Transformational Leadership and School Performance: A Review

Introduction

The roles of any organization need to be firmly defined and adequately expressed in order for that organization to reach its highest potential. Within any organization there are different levels of leadership that dictate the flow and style of how those qualities resonate within each individual member.

The educational system is an adequate — if not superior — means of testing the effects of transformational leadership on the overall performance levels of a given institution. The purpose of this paper is to explore the effects of transformational and shared instructional leadership on school performance, as measured by the quality of pedagogy and the achievement of students.

To accomplish this, the paper first provides background information on transformational leadership and defines key terms that will serve as a basis for the argument. The next section presents a review of the relevant literature. To help formulate new perspectives, a set of research questions is then posed. The methods for investigating those questions are discussed before the implications of potential conclusions are considered.

To best understand the argument, key terms and ideas must be communicated clearly. Leadership is a concept whose inherent qualities are often nebulous and difficult to pin down, making the subject challenging to discuss without a groundwork of fundamental terms. Education is both an art and a science — ideas and models must be aligned with human qualities that do not always fit neatly into structured frameworks. It is therefore the role of the leader within an organization to bring out these qualities and define roles in an adequate fashion.

The idea of transformational leadership may be traced back more than thirty years, when James MacGregor Burns coined the term in his sociology research. He fundamentally divided leadership into two categories: transactional and transformational. Transactional leadership focuses on the relationship itself between leader and follower, while transformational leadership is focused on the beliefs and values of the followers (Burns, 2003).

Background and Key Concepts

What is key in Burns' proposal is that leading and managing are two separate approaches to accomplishing a mission. The personal aspects associated with Burns' model suggest that leaders — particularly in an educational environment — must rely on natural and intuitive forces that engage the emotional investment of their subordinates in order to create an atmosphere of growth that fosters learning and respects the individual.

As noted above, teaching is both an art and a science. Pedagogy is the term used to define the professional approach to teaching. When discussing the quality of pedagogy, it is important to recognize that teaching and education contain both objective and subjective dimensions. The tendency to ignore the subtler, more human aspects of learning may or may not be reflected in the quality of pedagogy within a given organization.

By definition, qualitative ideas are exactly that — qualities. Quantification of such data can of course be accomplished, and may be necessary in order to fully grasp the ideas presented in research, but inference must also be applied, which is itself a qualitative approach. It is necessary to find a strong balance between the analytical and the more interpretive aspects of cognition in order to relate this research to its proper audience at the perspective that allows readers to adopt new ideas.

Unlike pedagogy, student achievement is a concept that lends itself more readily to scientific measurement. The mathematical tools available to researchers offer many avenues for highlighting how student achievement may be attained within an organization. The grading process is the most basic measure of student achievement and can be dissected and rearranged in different statistical formations to infer other aspects of teacher influence and leadership quality.

Relying too heavily on grades as a gauge for overall learning — and therefore overall effectiveness — is quite common, and it reveals the importance of striking a strong balance between qualitative and quantitative measures. This tension requires a trained and disciplined mind capable of allowing new ideas to enter and be incorporated into the larger scheme of things. Science itself is grounded in inductive reasoning and the ability to interpret results through experience and process. In the educational system, leadership and human interaction are key ingredients to its well-being, and the need to experiment, take risks, and ask questions becomes a necessity in today's high-accountability environment.

Teamwork is a hallmark quality that must be cultivated in any organizational setting. The consistency of the message from leadership must be strong and clear if any leadership changes are to produce material results. At the heart of the educational system is the relationship between teacher and principal — the main channel through which ideals and practices are communicated, and one that must remain undistorted and free of bias.

Marks and Printy (2003) dedicated a study to the integration of transformational leadership as measured by the cooperation between teachers and principals. These researchers selected 24 schools representing 16 states and 22 school districts to measure school restructuring efforts. Teachers responded to surveys about their instructional practices, professional development, and perceptions of their schools. Interviews were also conducted with key players within each school to gather additional information.

The results were synthesized to comment on the ability of leadership to transform recently restructured schools. The authors ultimately concluded that "teachers have both the desire and the expertise to lead. We argue that our findings demonstrate the importance of cultivating teacher leadership for enhanced school performance. In summary, the integrated view of leadership we propose highlights the synergistic power of leadership shared by individuals throughout the school organization" (p. 295).

Transformational leadership is lauded extensively in this research; however, the limited testability and variation in outcomes suggest that more than transformational leadership alone may be involved in any given success.

