Abstract
There is a substantial literature on gendered leadership in education but this has been dominated by researchers from the USA, UK and Australia. More recently, there has been a body of literature on this theme in South Africa (e.g. Faulkner, 2015; Moorosi, 2010). However, research on gendered leadership in other sub-Saharan countries has been more limited. The first paper in this issue, by Joyce Zikhali and Juliet Perumal, helps to address this limitation through an exploration of female school heads’ experience in Zimbabwe. They examined the emotional stress experienced by 12 such leaders, working in disadvantaged primary schools. Drawing on semi-structured interviews, and observations, they identified four sources of negative stress, including stereotypical gendered expectations. They conclude that these heads were not overcome by the intensification of job demands but rather responded with compassion and empathy so that the welfare of children could be championed.
In the second article, Michal Strier and Hagai Katz examine the relationship between trust and parental involvement in 12 Israeli democratic schools. Drawing on a survey of parents, with 404 responses, they show that the relationship between trust and parental involvement is complex, and depends on the nature of trust. They conclude that trust may have both positive and negative effects on parental involvement.
The third paper, by Muhammed Abu Nesra and Sybylle Heilbrunn, also addresses trust in the Israeli context, but within the Arab educational system. They examine the impact of trust on transformational leadership and organisational citizenship behaviour in what they depict as a collectivist society within this national minority group. They surveyed 270 male and female teachers, with an excellent 78% response rate. The authors found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and trust and attribute this to the predominance of women in the Arab education system and to the collectivist spirit in the Arab community.
The next article, by Nahia Intxausti, Luis Joaristi and Luis Lizasoain, provides a rare contribution to the English language literature on school leadership in Spain. Their research focused on ‘best practices’ of highly effective schools in the Basque country. They examined 32 such schools, both primary and secondary, and identified several factors which seemed to underpin their success. These include shared views about the schools’ missions, principles and values, and that leaders adopted a contingency model of leadership.
The Malaysian government has instituted an ambitious programme of reform, designed to improve learner outcomes (Ministry of Education, 2013). One aspect of this is the aspiration to produce high-performing principals for all schools. This is a demanding, and probably impossible, target but, if it is to achieve a measure of success, mentoring for new heads is likely to be essential. This is the focus of the next paper, by Lokman Tahir and his colleagues. They surveyed 300 new heads from two states, with a helpful 66% response rate. They identified four specific benefits of mentoring, including confidence and skills, but also note that ‘administrative workloads’ and limited time inhibit their participation.
In the next article, James Sarros and his colleagues examine the degree of alignment between a school board, which comprises 11 members, and the senior management team of eight, in a private girls’ school in Melbourne. These 19 people comprised the sample for a survey of perceptions about the alignment of strategy between the two bodies. The findings suggest that the SMT is more focused on getting the strategy correct while the board is more concerned with the appearance and public profile of the school.
Ning Wang, Stephen Wilhite and Daniel Martino, in the next paper, examine the relationship between school leaders’ social and emotional competence and their transformational leadership in one school district in Pennsylvania, USA. Surveys were conducted with 20 administrators and 284 teachers and support staff. The findings show that administrators with inflated self-assessments of transformational leadership, compared to subordinates’ assessments, may also have inflated self-assessments of their social and emotional competence.
The next article, by Maria Rosario Catacutan and Allan de Guzman, examines the ethical dilemmas faced by Filipino college deans. The researchers used snowball purposive sampling to identify participants and 18 college deans who met the inclusion criteria and agreed to take part. Drawing on semi-structured interviews, supported by baseline data, they identified the nature of dilemmas faced by these deans, and conclude that leadership has ‘an essential ethical and moral dimension’.
In the final paper, Donald and Shelleyann Scott discuss the leadership implications of a study on how to improve the quality of teaching in a Canadian university. Drawing on a survey of academics from all schools and faculties, with 231 responses, and 50 interviews, they comment on the ‘mythical’ view that a good researcher is also a good teacher. The authors developed a model with seven key aspects which influence academics’ motivation to engage with teaching and learning. Unsurprisingly, these include visionary leadership, and policies and practices that reward and recognise quality teaching.