Leadership Behaviour Kwazulu Natal SALLY HOBDEN

Gender & Behaviour, 10(2), December 2012 Copyright © Ife Center for Psychological Studies/Services, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

- 4883 -

The Leadership Behaviour of the School Principal: An

Exploratory Study in Five Special Schools in Kwazulu-Natal

Lingesperi Naidoo

Nithi Muthukrishna*

Sally Hobden

School of Education, University of KwaZulu-Natal,

Private Bag X03, Ashwood 3605. South Africa

Abstract

This study examined the leadership behaviour of the

school principal at five special schools in the province of

KwaZulu-Natal. A quantitative survey was conducted

involving 50 teachers (11 male; 39 female) across the five schools. The Likert-scale survey questionnaire used in the

study comprised 37 items categorised along five

dimensions of leadership: collegial relationships;

communication of vision and goals; professional and

personal growth; shared decision making, and recognition

of professional skills and accomplishments. The data was analyzed using multiple statistical procedures, including

mean point value, standard deviation, t-test of significance

and one-way-analysis of variance (ANOVA). The findings

revealed that there is limited evidence of the leadership

factors and characteristics examined in the study at the five schools. There were interesting differences by gender

in responses of teachers on whether the key leadership

characteristics were displayed by their school principals.

The findings suggest a strong need for re-culturing of the

special schools in the direction of participatory and

transformative leadership styles and a sharing of power.

Key words: school leadership, gender, school principal,

special schools.

Introduction

* Corresponding author: Professor Nithi Muthukrishna, School of Education, University of

KwaZulu- Natal, Private Bag X03, Ashwood, 3605. South Africa. Email: [email protected]

Gender & Behaviour, 10(2), 2012

- 4884 -

The impact of the leadership behaviour of the principal on a school‘s

ethos, culture and motivational climate are explicit and implicit in

research globally (for example, Barbour, Clifford, Corrigan-Halpern et al., 2010; Grobler, Bisschoff & Beeka, 2012; Kocolowski, 2010; Rice,

2010). Internationally, effective schools research shows that good

principals influence a variety of school outcomes such as student

achievement, motivation of teachers, well-articulated school vision

and goals, effective allocation of resources, development of

organizational structures to support instruction and learning as well as emotional well-being of staff (Davies, Hammomd, LaPointe &

Meyerson, 2005; Raihani, 2007; Rice, 2010). The role of the school

leader is complex and leadership varies from school to school. Many

scholars have argued that there is no one best way to lead as

leadership styles are linked to context, and there are often webs of contextual influences operating (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006; Leech &

Fulton, 2008; Raihani, 2008).

There are many leadership models proposed in the literature, for

example, an autocratic style; a bureaucratic style, an invitational

leadership style, a charismatic style; participatory leadership, and a transformational style (see for example, Kamper, 2008; Murphy,

2008; Swanepoel, 2008; Van der Mescht & Tyala, 2008). Drawing

largely on literature on participatory and transformational

leadership, researchers have proposed a core set of leadership

practices which are valuable in school contexts (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Day, Simmons, Hopkins, et al., 2010; Dinham, 2004; Hallinger,

2011; Leithwood & Riehl, 2005; Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris &

Hopkins, 2006). Three key behaviours are found in this core set: (1)

developing consensus about goals and priorities which includes

building a shared vision and creating high performance expectations;

(2) developing people including offering intellectual stimulation, providing support, and modelling important values and practices;

and (3) redesigning the organization which includes creating and

maintaining shared decision-making structures and processes;

building collaborative cultures, and building relationships with

parents and the wider community. A number of qualities essential for effective leadership in schools are highlighted in the literature. The

most important of these are the creation of a climate so that teachers

can have opportunities to feel more adequate as professionals; see

greater significance, possibilities and responsibilities in their roles;

perceive the situation as one in which improvement is not only

Naidoo, L. et al.: Leadership Behaviour of the School Principal

- 4885 -

possible but highly valued, and feel that their contributions to the

achievement of organizational goals are recognised and valued.

There have been numerous empirical studies conducted

internationally that have investigated leadership practices in

schools, including the role of the school principal in creating

sustainable school environments (for example, Juma, Enose,

Simatwa & Ayodo, 2011; Bentley, 2011; Germaine & Quinn, 2006;

Kamper, 2008; Msila, 2012; Mestry & Singh, 2007; Zame, Hope & Repress; 2008). However, the majority of studies reviewed were

undertaken in ordinary school settings. Very few studies explored

leadership practices in special school contexts. Naidoo (2012)

conducted a critical review of empirical studies on the leadership of

the school principal in the last decade undertaken in the African context. Of the twenty four (24) studies identified, none investigated

the leadership of the school principal in the special school sector. The

study reported in this article aimed to address this gap and

investigated the issue of school leadership in five special school

settings. Since 1994 when the new democratic government came into power,

South Africa has seen a precipitation of education legislation and

policies which without doubt has had an impact on school leadership behaviour and practices. These include inter alia, the South African

Schools Act of 1996; Education White Paper 6: Building an Inclusive

Education and Training System (Department of Education, 2001); Curriculum 2005 (Department of Education, 1997); the Revised

