Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Article information:
To cite this document:
James Griffith, (2004),"Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff
turnover, and school performance", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 42 Iss 3 pp. 333 - 356
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230410534667
Downloaded on: 18 November 2014, At: 03:40 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 68 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7085 times since 2006*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 394654 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
Relation of principal
transformational leadership to
school staff job satisfaction,
staff turnover, and school
performance
Principal
transformational
leadership
333
Received July 2003
Revised October 2003
Accepted October 2003
James Griffith
US Department of Education, Washington, DC, USA
Keywords Principals, Schools, Transformational leadership, Job satisfaction,
Employees turnover
Abstract In the present study, the direct effect of principal transformational leadership to school
staff turnover and school performance was examined, in addition to its indirect effect through
school staff job satisfaction. Survey data were obtained from elementary school staff and students,
and school-aggregated student achievement test scores were obtained from school archives. Results
showed that staff reports of principal behaviors could be described in terms of the three
components of transformational leadership: inspiration or charisma, individualized consideration,
and intellectual stimulation. Principal transformational leadership was not associated directly with
either school staff turnover or school-aggregated student achievement progress. Rather, principal
transformational leadership showed an indirect effect, through staff job satisfaction, on school
staff turnover (negative) and on school-aggregated student achievement progress (positive).
Finally, higher levels of school staff job satisfaction were associated with smaller achievement gaps
between minority and non-minority students. This result was more evident among schools having
higher levels of principal transformational leadership. Results are discussed in relation to the role
of transformational leadership in school performance and in recruiting, training, and evaluating
school principals.
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 42 No. 3, 2004
pp. 333-356
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578230410534667
JEA
42,3
334
Figure 1.
The relation of
leadership to work
environment and
organizational
performance
JEA
42,3
336
with school staff providing direction and guidance, assessing and providing
needed resources, and observing and evaluating job performance than with
students. Thus, principal behaviors more directly affect school staff,
specifically, their satisfaction and commitment to work and working relations
with one another. The principals relationship with school staff likely influences
job satisfaction, which in turn relates to staff job performance. As an example, in
a series of studies, Dinham and Scott (1998, 1999, 2000, 2003) reported moderate
levels of teacher satisfaction with a school leadership domain, consisting of
teacher perceptions of administrative and educational support, and school
reputation. Job satisfaction among teachers is also likely discerned by students,
affecting school performance measures based on student learning and
achievement. For example, Steele (1997) has recently documented how
behaviors and expectations of school staff and students evoke negative
stereotypes and performance anxieties among minority students, which were
related to lower levels of student motivation to learn and to perform. The
principals relationship with school staff also likely relates to communication
among all staff, cooperation and collaboration, mutual trust and understanding,
and engagement of staff in their individual and group tasks, all of which are
plausibly associated with organizational or school performance.
Transformational leadership seems appropriate for examining leader-driven
interventions to reduce the achievement gap between the minority and
non-minority students. In the United States, African-American and Hispanic
children have scored as much as 15 points lower on standardized achievement
tests than white children (Flynn, 1984; Loehlin et al., 1975; Neisser et al., 1996).
This disparity has given rise to numerous studies attempting to explain the
differences in achievement among children from different racial and ethnic
backgrounds (Ceci et al., 1999; Grissmer et al., 1999). Results of some studies
suggest that low achievement among minority students stem from less
desirable work environments, school staff turnover, and less experienced staff
found in schools having proportionately more disadvantaged students ( Bryk
et al., 1990; Lee, 2001). Earlier research has associated employee job
satisfaction, commitment, motivation, and effort to transformational leaders
( Bass, 1985; Bass et al., 1987; Waldman et al., 1987). Thus, it would be expected
that transformational leadership would be associated with less achievement
disparity between the minority and non-minority students.
Study purpose
The present study extends current research on transformational leadership by
examining whether principal behaviors can be described in terms of
transformational leadership. This study also examines the direct effect of
principal transformational leadership on school outcomes, such as school staff
turnover and school performance, and the indirect effect on these outcomes
through school staff job satisfaction. Specific research questions addressed are
as follows.
Method
Schools in the study
Schools under study were all elementary schools in a large metropolitan area,
suburban school district. The schools varied in the sociodemographic make-up
of the school structural, student population, and staff characteristics (Table I ).
