leadership and management through the mentoring program. However, as school leaders, they had to constantly adapt the knowledge gained from the experienced headteachers to suit their own school’s culture. Yet, this research has limitations as it involved only a small sample of people and was restricted to the situations in the study area. Thus, this study has raised many questions, and an in-depth investigation needs to be conducted to gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of the mentoring program in Malaysia.