National Curriculum Statements (Department of Education, 2002),

and the National Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements -

Grades R-12 (Department of Education, 2011). In the area of special

education, in the last few years there have been various Education White Paper 6 implementation strategy documents that have directly

impacted on special schools, for example, National Strategy on

Screening, Identification, Assessment and Support (SIAS) –

Operational Guidelines (Department of Education, 2008a); Guidelines

to Ensure Quality Education and Support in Special Schools and

Special School Resource Centres ((Department of Education, 2008b); Conceptual and Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of

Inclusive Education: District Support Teams (Department of

Education, 2007), and Guidelines for Responding to Learner

Diversity in the Classroom through Curriculum and Assessment

Policy Statements (Department of Education, 2012). While all these


- 4886 -

policies initiatives foreground democracy, participatory decision

making, social justice, inclusivity and gender equity, policy changes

in the main have been a significant contributor to the low morale of staff in schools (Oglesby, 2006). It has been suggested that new

initiatives emanating from the Department of Education have had an

adverse effect on the motivational climate in special schools (Eloff,

Irma & Kgwete, 2007; Pather, 2008). One of the reasons is that most

stakeholders in schools do not understand or poorly interpret the

philosophical change and the practical implications of policy change (Timmons & Muthukrishna, 2007; Pather, 2008; Wilderman &

Nomdo, 2007).

Thus, in the context of changes in special school policies and

practices since 1994, the exploratory study reported in this article focussed on nature of leadership provided by school principals in

special schools. The key research question was: What are teachers‘

experiences of the leadership behaviour of the school principal in the

context of their own special schools?

THE STUDY

Research context and sampling

This small scale exploratory study involved five special schools in the

Province of KwaZulu-Natal. From a population of 64 special schools

in KwaZulu-Natal, 5 special schools were chosen for the study through a process that involved both convenience and purposive

sampling. Firstly, the intention was to ensure that a fair range of

disabilities was represented. Secondly, schools were chosen on the

basis of proximity and accessibility. Each of the 5 schools

represented a different disability: School A - school for the Deaf;

School B - school for the Blind; School C - a prevocational school for children with learning difficulties; School D - a school for the

physically disabled (which also caters for learners with cerebral

palsy); and School E - a school that caters for learners who are

intellectually impaired. Ten teachers from five different special

schools were chosen randomly to participate in the study.

Data collection

The study comprised a survey design. Drawing on literature on

transformational leadership, a structured questionnaire, the

―Principal Leadership Behaviours Questionnaire‖ was developed as

the research instrument, and was completed by the sample of


- 4887 -

teachers. Part one of the questionnaire focussed on biographical

information. This information was vital in establishing the gender,

age, qualifications, number of completed years of teaching, post level as well as the classification of the school (according to category of

disability). Part two comprised 37 items describing the school

principal‘s leadership behaviour to which teachers had to respond on

a three point Likert scale: agree, uncertain, disagree. Teachers had to

respond according to the extent to which the items applied to each

individual teacher‘s experience of his/her own school principal. These 37 items could be categorised according to five leadership

factors/variables: shared decision making; collegial relationships;

communication of visions and goals, professional and personal

growth; and recognition of professional skills and accomplishments.

Cronbach‘s alpha coefficient reliability estimate for the whole scale

(37 items) was 0.959 indicating a high level of internal consistency. A

reliability coefficient of .70 or higher is considered acceptable in most

social science research situations (Miller & Neil, 2002). The scale Collegial supportive relationships also displayed high levels of internal

consistency (.939). However, the other four scales displayed marginal internal consistency: Recognition of Professional Skills and Accomplishments = .512 (5 items); Shared Decision Making = .626 (6

items); Communication Goals and Visions = .688 (4 items). This may

be considered a limitation of this study. However, the decision made

to include the specific items and factors was based on an in-depth

study of the literature in the field of educational leadership.

Data analysis

The data was analyzed using multiple statistical procedures,

including the mean point value, standard deviation, t-test of

significance and one-way-analysis of variance (ANOVA). The SPSS

statistical package was used. Teachers were required to respond to

these key factors on a scale of 1 being agree, 2 being disagree and 3 being uncertain. In order to allow for more intuitive interpretation of

the data, the data was recoded to -1 disagree, 0 uncertain and +1

agree.

Ethical considerations Participant and school anonymity was assured, and participation by

the teachers was voluntary. Informed consent was obtained from the

Department of Education, and each of the school principals. All five

school principals viewed the study as an important project, and


- 4888 -

indicated that the findings had the potential to feed into

transformative initiatives at the schools. To protect the identity of the

schools they will be referred to as: School A (School for the Deaf); School B (School for the learners with Learning Difficulties); School C

(School for Physically Disabled); School D (School for the Blind), and

School E (School for the Intellectually Impaired).

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

Demographic characteristics of the teachers in the study

Table 1 presents the characteristics of the schools and the teachers.

Fifty teachers (11 male; 39 female) participated in the study.