School characteristic
School structural characteristics
School enrollment
Percentage of school utilization
Class size
Student to faculty ratio
School student population
Percentage of Students enrolled in FARMS
program
Student racial/Ethnic identification
African-American
Asian-American
Hispanic
White
School staff characteristics
Percentage of staff , 1 year at school
Number of staff per school who completed
surveys (N )
Note: N 117 schools
SD
Minimum
Maximum
500.1
97.8
24.1
11.3
124.25
14.91
1.24
1.85
272
60.85
20.0
6.9
991
131.7
27.3
15.9
31.5
22.4
1.9
92.9
20.1
12.7
16.5
50.3
13.8
6.8
14.1
23.4
2.1
0.8
1.7
1.3
72.2
34.7
61.7
94.0
23.78
8.68
2.9
42.0
25.06
6.46
44
Table I.
School structural,
student population, and
staff characteristics for
schools under study
JEA
42,3
338
Analysis approach
A structural equation model (SEM) (Arbuckle, 1997) was used to examine the
direct effect of principal transformational leadership on school staff turnover
and school performance. The SEM was also used to examine the indirect effect
of staff job satisfaction on relations between principal transformational
leadership and school staff turnover and between principal transformational
leadership and school performance. Hierarchical liner modeling ( HLM )
(Scientific Software International, 2000) was used to examine the cross-level
effect of school staff job satisfaction and principal transformational leadership
on achievement disparities between the minority and non-minority students or
the variability in minority-achievement slopes across the schools ( Hofman and
Gavin, 1998).
Structural equation modeling
The school district in which the study was conducted administered annual
surveys to school staff and students. Surveys provided data to monitor school
and workplace environments for purposes of improvement. Survey items were
identified by reviewing research literature relating to effective schools,
school/organizational climate, employee opinion surveys, and educational
research incorporating surveys of school staff. Data obtained from surveys of
school staff provided data for the SEM and HLM analyses. Surveys were
mailed to the homes of all elementary school staff. School staff completed and
returned the surveys in postage-paid envelopes to a central research office. Of
the 8,535 school-based employees surveyed in elementary schools, 3,291 staff
members or 39 percent completed questionnaires. The median completion rate
across the schools was 38 percent. Each school, on an average, had 25 school
staff who completed the surveys, with a range of 8-44 staff. The distributions of
responding staff members across job positions, seniority, and race/ethnic group
categories were comparable to those of all school-based staff members.
Transformational leadership. The three components of transformational
leadership served as predictor variables of staff job satisfaction and
organizational performance. Survey items were chosen to represent the three
components of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985, 1990, 1996; Burns,
1978):
(1) Charisma or inspiration. The ability of leaders to provide a clear sense of
mission, which they in turn convey to followers and develop a sense of
loyalty and commitment.
(2) Individualized consideration. The leaders willing delegation of projects
to followers to stimulate and create learning experiences and the leaders
treatment of each follower as unique individuals.
(3) Intellectual stimulation. The leaders provision of opportunities for
followers to rethink traditional procedures and to examine situations in
new and novel ways.
Scales/Sample items
Charisma/Inspiration
School goals and how to achieve are well
understood
Goals gives me sense of direction
Principal encourages staff to talk about
instruction
Principal gets staff to work together
Individualized consideration
I can talk openly with principal
Principal treats me with respect
Principal supports me in matters of discipline,
unreasonable demands from parents
Principal considers my suggestions
Principal lets me know when I am doing
a good job
Principal lets me know what is expected
Principal provides feedback on job
performance
Principal understands my daily activities
There are school procedures to orient new staff
New staff get help from colleagues
Intellectual stimulation
Principal encourages me to come with new
ideas
I have opportunities to help develop school
improvement plan
Principal makes an effort to involve me in
decisions affecting my work
Staff are involved in decision-making that
affect their work
Staff job satisfaction
I look forward to going to work each day
I would recommend my school as a good
place to work
I get a lot of satisfaction from my work
Number of
items
Cronbachs a
Range of
item-total
correlations
0.86
0.67-0.73
10
0.94
0.57-0.83
0.89
0.66-0.84
0.82
0.61-0.75
Table II.