Table 1: Selected Characteristics of the Teachers (n=50)

Characteristics Frequency Percentage

School and category of disability

School for the Deaf 10 20 Pre-vocational School for children with

learning Difficulties 10 20

School for the Physically Disabled 10 20

School for the Blind 10 20

School for the Intellectually Disabled 10 20

Gender

Male 11 22

Female 39 78


- 4889 -

Teacher perceptions about the leadership behaviours of the

school principal

The first part of the analysis examined the data by school. Table 2

and Figure 1 show that teacher ratings of their principals‘ leadership

behaviours in respect of the factors examined in the study were rather low. In addition, teacher ratings differed markedly between

Schools A and C on the one hand, and School B; School D and

School E on the other hand. In Schools A and C more teachers agreed that principals did use the specific leadership characteristics

targeted under the five dimensions (the scale being + 1.00: agree; 0

– uncertain; -1.00 - disagree). However, the mean scores in these two schools were rather low. The highest mean scores were for the factor, Recognition of Professional Skills and Accomplishments: School A (M

= 0, 48; SD = .63), and School C (M = 0, 58; SD = .54). These factors

were rated as more evident by teachers in these two schools than by

teachers in the other three schools. In School A the factor least evident according to teacher ratings was Communicates Goals and

Teaching experience

0-5 Years 3 6

6-10 Years 5 10

11-15 Years 11 22

16-20 Years 13 26 More than 20 years 18 36

Post Level

1 41 82

2 7 14

3 2 4

Age

0-25 2 4

26-30 8 16

31-35 4 8

36-40 20 40

41-45 10 20

46-50 3 6

51-55 3 6


- 4890 -

Visions (M=0, 18; SD = .83), and in School C the factor was Shared Decision Making (M=0, 18; SD = .76).

However, in School B, School D and School E the negative mean

scores indicate that, on average, the teachers disagreed with the statements which describe good leadership by the principal. The

majority of the teachers in their ratings indicate that there is no

evidence of the five leadership factors in their principals‘ leadership

styles. Across the three schools, the factors least evident was Collegial

Supportive Relationships: School B (M = -0, 46; SD = .17; School D (M

=-0, 62; SD = .19); School E (M = -.61; SD = .20), suggesting School D

had the lowest rating.

Table 2: Teacher perceptions of leadership characteristics by factor

and school

Report

.2278 .1750 .3600 .3833 .4750

10 10 10 10 10

.66844 .83375 .63105 .62386 .63955

-.4611 -.2250 -.3800 -.1500 -.3000

10 10 10 10 10

.16779 .62860 .17512 .22839 .22973

.3667 .5500 .4600 .1833 .5750

10 10 10 10 10

.66316 .69522 .58916 .75951 .54070

-.6167 -.3500 -.1000 -.3667 -.4750

10 10 10 10 10

.19502 .21082 .14142 .25820 .24861

-.6111 -.4750 -.1200 -.3500 -.4750

10 10 10 10 10

.19598 .41583 .16865 .19954 .29930

-.2189 -.0650 .0440 -.0600 -.0400

50 50 50 50 50

.60696 .68848 .50352 .54478 .62344

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

School

School A

School B

School C

School D

School E

Total

Collegial

supportive

relationships

Communicates

goals & visions

Professional &

personal growth

Shared decision

making

Recognition of

professional skil ls

&

accomplishments


- 4891 -

Figure 1: Teacher perceptions of leadership behaviours by school

(N=50)

The mean scores give an indication of the overall opinions of the teachers, but do however obscure the variations in the data. It is

helpful to consider the box and whisker plots shown in Figure 2

which indicate the diversity of opinion within a particular school.


4892

Figure 2: Box whisker graph showing teacher ratings of leadership behaviours of the school principal

by school (N=50)


4893

The data for School A and School D will be explained as examples.

The dark line within the box represents the median of the data so

that half the scores lie below this line, and half above. In School A, on the scale Collegial supportive relationships, half the teachers at

that school scored above 0, 5 indicating moderate agreement that the

leadership characteristic or behaviour was present. However, the

lower ―whisker‖ descends to -0, 8 indicating that at least one of the

teachers approached disagreement that this leadership characteristic

was present.

In School D, on the same Collegial Supportive relationships scale, no

teacher reached a positive score indicating agreement that this

leadership characteristic was present. The two cases (48 and 41) that

come closest to agreement are indicated as outliers which mean that

their scores are markedly different to the other teachers in the school. The small box and short whiskers indicate that the scores of

the teachers in that school are very close, in other words the teachers

concur in their disagreement of evidence of that leadership

characteristic.

Figure 2 enables one to examine the variations and other patterns in the data. The table shows the spread of means for each factor in the

five data groups (schools) around their medians (50th percentile),

using a "box" and "whiskers" to break down each data group by percentile. In Schools A in respect of the factor Recognition of Professional Skills and Accomplishments, the median is reflected as 0,

5. This shows that 50% of average ratings (average scores on the four items) were below 0,5, and in School C it is reflected as 0,8

(50% of the mean ratings of the four items were below 0,8 ). More

teachers in School C agreed that this factor was evident.

Teacher perceptions of leadership behaviour by post level,

gender, and experience In this section the data are analysed according to the perceptions of

teachers by gender, post level and experience across the five schools.

When the data is disaggregated according to these categories

interesting patterns and trends emerge.

Teacher perceptions by post level

Table 3 and Figure 3 show that when the data is disaggregated by

post level, teachers at post levels 1 and 3 on average, disagreed on all

items and factors with respect to whether the related leadership


4894

characteristics were evident in their schools -the degree of

disagreement being most strong with level 3 teachers. At both these levels the least evident factor was Collegial and Supportive Relationships (Level 1, M = -.25, SD =.58; Level 3, M = -.58, SD = .61). At post level 3 Communicates Goals and Visions (M = -.37, SD = .18);

and Recognition of Professional Skills and Accomplishments (M = -.38,

SD = .18) were also rated low by the majority of teachers.

Table 3: Teacher perceptions of leadership characteristics by post

level

Report

-.2466 -.0671 .0293 -.1260 -.0854

41 41 41 41 41

.57401 .68013 .47867 .52146 .61900

.0635 .0357 .2000 .3810 .3214

7 7 7 7 7

.80917 .85912 .70238 .58305 .64087

-.6389 -.3750 -.2000 -.2500 -.3750

2 2 2 2 2

.03928 .17678 .00000 .11785 .17678

-.2189 -.0650 .0440 -.0600 -.0400

50 50 50 50 50

.60696 .68848 .50352 .54478 .62344

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Post level

1

2

3

Total

Collegial

supportive

relationships

Communicates

goals & visions

Professional &

personal growth

Shared decision

making

Recognition of


&

accomplishments


- 4895 -

Figure 3: Teacher perceptions by post level.


- 4896 -

Although this data points to interesting trends, it must be

noted that a one way ANOVA reveals that none of the difference are

statistically significant at the 5% level. In other words, there is less than 95% certainty that the differences in means can be attributed

to Post Level rather than the variations noted within the groups of

teachers at each post level.

It is interesting to note that Post level 3 teachers disagreed strongly

in the key area of collegial supportive relationships yet part of their job responsibility is the creation of collegial supportive

relationships. However, a limiting factor in this analysis is that only

three participants in the study were at Post level 3. In the main

since 41 of the 50 participants were level 1 teachers. It seemed that

there is mean disagreement in all the key areas.

The positive mean scores for Post level 2 teachers indicated that two

key leadership characteristics were evident at their schools. Teachers indicated that Shared Decision Making (M = .38, SD = .58) and

Recognition of Professional Skills and Accomplishments (M = .32, SD =

.64) were most evident.

Teacher perceptions by gender

Table 4 and Figure 4 reflect that there were differences by gender in

responses of teachers on whether the key leadership characteristics

were displayed by their school principals. Overall male teachers (n = 11) disagreed that any of the characteristics were evident in their schools. The least evident characteristics were Collegial Supportive Relationships (M = -.55, SD = .17) and Recognition of Professional Skills and Accomplishments (M = -.41, SD = .23).

Overall the female teachers‘ ratings suggest that on average they felt

there was some evidence of four of the leadership characteristic at their schools: Communicates Goals and Visions (M = .013, SD = .73 );

Professional and Personal Growth (M = .12, SD = .53); Shared Decision Making (M = -.009, . SD = .60) and Recognition of Professional Skills and Accomplishments (M = .06, SD = .66). Female

teachers did not believe that their principals displayed any of the characteristics within the factor Collegial, Supportive Relationships (M

= -.12, SD = .65). These characteristics included: respects me as an

individual, listens to me attentively, reassures staff that they are making a real contribution to the school and the child.


- 4897 -

Table 4: Teacher perceptions of leadership behaviours by gender

Report

-.1268 .0128 .1231 -.0085 .0641

39 39 39 39 39

.65436 .72762 .53037 .59598 .66074

-.5455 -.3409 -.2364 -.2424 -.4091

11 11 11 11 11

.16633 .45101 .25009 .23995 .23110

-.2189 -.0650 .0440 -.0600 -.0400

50 50 50 50 50

.60696 .68848 .50352 .54478 .62344

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Gender

Female

Male

Total

Collegial

supportive

relationships

Communicates

goals & vis ions

Professional &

personal growth

Shared decision

making

Recognition of


&

accomplishments


- 4898 -

Figure 4: Teacher perceptions of leadership behaviours by gender

An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the scores on each leadership scale for males and females. There was no

significant difference in scores for males and females on the scales of Communicates Goals and Visions and Shared Decision Making but

significant differences were found in the other three scales: Collegial supportive relationships (p = 0.01); Professional and personal growth(p = 0.03) and Recognition of professional skills and accomplishments (p

= 0.01). The scales showing difference were the more personal ones

related to personal relationships and affirmation. Males seemed to

respond more negatively on these scales.

Teacher perceptions by experience

Table 7 and Figure 5 disaggregate the data by years of teacher

experience. In general ratings were very low on all factors – the highest rating across all the groups categorised by experience was for the factors: Professional and Personal Growth and Communication of Goals and Vision.