Survey items from each
scale and scale
psychometric properties
JEA
42,3
340
satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Spector, 1997, pp. 2-3). Here, the interest was to
determine the relation of principal transformational leadership on school staff
job satisfaction, which in turn is presumed to affect job performance and
turnover. To represent job satisfaction, three survey items were chosen from
the ongoing school district staff surveys to form a scale of job satisfaction
(Table II). The content of selected survey items comprising of the measure of
job satisfaction is similar to the item content of other job satisfaction measures
in the management and organizational research literature, such as: This is a
good place to work and I often dont think about leaving this job (Barling
et al., 2003; Cook et al., 1981; Ostroff, 1992). The scales showed adequate
reliability. The Cronbach a coefficient was 0.82, and the item-total correlations
ranged from 0.61 to 0.75.
School staff turnover. Staff turnover served as one of the two outcomes in the
SEM. Archival data were obtained on the percentage of school staff who had
been in the school for 1 year or less. These values served as the measure School
Staff Turnover. Such data gave an approximation of voluntary turnover (Hom
and Griffeth, 1995), realizing that some staff may have left for reasons of
retirements, medical leave, etc.
Organizational performance. School performance served as the second of the
two outcomes in the SEM. School performance was calculated by averaging the
performance progress on standardized test scores for students in each school.
To determine performance progress, initial (grade 3) test scores were regressed
on current (grade 5) test scores. Residuals were used to determine how many
scale score points that each students test score was above or below the average
score observed for a 5-year cohort of students with the same initial (grade 3)
score. Values for students in each school were then summed up. Positive values
indicated that on an average students performed better than students with
similar initial performance levels. Negative values indicated that on an average
students performed worse than students with similar initial performance levels.
Resulting school values were called School Achievement Progress and served
as the school performance measure. The advantage of this measure is that it
represents an individual change score in which personal characteristics are
kept constant across time, and individual changes are considered in relation to
other students who had similar initial test scores [1].
Hierarchical linear modeling
Data obtained from surveys of students provided variables for the HLM
analyses. Specifically, student responses provided variable values for deriving
within-school minority-non-minority achievement gaps. Students enrolled in
grade 5 in all elementary schools were surveyed. Survey packets were sent to
the schools for distribution to students. Student questionnaires were
group-administered by teachers to all students in their classrooms. Of the
29,910 students in the 117 elementary schools, 25,087 completed the survey,
JEA
42,3
342
demonstrate that minority students reported lower GPAs than other students.
The mean GPA for minority students was significantly lower (about one
standard deviation) (M 6:97; SD 1:49) than non-minority students
self-reported GPAs (M 7:99; SD 1:20) (t6; 637 30:97; p , 0:001;
two-tailed).
Level-2 predictor variables. To discern the effects of staff job satisfaction and
principal transformational leadership on the minority-non-minority
achievement gap, school mean values on job satisfaction and principal
transformational leadership were regressed on the within-slopes of the relation
of minority status to student self-reported GPA (slopes-as-outcomes). The
Level-2 predictor variable coefficients showed for staff job satisfaction and
principal transformational leadership would indicate the effect of each on the
minority-non-minority GPA gap. Rather than school means on each component
of principal transformational leadership, a summary score was used in HLM
analyses. This was done for two reasons. First, measures of the components of
principal transformational leadership showed a high degree of intercorrelation
(rs . 0:90), and if entered separately as predictor variables, would lead to
problems of multi-collinearity. Second, results from the SEM showed that the
principal transformational leadership could be described as one latent variable.
Using factor weights from the SEM, school values for the principal
transformational leadership were calculated and used in the HLM Level-2
equation. To control the possible confounds of the schools disadvantaged
student population, the percentage of the schools student population enrolled
in the Free and Reduced-price Meals ( FARMS) program was also included as a
Level-2 predictor variable.
Justification for school aggregation
SEM and HLM analyses relied on school-aggregated responses of school staff
to surveys. Several statistical techniques were used to determine whether
individual-level responses could be aggregated to represent group-level or
school characteristics. To justify group-level analyses, the aggregated data
should show ( Bliese, 2000) the following.
.
Non-independence. A common statistical procedure to assess
non-independence is a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) in which
the group serves as the independent variable and the ratings or scales of
interest serve as the dependent variable (Kenny and Judd, 1986).
Significance F-values indicate greater between-school than within-school
differences in individual responses and gives evidence for group-level
effects (Dansereau and Alutto, 1990, pp. 206-207; Kenny and Judd, 1986).
The intraclass correlation coefficient, the ICC(1), indicates the proportion
of variance in individual responses explained by group membership
(Bliese, 2000). The ICC(1) has values that range from 0.0 to 1.00. Typical
values range from 0.0 to 0.5, with a median value of 0.12 ( James, 1982).