The results demonstrate that teachers with fewer years of teaching

experience were positive that their school principals displayed the characteristics under the factors, Professional and Personal Growth

and Communication of Goals and Vision. These were teachers in the

0-5 year group and the 6-10 group. Teachers who had more than 11

years teaching experience were generally negative in their responses

on all five key dimensions. A one way between groups analysis of

variance (ANOVA) was conducted to explore the impact of teaching experience on the perception of leadership characteristics, as

measured on the five scales created from the questionnaire (refer to

table 8). There was no statistical significance at the p <0.05 level for

the five different experience groupings.


- 4899 -

Table 6: Teacher perceptions of principal‘s leadership behaviours by experience Report

-.0741 .3333 .3333 .0556 .0000

3 3 3 3 3

.65105 .62915 .61101 .82215 .90139

-.1556 .0000 .3200 .0333 .0000

5 5 5 5 5

.84747 .63738 .54037 .67082 .82916

-.1970 -.2500 -.0727 -.0758 .0682

11 11 11 11 11

.59957 .76649 .51593 .55460 .56003

-.3376 -.1154 -.1231 -.0897 -.1538

13 13 13 13 13

.49403 .76114 .45854 .49822 .58219

-.1883 .0000 .1111 -.0741 -.0417

18 18 18 18 18

.66507 .64169 .49096 .55490 .64881

-.2189 -.0650 .0440 -.0600 -.0400

50 50 50 50 50

.60696 .68848 .50352 .54478 .62344

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Experience

0 - 5 years

6 - 10 years

11 - 15 years

16 - 20 years

More than 20 years

Total

Collegial

supportive

relationships

Communicates

goals & visions

Professional &

personal growth

Shared decision

making

Recognition of


&

accomplishments


- 4900 -

Figure 5: Teacher perceptions of school principals‘ leadership behaviours by years of experience


- 4901 -

Teacher ratings of leadership behaviour of the principal:

Examining ranking values

Table 9 provides a picture of teacher ratings of their school principals with respect to the specific leadership behaviour patterns under each of the five

factors. The ratings are low implying that the patterns are displayed at a

minimal level. If one examines the ranking values, the five leadership

behaviours rated the highest were:

□ Offers constructive criticism of unsatisfactory work

□ Encourages staff members to participate in professional activities

especially in regard to inclusive education

□ Respects me as an individual;

□ Gives recognition to each staff member for his/her special contribution to special education

□ Actively models/supports staff development;

In other words, these behaviour patterns are somewhat evident. Three of these items belong to the dimension or factor: Personal and Professional Growth; one to Recognition of Professional Skills and Accomplishments; and

one to Collegial, Supportive Relationships.

The five leadership characteristics of the 37 in the questionnaire rated

lowest were:

□ Follows through on promises made

□ Reassures staff that they were missed during their absence □ Solves conflicts successfully

□ *Makes every effort to understand each staff member‘s frustrations

□ *Takes responsibility for the orientation of new staff

□ Keeps staff abreast with developments in special education

Two of the above items (marked *) were tied. The above suggests that these

leadership behaviours or characteristics are rarely displayed by the school

principal. Four of these leadership behaviours belong to the factor: Collegial, Supportive Relationships. Two belong to the factor: Personal and Professional Growth.

If one ranks the composite means for the five factors, the ranking emerges

as follows:

1. Professional and Personal Growth (M = .04; SD = .50)


- 4902 -

2. Recognition of Professional Skills and Accomplishments (-.04; SD = .62)

3. Shared Decision Making (M = -.06; SD = .54)

4. Communicates Goals and Visions (M = -.07; SD = .69) 5. Collegial Supportive Relationships (M =- .22; SD = .61).

Results reflect that the leadership behaviours that relate to the above

factors are minimally displayed at their schools by the school principal if

one examines the low mean ratings. The above suggests that students rated leadership characteristics that related to Collegial, Supportive Relationships and Communicates Goals and Visions as the most unlikely to

be evident in their schools. These are important behaviours associated with

teacher motivation according to literature reviewed in chapter two.


- 4903 -

Table 9: Teacher perceptions of leadership behaviours of the principal (N= 50)

Factor and items Item Number

M SD Ranking

Collegial, supportive relationships

Follows through on promises made 4 -.48 .839 37

Reassures staff that they were missed during their

absence 9 -.42 .785

36

Reassures staff that they are making a real contribution to the school and child

11 -.22 .910 22

Respects me as an individual 12 .28 .904 3

Respects the opinion of staff 13 .02 1.000 11

Listens to me attentively 14 -.22 .887 22

Keeps in confidence things disclosed in confidence by staff members 17 -.08 .900

14

Provides sufficient time for collegial interaction 18 -.26 .853 26

Believes in the trustworthiness of each staff member 19 -.20 .857 19

Makes every effort to understand each staff member‘s frustrations

20 -.40 .782 32

Treats all staff members equally 22 -.36 .851 29

Makes himself/herself available to staff members 23 .16 .934 6

Attempts to understand what a staff member is saying from his/her perspective

29 -.20 .926 19

Adopts a non-judgemental attitude when a staff member

explains his/her position 30 -.36 .776

29

Considers underlying emotions when staff members voice their views

31 -.34 .772 28

Endeavours professionalism in all communication activities (never back-biting)

32 -.22 .864 22

Admits to mistakes he/she makes 35 -.24 .870 25

Solves conflicts successfully 36 -.40 .857 33

Composite Mean

-.22

(SD = .61)

Communicates Goals and Vision for the School


- 4904 -


M SD Ranking

Set specific goals to work towards in light of lack of direction in special education at present

1 .12 .961 7

Is prepared to redesign work loads to accommodate the

specific needs of the special child 7 .08 .944

8

Sets well defined levels of staff performance 8 -.38 .830 31

Ensures that staff members know exactly what is expected of them

34 -.08 .922 14

Composite Mean

-.07

(SD = .69)

Professional and Personal Growth

Offers constructive criticism of unsatisfactory work 3 .48 .789 1

Takes responsibility for the orientation of new staff 16 -.40 .833 32

Encourages staff members to participate in professional activities especially in regard to inclusive education

25 .36 .875 2

Actively models/supports staff development 26 .18 .919 5

Keeps staff abreast with developments in special

education 37 -.40 .904

32

Composite Mean

.04

(SD = .50)

Shared Decision Making

Encourages staff to participate in decision making 6 -.20 .958 19

Accepts suggestions made by staff members 21 -.10 .931 16

Trusts staff members by delegating responsibilities to them

24 .04 .925 10

Promotes teamwork 27 .08 .922 8

Listens to suggestions from staff members 28 -.06 .935 13

Willingly seeks advice from staff members 33 -.30 .863 27

Composite Mean

-.06

(SD = .54)

Recognition of Professional Skills and

Accomplishments

Gives recognition for work well done 2 -.04 .968 12

Gives independence to staff when they do their work well 5 -.18 .919 17


- 4905 -


M SD Ranking

Gives recognition to each staff member for his/her special contribution to special education

10 .24 .916 4

Shows confidence in my abilities 15 -.18 .825 17

Composite Mean

-.04

(SD = .62)


- 4906 -

Discussion of Findings

The study reported in this article examined the leadership behaviour

of the school principal in selected special schools in KwaZulu-Natal. The findings revealed that teacher ratings were very low on all five

leadership dimensions or factors: shared decision making; collegial

relationships; communication of visions and goals, professional and

personal growth; and recognition of professional skills and

accomplishments. Yet studies suggest that these dimensions and the

values embedded in them are key characteristics of effective schools (see, for example, Mestry & Singh, 2007; Hoog, Johansson &

Olofsson, 2005; Bennell & Akyeampong; Chen & Nan Chun, 2007).

The findings suggest that there may be a lack of professional

development programmes for school leaders at the five special schools. It seems that key insights on school leadership from

research over the past two decades that should inform any kind of

school leadership training and development are not impacting

practice on the ground in the schools in this study. If principals are

not formally trained in leadership skills, it is difficult to acquire these

skills on their own. Van der Mescht & Tyala (2008) argues that leadership practices that involve distribution of responsibilities, a

shared vision, and participatory decision making are more likely to

succeed. There was little evidence of these practices in the five

special schools if one assesses the rating of the teachers. Mestry &

Singh (2007) emphasize that principals who have a strong driving vision and are able to transfer this to a binding staff vision will be

better able to attain goals. Collier and Esteban (2000) stressed the

need for empathetic dialogue, open communication, and the

maintenance of relationships of trust. Hargreaves & Fink (2003)

argue that one way for leaders to leave a lasting legacy is to ensure

that leadership in a school is developed with and shared by others.

The findings in the study point to the need for ―reculturing‘ of the five

schools in the study. Reculturing focuses on cultural rather than

structural change and involves a range of strategies to be used in

order to bring about cultural change in a school (MacNeill, 2005). Schools as organizations are complex adaptive systems that operate

in a particular social context (Painter-Moreland, 2008). There is a

need to constantly examine and reconsider how the habits, values,

beliefs, and expectations that inform the cultural dynamics within an

organization‘s culture are shaped and sustained. In the context of

schools as organizations, if the habits and behaviour of principals


- 4907 -

and teachers are informed by a culture in which there is limited

shared participation, support, recognition, respect, communication

and collegiality, then leadership needs to be re-examined. Although the male participants in the study rated their principals negatively on

all five dimensions of leadership, the female teachers‘ ratings

suggested that on average they felt there was some evidence at their schools of leadership characteristics: Communicates Goals and Visions; Professional and Personal Growth; Shared Decision Making and Recognition of Professional Skills and Accomplishments. However,

they did not believe that their principals displayed any of the characteristics within the factor Collegial, Supportive Relationships.

These characteristics included: respects me as an individual, listens

to me attentively, and reassures me that I am making a real

contribution to the school. This suggests that the female teachers

valued the social and emotional aspects of collegiality in their

interactions with their principals, and experienced this dimension of principal leadership negatively. Studies have shown that teacher

collegiality has a positive impact on their commitment to the school

as an institution and to school success (Shah, 2012; Jarzabkowski,

2002). It is not possible to draw any conclusions on gender

differences given the small sample of male teachers in the study. The

study suggests that the issue of collegiality in the context of special schools is an area for further research.