Scales
Charisma/Inspiration
Individualized consideration
Intellectual stimulation
Staff job satisfaction
F
Significant F-valuea
ICC(1)
. 0.12b
ICC(2)
. 0.60c
rwg
. 0.50d
5.16***
5.15***
5.09***
4.97***
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.81
0.81
0.80
0.80
0.58
0.64
0.53
0.58
Notes: N 117 schools; school staff, N 1; 791; a Kenny and Judd (1986); b James et al. (1984);
c
Ostroff (1993); d Lindell (2003) and *** p , 0:001
Table III.
Statistics for
determining the
appropriate level of
analysis
JEA
42,3
reasonably good fit at 0.09. The chi-squared value, however, was statistically
significant ( x 2 134 4037:13; p , 0:001), normally indicating a poor fit.
However, large sample sizes often result in statistically significant chi-squared
values, even though the data adequately fit the model. Here, school staff
numbered 1,791.
344
Analytic approach
SEM (Arbuckle, 1997) was performed to examine the relations among principal
leadership, job satisfaction, school staff turnover, and school achievement
progress. Two structural equations models were tested. The first model
(labeled Model A in Figure 2) included a test of the relations among principal
transformational leadership, school staff job satisfaction, and school staff
turnover. The second model (labeled Model B in Figure 3) included a test of the
relations among principal transformational leadership, school staff job
satisfaction, and student achievement progress.
In both models, principal transformational leadership was represented as a
latent variable consisting of school mean values on the scales of
charisma/inspiration, individual consideration, and intellectual stimulation.
Figure 2.
Model A: relation
of principal
transformational
leadership to staff job
satisfaction and school
staff turnover
Figure 3.
Model B: relation
of principal
transformational
leadership to staff job
satisfaction to school
achievement progress
School mean values on the scales of staff job satisfaction served as the measure
Principal
of school staff job satisfaction. The percentage of school staff new to the school transformational
served as the measure of school staff turnover. School values on relative
leadership
student achievement across two time periods (described earlier) served as the
measure of school achievement progress.
345
Relation of principal transformational leadership to staff job satisfaction and
school staff turnover
The second research question was, Do principals who display
transformational leadership have school staff with higher levels of job
satisfaction and less school staff turnover? Model A (Figure 2) portrays the
relations to be examined by this question. Data provided an acceptable fit to
Model A (Figure 2). The chi-squared value was not statistically significant
( x 2 5 3:12; p , 0:68), and the several fit indices were well above 0.90:
GFI 0:99; NFI 1:00; TLI 1:00; and CFI 1:00: The RMSEA also
showed a good fit at a value of 0.00. The three components of
transformational leadership contributed nearly equally to the principal
transformational leadership. The principal transformational leadership
(standardized b . 0:90) showed a strong, positive and significant relation to
staff job satisfaction, which in turn showed a moderate, negative and
significant relation to school staff turnover. Thus, schools in which principals
were perceived as transformational leaders had school staff who were more
satisfied with their jobs and had less staff turnover.
JEA
42,3
346
CFI
RMSEA
0.98
0.91
0.99
0.95
1.00
0.93
1.00
0.96
0.00
0.18
Model B
Leadership-staff job satisfaction-school achievement progress
Low percent FARMS N 59
4.06 5 0.54 0.98
High percent FARMS N 58 12.53 5 0.03 0.92
0.98
0.95
0.96
0.94
1.00
0.97
0.00
0.16
Model
Table IV.
Data-to-model fit
statistics for schools
having low and high
percentages of FARMS
students
x2
df
Model A
Leadership-staff job satisfaction-school staff turnover
Low percent FARMS N 59
2.92 5 0.71
High percent FARMS N 58 13.70 5 0.02
statistically non-significant, and the RMSEA values were 0.00s. The remaining
Principal
fit statistics also showed that the data provided a better fit for low-percentage transformational
FARMS schools. However, the path from staff job satisfaction to school
leadership
achievement progress was statistically significant and positive among
high-percentage FARMS schools (standardized b 0:30; t 2:38; p , 0:05)
than in low-percentage FARMS schools (standardized b 0:14; t 1:04; ns).
347
This result suggests that principals who display characteristics of
transformational leaders may have more beneficial effects on student
achievement for schools having more disadvantaged students than schools
having less disadvantaged students. The next analysis further examines this
proposition.
The relation of staff job satisfaction and principal transformational leadership
to within-school minority/non-minority achievement
The sixth and final research questions were, Do schools in which staff have
higher levels of job satisfaction have smaller minority achievement gaps?
Do schools in which principals display transformational leadership have
smaller minority achievement gaps? To provide results to address these
questions, HLM analyses were performed. HLM allows examining the relations
of individual- and group-level characteristics on specified outcomes
simultaneously. Here, in the Level-1 analysis, student self-reported
background characteristics, to include minority status, were used to predict
the self-reported GPA. Level-1 output included within-school differences in
GPAs between the minority and non-minority students (i.e. slopes-as-outcomes).
In the Level-2 analysis, school mean staff job satisfaction was used to predict
these slopes or the GPA gap between the minority and non-minority students.
The percentage of students enrolled in FARMS was also considered, mainly as a
control variable.
Before proceeding with the analysis, an unconditional model was performed
to determine the extent to which self-reported GPA varied across the schools.
The resulting chi-squared value (x 2 116 670:57; p , 0:001) showed that
schools differed in self-reported GPAs. In addition, school GPAs showed
adequate reliability (0.82). A full HLM was then performed (Table V).
At level 1, student characteristics accounted for 14 percent of the variance in
student self-reported GPA, with minority status showing the strongest relation,
followed by gender and expected educational level. At Level-2, within-school
slopes served as the outcome and percentage of FARMS students and staff job
satisfaction as predictor variables. Only staff job satisfaction showed
statistically significant relations to the within-school GPA gaps between the
minority and non-minority students. Self-reported GPAs differed between the
minority and non-minority students by 1/2-point on the 7-point response scale
(see coefficient for mean minority GPA slope), and this difference was reduced
by one-half in schools having more satisfied teachers (see coefficient for staff
JEA
42,3
348
Predictor variable
Level 1 (student)
GPA intercept
Gender (female)a
Minorityb
Highest expected educational levelc
Years at school
Percent variance explained level-1
variables
First HLM Level 2 (school)
GPA intercept
Percent FARMS
Staff job satisfaction
Mean minority-non-minority GPA slope
Percent FARMS
Staff job satisfaction
Percent variance explained by
Level-2 variables:
Table V.
HLM: relation of staff
job satisfaction to
within-school
minority-non-minority
GPA gap
(slopes-as-outcomes)
Unstandardized
coefficient
7.63
2 0.341
2 0.646
0.295
0.045
Standard
error
t-ratio
p-value
0.028
0.036
0.047
0.021
0.011
270.17
2 9.44
2 13.77
14.37
4.09
, 0.000
, 0.000
, 0.000
, 0.000
, 0.000
0.028
0.001
0.108
0.042
0.002
0.153
273.43
2 10.97
0.56
2 15.54
1.88
2.36
, 0.000
, 0.000
, 0.574
, 0.000
, 0.060
, 0.019
14.3 percent
7.63
2 0.014
0.060
2 0.648
0.004
0.363
69.6 percent
Figure 4.
Relation of staff job
satisfaction to
within-school
minority-non-minority
GPA differences
(slopes-as-outcomes in
HLM analysis) for
schools having low and
high levels of principal
transformational
leadership
JEA
42,3
350
spend more of their time with school staff than with students. The nature of
their interactions with staff would be expected to affect staffs work
experiences, including working relations among staff. For instance, principals,
by including staff in the planning, problem-solving, decision-making and
implementing of school programs, likely leads to greater job satisfaction,
commitment, and motivation among staff (Dinham and Scott, 1998, 1999, 2000,
2003). Also, there is a likely better communication among staff, greater mutual
trust and understanding, greater cooperation and collaboration, and more
active engagement of staff. In turn, higher levels of job satisfaction and
cooperative working relationships would be expected to lead to a better
implementation of school programs and their intended effects. The extent to
which school performance is based on the outcomes of such programs, the more
the school would be expected to be effective. Such linkages are not only evident
in recent educational studies of principal leadership (Hallinger et al., 1996;
Leithwood and Jantzi, 1990), but also in organizational and management
studies of the relation of employee perceptions of their jobs, workplace, and
leaders to organizational performance (Koys, 2001; Ostroff, 1992; Ryan et al.,
1996).
These linkages appear to be important considerations in reducing the
minority-non-minority achievement gap. In HLM analyses, both staff job
satisfaction and principal transformational leadership were associated with
smaller achievement gaps between the minority and non-minority students.