There was limited evidence of shared decision making in the

leadership behaviours of the five principals in the study. The sharing

of power has significant implications for building an effective school. A transformative leader is the kind of leader who is willing to

relinquish and share power with others and is able to generate a

community of leaders in which every member becomes a leader in

some way, at some time (Botha, 2006; Kocolowski, 2010; Singh,

2005). Therefore the principals and teachers need training and

empowerment so that they can take their role in a new power sharing process.

Conclusion

This study has important implications for the development of the

principal as a leader in special schools. Special schools are complex organizations more so in South Africa currently as they are in the

process of major policy changes. As a result a tremendous amount of

anxiety exists around the future of special schools and the changing

leadership roles. The present study has important implications for


- 4908 -

professional development of school principals and whole school

development in the five special schools examined. Key leadership

behaviours seen as critical to the development of effective schools and for promoting teacher motivation and morale are rarely displayed

in the schools according to teachers in the study.

Professional training programmes for school principals need to draw

on debates on participative and transformative (Ali & Botha, 2005;

Kamper, 2008; Kocolowski, 2010). Empowerment of teachers and principals can be done through providing opportunities for

cooperative actions, training in the collaborative managerial

functions of the school, creating a climate for risk taking, providing

opportunities for collegiality, recognition of professional success,

development of group process skills, and the development of communication skills. In addition it must be understood that if

teachers are to be part of the vital decision making process at school

then they need to be given space to make decisions and their

decisions should be valued.

A limitation of the study is that it was small scale in nature. Only ten teachers in each of the five schools were participants. The study did

not explore an interesting facet, that is, to establish the principals‘

perceptions of their own leadership behaviour. A principal‘s

questionnaire and interviews with the five principals could have

yielded very valuable information that would have enhanced the quality of the study.


- 4909 -

References Ali, F. & Botha, R. J. (2005). The role, importance and effectiveness of

school leaders in contributing to public school improvement in South Africa. Retrieved on January 10, 2009, from www.sajournalofeducation.co.za/index.php/saje/article/view/84/40 - 2k

Barbour, C., Clifford, M. & Corrigan-Halpern et al. (2010). What experience from the field tells us about school leadership and turn around? Retrieved December 12, 2010, from

http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/leadership_turnaround_scho

ols.pdf Bass, B., & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leadership, (2nd ed.).

New York, NY: Routledge. Bennell, P. & Akyeampong, K. (2007) Teacher motivation in sub-

Saharan Africa and South Asia London: DFID.

Bentley, K. L. (2011). An investigation of the self-perceived principal leadership styles in an era of accountability. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. Tampa: College of Education,

University of South Florida. Botha, N. (2006). Leadership in school-based management: A case

study in selected schools. South African Journal of Education, 26(3), 341-353.

Chen, C. & Nanchung, H. (2007). An empirical study of Chinese

leadership and the relationship between leadership and motivation. World Transaction on Engineering and Technology Education, 6, 1, 27-48.

Collier, J. & Esteban, R. (2000). Systemic leadership: Ethical and effective. The Leadership and Organizational Development Journal 21(4), 207–215.

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M. & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study: Developing successful principals. The

Wallace Foundation Day, C., Simmons, P., Hopkins, D. et al. (2010). Ten strong claims

about effective school leadership. Nottingham: National

College for Leadership of Schools and Children‘s Services Department of Education. (1997). Curriculum 2005: Lifelong learning

for the 21st century. Pretoria: Department of Education.

Department of Education. (2001). White Paper 6: building an inclusive

education and training system. Pretoria: Department of

Education. Department of Education. (2002). Revised National Curriculum

Statements (NCS). Pretoria: Department of Education.

http://www.sajournalofeducation.co.za/index.php/saje/article/view/84/40%20-%202

http://www.sajournalofeducation.co.za/index.php/saje/article/view/84/40%20-%202

http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/leadership_turnaround_schools.pdf

http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/leadership_turnaround_schools.pdf


- 4910 -

Department of Education. (2007). Conceptual and operational guidelines for the implementation of inclusive education: District Support Teams (DST). Pretoria: Department of

Education. Department of Education. (2008a). National Strategy on Screening,

Identification, Assessment and Support (SIAS) – Operational guidelines. Pretoria: Department of Education.

Department of Education. (2008b). Guidelines to ensure quality education and support in special schools and special school

resource centres. Pretoria: Department of Education.

Department of Education (2011). National Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements grades R to 12. Pretoria:

Department of Education. Department of Education (2012). Guidelines for responding to learner

diversity in the classroom through curriculum and assessment policy statements. Pretoria: Department of Education.

Dinham, J. (2004). Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(4), 338-

356. Eloff, I. & Kgwete, L. K. (2007). Childhood education: South African

teachers‟ voices on support in inclusive education. Retrieved

September 25, 2008, from http:// www.studentvillage.co.za.

Germaine, S., & Quinn, D. (2006). Investigation of tacit knowledge in principal leadership. The Educational Forum, 70(1), 75-89.