Gaps tended to be smallest in schools having more satisfied staff who also
viewed their principals as transformational leaders. These relations may have
to do with the positive affect evident in staffs satisfaction with their work. This
affect may translate into positive classroom and school climate, which past
studies have found conducive to positive learning and achievement. Indeed,
several contemporary explanations of minority students under-performance,
such as Comers (1988) School Project and Steeles (1997) stereotype threat
theory, rely heavily on behavioral and affective aspects of the teacher-student
relationship for effective student learning, and have increasingly accumulated
empirical support. Furthermore, the positive benefits of communal, expressive
school environments on student learning have been documented in
educational studies, in particular, for schools having high percentages of
socio-economically-disadvantaged students (Battistich et al., 1995; Brookover
et al., 1978; Shouse, 1996). Though speculative, this may explain why smaller
achievement gaps between the minority and non-minority students were
observed in schools having higher levels of job satisfaction and principal
transformational leadership. It seems, then, that transformational leadership is
more directly related to organizational processes associated with employee
behaviors, morale, and satisfaction, which in turn are related to the quality of
service delivery and organizational performance (Schneider, 1990; Schneider
et al., 1998; Tornow and Wiley, 1991).
JEA
42,3
352
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Kim, D., Watson, M. and Schaps, E. (1995), Schools as communities,
poverty levels of student populations, and students attitudes, motives, and performance: a
multilevel analysis, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 627-58.
Barling, J., Kelloway, E.K. and Iverson, R.D. (2003), High-quality work, job satisfaction, and
occupational injuries, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 276-83.
Blase, J.J. (1987), Dimensions of effective school leadership: the teachers perspective, American
Educational Research Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 589-610.
Blase, J.J., Derick, C. and Strathe, M. (1986), Leadership behavior of school principals in relation
to teacher stress, satisfaction, and performance, Journal of Humanistic Counseling,
Education, and Development, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 159-71.
Bliese, P. (2000), Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for
data aggregation and analysis, in Klein, K.J. and Kozlowski, S.W. (Eds), Multilevel Theory
Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extension, and New Directions,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 349-81.
Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B. and Lee, G. (1982), The instructional management role of the
principal, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp. 34-64.
Brookover, W.B., Schweitzer, J.H., Schneider, J.M., Beady, C.H., Flood, P.K. and Weisenbaker, J.M.
(1978), Elementary school social climate and school achievement, American Educational
Research Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 301-18.
Brown, M.C. (1982), Administrative succession and organizational performance: the succession
effect, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 1-16.
Bryk, A., Lee, V. and Smith, J. (1990), High school organization and its effects on teachers and
students: an interpretative summary of the research, in Clune, W.H. and Witte, J.F. (Eds),
Choice and Control in American Education, Volume 1: The Theory of Choice and Control in
Education, Falmer Press, New York, NY.
Burns, J. (1978), Leadership, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Ceci, S.J., Rosenblum, T.B. and Kumpf, M. (1999), The shrinking gap between high- and
low-scoring groups: current trends and possible causes, in Neisser, U. (Ed.), The Rising
Curve: Long-term Gains in IQ and Related Measures, American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC, pp. 287-302.
Collins, L.M. and Horn, J.L. (1991), Best Methods for the Analysis of Change, American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Comer, J. (1988), Educating poor minority children, Scientific American, Vol. 259, p. 42.
Cook, J.D., Hepworth, S.J., Wall, T.D. and Warr, P.B. (1981), The Experience of Work: A
Compendium and Review of 249 Measures and Their Use, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Dansereau, F. and Alutto, J.A. (1990), Levels-of-analysis issues in climate and culture research,
in Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 193-236.
Dinham, S. and Scott, C. (1998), A three domain model of teacher and school executive career
satisfaction, Journal of Education Administration, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 362-78.
Dinham, S. and Scott, C. (2000), Moving into the third, outer domain of teacher satisfaction,
Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 379-96.
Finkel, S.E. (1995), Causal Analysis with Panel Data, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Fitz-Gibbon, C.T. (1996), Monitoring Education: Indicators, Quality and Effectiveness, Cassell,
London.
Principal
transformational
leadership
353
JEA
42,3
354
Flynn, J. (1984), The mean IQ of Americans: massive gains, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 95,
pp. 29-51.