Grobler, B., Bisschoff, T., Beeka, A. (2012) Changing perceptions of

teachers regarding the importance and competence of their principals as leaders. South African Journal of Education, 32,

40-55.

Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration,

49(2), 125 – 142. Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2003). The seven principles of sustainable

leadership. Retrieved on January, 10, 2009, from

http://www2.bc.edu/~hargrean/docs/seven_principles.pdf Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D.(2006). Sustainable leadership. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hoog, J., Johansson, O. & Olofsson, A. 2005). Successful principalship: The Swedish case. Journal of Educational

Administration, 43(6) 595-606.

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=46C082.

http://www.studentvillage.co.za/

http://www2.bc.edu/~hargrean/docs/seven_principles.pdf

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=46C082

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=46C082


- 4911 -

Jarzabkowski, L. M. (2002). The social dimensions of teacher collegiality. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 3 (2), 1–20.

Juma, J. K. A., Enose M.W. Simatwa, E. M. W. & Ayodo, T. M. O.

(2011). Assessment of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among female principals in public secondary schools in

Kenya: a case study of Rachuonyo North and South Districts. Educational Research, 2(12), 1810-1820.

Kamper, G. (2008). A profile of effective leadership in some S. A. high-poverty schools. Retrieved July 10, 2010, from

http://www.sajournalofeducation.co.za/index.php/saje/articl

e/view/145 Leech, D. & Fulton, C. R. (2008). Faculty perceptions of shared

decision making and the principals‟ leadership behaviours in secondary schools in a large urban district. Retrieved

December, 10, 2008, from

http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol62003/leech.pdf

Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A. & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful school leadership: what it is and how it influences pupil learning. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownl

oad/RR800.pdf

Leithwood, K. & Riehl, C. (2005). What we know about successful school leadership. In W. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new

agenda: Directions for research on educational leadership (pp.

22-47). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. MacNeill, N. (2005). Teachers‟ perceptions of principals‟ leadership in

school renewal process. Retrieved 12 February 2009, from

http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/mac05079.pdf

Mestry, R. & Singh, P. (2007). Continuing professional development for principals: A South African perspective. South African Journal of Education. 27(3), 447-490.

Msila, V. (2011). School management and the struggle for effective schools, Africa. Education Review, 8(3), 434-449.

Murphy, J. (2008). Transformational change and the evolving role of

the principal: Early empirical evidence. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts (pp. 20-53). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press Naidoo, M. (2012). Understanding principal leadership in the African

context: A critical literature review. Unpublished manuscript.

Ashwood, Durban: School of Education, University of

KwaZulu-Natal.

http://www.sajournalofeducation.co.za/index.php/saje/article/view/145

http://www.sajournalofeducation.co.za/index.php/saje/article/view/145

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=ERICSearchResult&_urlType=action&newSearch=true&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=au&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=%22Fulton+Charles+Ray%22

http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol62003/leech.pdf

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RR800.pdf

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RR800.pdf

http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/mac05079.pdf


- 4912 -

Painter-Morland, M. (2008). Systemic leadership and the emergence of ethical responsiveness. Journal of Business Ethics (4), 509-

524.

Pather, S. (2008). Demystifying the notion of ‗inclusion‘ in the context of a rural school and its communities in South Africa. In Muthukrishna, N. (Ed.), Educating for social justice and equity: Pathways and transitions in an African context (pp. 59-74). New

York: Nova Sciences Publishers.

Raihani, G. D. (2008). An Indonesian model of successful school leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(4), 481-

496. Rice, J.K. (2010). Principal effectiveness and leadership in an era of

accountability: what research says? National Center for

Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, 9.

Washington: Calder Urban Institute.

Shah, M. (2012). The impact of teachers‘ collegiality on their

organizational commitment in high- and low-achieving secondary schools in Islamabad. Pakistan Journal of Studies in Education, 2(2), 130-156.

Singh, P. (2005).Use of the collegial leadership model of emancipation

to transform traditional management practices in secondary schools. South African Journal of Education, 2 5(1), 11-18.

South African Schools Act of 1996

Swanepoel, C. (2008).The perceptions of teachers and school principals of each other‘s disposition towards teacher involvement in school reform. South African Journal of Education, 28, 39-51.

Timmons, V. & Muthukrishna, N. (2007). Inclusive Education – a global perspective. Paper presented at 13th International World

Congress of the International Association for the Scientific

Study of Disability (IASSID), 3-6 August, Cape Town. Van Der Mescht, H. & Tyala, Z. (2008). School principals‘ perceptions

of team management: A multiple case- study of secondary schools. South African Journal of Education, 28, 221-239.

Wilderman, R.A. & Nomdo, C. (2007). Implementation of Inclusive Education: How far are we? Retrieved on 10 January, 2009

from http://www.idasa.org.za

Zame, M.Y., Hope & W. C. & Repress, T. (2007) .Educational reform in Ghana: The leadership challenge. International Journal of Educational Management, 22(2), 115-128.

http://www.idasa.org.za/

Copyright of Gender & Behaviour is the property of IFE Centre for Psychological Studies and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.