Grissmer, D.W., Williamson, S., Kirby, S.N. and Berends, M. (1999), Exploring the rapid rise in
black achievement scores in the United States (1970-1990), in Neisser, U. (Ed.), The Rising
Curve: Long-term Gains in IQ and Related Measures, American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC, pp. 251-85.
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L. and Davis, K. (1996), School context, principal leadership, and student
reading achievement, The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 96 No. 5, pp. 527-49.
Hallinger, P. and Heck, R.H. (1996), Reassessing the principals role in school effectiveness: a
review of empirical research, 1980-1995, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 5-44.
Halpin, A.W. (1966), Theory and Research in Administration, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Hofman, D.A. and Gavin, M.B. (1998), Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models:
implications for research in organizations, Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 5,
pp. 623-41.
Hom, P. and Griffeth, R. (1995), Employee Turnover, South-Western Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
James, L.R. (1982), Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 219-29.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1984), Estimating within-group interrater agreement,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 306-9.
Kane, T.D. and Tremble, T.R. (2000), Transformational leadership effects at different levels of
the US Army, Military Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 137-60.
Kenny, D.A. (2001), SEM: Measures of Fit, available at: http://users.rcn.com/dakenny/fit.htm
Kenny, D.A. and Judd, C.M. (1986), Consequences of violating the independence assumption in
analysis of variance, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 99, pp. 422-31.
Koh, W.L., Steers, R.M. and Terborg, J.R. (1995), The effects of transformational leadership to
teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 16, pp. 319-33.
Koys, D.J. (2001), The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and
turnover on organizational effectiveness: a unit-level, longitudinal study, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 101-14.
Lee, J. (2001), Statewide educational staffing, in Minority Achievement in Maryland at the
Millennium: A Special Report, Maryland State Department of Education, Baltimore, MD,
pp. 15-25.
Lindell, M.K. (2003), A guide on how to use rwg, unpublished.
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (1999), Transformational school leadership effects: a replication,
School Effectiveness and School Improvement Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 451-79.
Loehlin, J.C., Lindsay, G. and Spuhler, J. (1975), Race Differences in Intelligence, Freeman,
New York, NY.
Malen, B. and Fuhrman, S.H. (1991), The politics of curriculum and testing: introduction and
overview, in Fuhrman, S.H. and Malen, B. (Eds), The Politics of Curriculum and Testing,
Falmer Press, London, pp. 1-9.
McGraw, K.O. and Wong, S.P. (1996), Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation
coefficients, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 109 No. 1, pp. 30-46.
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci, S.J., Halpern, D.F.,
Loehlin, J.C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R.J. and Urbina, S. (1996), Intelligence: knowns and
unknowns, American Psychologist, Vol. 51, pp. 77-101.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1988), Creating Responsible and Responsive
Accountability Systems, US Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Ostroff, C. (1992), The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: an
organizational level analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 6, pp. 963-74.
Ostroff, C. (1993), Comparing correlations based on individual-level and aggregated data,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 569-82.
Ryan, A.M., Schmit, M.J. and Johnson, R. (1996), Attitudes and effectiveness: examining
relations at an organizational level, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49.
Scientific Software International (2000), HLM 5: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling,
Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL.
Schneider, B. (1990), The climate for service: an application of the climate construct, in
Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 383-412.
Schneider, B., White, S.S. and Paul, M.C. (1998), Linking service climate and customer
perceptions of service quality: tests of a causal model, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 83, pp. 150-63.
Shouse, R.C. (1996), Academic press and sense of community: conflict, congruence, and
implications for student achievement, Social Psychology of Education, Vol. 1, pp. 47-68.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1995), The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective, 3rd ed., Allyn and
Bacon, Boston, MA.
Sobel, M.E. (1982), Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models, in
Leinhart, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1982, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 290-312, available at: http://quantrm2.psy.ohio-state.edu/kris/sobel/sobel.htm
Spector, P.E. (1997), Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Cause, and Consequences, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Steele, C.M. (1997), A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identities and
performance of women and African Americans, American Psychologist, Vol. 52,
pp. 613-29.
Tornow, W.W. and Wiley, J.W. (1991), Service quality and management practices: a look at
employee attitudes, customer satisfaction and bottom-line consequences, Human
Resource Planning, Vol. 14, pp. 105-16.
Waldman, D.A., Bass, B.M. and Einstein, W.O. (1987), Effort, performance and transformational
leadership in industrial and military settings, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 60,
pp. 177-86.
Further reading
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1987), Charisma and beyond, in Hunt, J.G. (Ed.), Emerging
Leadership Vistas, Lexington, Boston, MA, pp. 29-49.
Guthrie, J.P. (2001), High involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: evidence from
New Zealand, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, pp. 180-90.
Hater, J.J. and Bass, B.M. (1988), Superiors evaluations and subordinates perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73
No. 4, pp. 695-702.
Principal
transformational
leadership
355
JEA
42,3
356
Huselid, M.A. (1995), The impact of human resources management practices and turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 38, pp. 635-72.
Jantzi, D. and Leithwood, K. (1996), Towards an explanation of variation in teachers
perceptions of transformational school leadership, Educational Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 512-38.
Pitner, N. (1988), The study of administrator effects and effectiveness, in Boyan, N. (Ed.),
Handbook of Research in Educational Administration, Longman, New York, NY,
pp. 99-122.
Scott, C. and Dinham, S. (1999), The occupational motivation, satisfaction and health of English
school teachers, Educational Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 287-309.
Scott, C. and Dinham, S. (2003), The development of scales to measure teacher and school
executive occupational satisfaction, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 41 No. 1,
pp. 74-86.
Appendix
Study
Scales/variables
Table AI.
Intercorrelations
among study scales
and variables
Intercorrelations
M
SD
Charisma/Inspiration
3.03 0.28
1.00
Individualized consideration
2.87 0.33
0.84**
1.00
Intellectual stimulation
3.09 0.37
0.85**
0.83**
1.00
Staff job satisfaction
3.14 0.27
0.78**
0.76**
0.87**
1.00
School staff turnover
11.73 7.36 2 0.31** 2 0.24** 2 0.37** 2 0.41**
1.00
School achievement progress 2 0.551 8.48
0.30**
0.21*
0.28** 2 0.36** 2 0.03
Notes: N 117 schools; *p , 0.05 and **p , 0.01 two-tailed
17. Zaidatol Akmaliah Lope Pihie, Amir Sadeghi, Habibah Elias. 2011. Analysis of Head of Departments
Leadership Styles: Implication for Improving Research University Management Practices. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 29, 1081-1090. [CrossRef]
18. Daniella Smith. 2010. Making the case for the leadership role of school librarians in technology
integration. Library Hi Tech 28:4, 617-631. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Kara S. Finnigan. 2010. Principal Leadership and Teacher Motivation under High-Stakes Accountability
Policies. Leadership and Policy in Schools 9:2, 161-189. [CrossRef]
20. DANIEL S. WHITMAN, DAVID L. VAN ROOY, CHOCKALINGAM VISWESVARAN. 2010.
SATISFACTION, CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIORS, AND PERFORMANCE IN WORK UNITS: A
META-ANALYSIS OF COLLECTIVE CONSTRUCT RELATIONS. Personnel Psychology 63:1,
41-81. [CrossRef]
21. Aamir Ali Chughtai, Finian Buckley. 2009. Linking trust in the principal to school outcomes.
International Journal of Educational Management 23:7, 574-589. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Paula Kwan. 2009. Beginning teachers' perceptions of school human resource practices. Asia Pacific Journal
of Education 29:3, 373-386. [CrossRef]
23. John Patrick, Gemma Scrase, Afia Ahmed, Michal Tombs. 2009. Effectiveness of instructor behaviours
and their relationship to leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 82:3, 491-509.
[CrossRef]
24. John ChiKin Lee, Paula Kwan, Allan Walker. 2009. Viceprincipalship: their responsibility roles and
career aspirations. International Journal of Leadership in Education 12:2, 187-207. [CrossRef]
25. Paula Kwan. 2009. Viceprincipals' dilemma career advancement or harmonious working relationship.
International Journal of Educational Management 23:3, 203-216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Paula Kwan. 2009. The viceprincipal experience as a preparation for the principalship. Journal of
Educational Administration 47:2, 191-205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Nadine Engels, Gwendoline Hotton, Geert Devos, Dave Bouckenooghe, Antonia Aelterman. 2008.
Principals in schools with a positive school culture. Educational Studies 34:3, 159-174. [CrossRef]
28. Chien-Wen TsaiLeadership style and employee's job satisfaction in international tourist hotels 293-332.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
29. Kenneth Leithwood, Doris Jantzi. 2005. A Review of Transformational School Leadership Research 1996
2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools 4:3, 177-199. [CrossRef]