Hallinger (2003) introduced the idea that educational development can be divided into two camps of leadership: the transformational model and the instructional model. These two components are generally accepted as mainstream frameworks within the field. His research compared these two approaches in an effort to reveal more about the distinct qualities of each, and which — if either — is more appropriate for educational organizations and the teaching profession.

Hallinger implied that instructional leadership is primarily hierarchical and top-down. Instructional leaders are noted as being goal-oriented, hands-on, and results-driven. A three-dimensional model was presented to define this approach, encompassing: defining the school's mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting a positive school-learning climate.

Literature Review

In summarizing transformational leadership, Hallinger wrote: "In contrast, transformational leadership is often considered a type of shared or distributed leadership. Rather than a single individual — the principal — coordinating and controlling from above, transformational leadership focuses on stimulating change through bottom-up processes. Indeed, transformational leadership models may explicitly conceptualize leadership as an organizational entity rather than the property of a single individual, accounting for multiple sources of leadership" (p. 138). The dichotomy of this relationship is strong, but it may risk creating false boundaries where none actually exist.

The author suggests, however, that ultimately no method is inherently preferable, as it is the character of the leader that truly drives the organization. While it may be tempting to correct the perceived flaws of instructional leadership with transformational techniques, Hallinger warned that "the available evidence suggests that transformational leadership is no easier to exercise than instructional leadership. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of integrated leadership — both transformational and instructional — in eliciting the instructional leadership of teachers for improving school performance."

The qualities associated with the school principal are powerful symbols of how leadership can operate in accordance with human nature. Unlike the classroom teacher, the principal carries a broader institutional responsibility. In many ways, the leadership style of the school itself will mirror the leadership qualities demonstrated by its principal.

Nettles and Herrington (2007) examined this critical role within the educational system, operating from the premise that "there is ample evidence that the school principal is regarded as crucial to school success and student achievement. In particular, several decades of research on the topic has resulted in a body of knowledge that details the positive relationships between the practice of school principals and student academic achievement" (p. 729).

This literature also hints at the impracticality of transformational leadership concepts in certain respects. By demonstrating that the principal, as a controlling variable, can have a direct impact on student achievement, it suggests that the method of that impact may be less important than the fact of it. Distinguishing between transformational and instructional leadership processes becomes secondary if a principal can cut through the noise and find the appropriate response to a situation regardless of its classification. Yet this very adaptability is itself transformational in nature, as it seeks new and original solutions to given problems. In essence, this research exposes a conceptual weakness in the transformational leadership framework: if all effective leadership efforts can be classified as transformational, the term loses its precision and becomes extraneous.

The role of the teacher in transformational leadership processes must be better understood in order to capture the true essence of the approach. Ross and Gray (2006) argued that transformational leadership works in many instances because of the teacher's belief in its benefit. The authors concluded that "it may be defensible to hold principals accountable for student achievement if it can be demonstrated that principals influence achievement indirectly by creating organizational conditions through which improved teaching and learning occur" (p. 813).

In this view, the impetus for student achievement may originate at a higher level of the school hierarchy, but the teacher must ultimately buy into the approach for it to have a direct impact on student outcomes.

Bierly and Shy (2013) reinforced this idea when they wrote: "What we do know from hundreds of examples nationwide is that dramatically better outcomes are possible at the individual school level even in the most challenging of educational environments. We also know that an essential ingredient behind each of these success stories is extraordinary leadership. Yet we have far too few transformational school leaders today to replicate the results that are possible at greater scale. The reason: most school systems fail to methodically develop talented educators into a deep bench of prospective leaders with the experience and ability to build an extraordinary school."

The literature on the adoption of transformational leadership as an effective approach is extensive. Nevertheless, significant questions remain about how this leadership style in turn improves student performance. Leadership styles are wide and varied, and many fall under the broad umbrella of "transformational"; however, the net value of that transformation must also be examined to assess the quality of the outcomes produced.

Leithwood and Jantzi (1999) investigated questions involving the effects of different forms and sources of educational leadership. Their study involved a school district of nearly 60,000 students confronting a new set of expectations for change. Surveys were collected from nearly 10,000 students and 1,800 teachers, exploring the effects of transformational leadership efforts. Other important variables were also included, such as family values, ethics, morals, and socioeconomic indicators.

The research identified several factors that diminish the impact of transformational leadership on school achievement. The authors ultimately concluded that "effects on student engagement of transformational leadership practices were substantially weaker than those of family educational culture. This pattern of effects was especially strong for teacher leadership in one of our previous studies. A plausible implication of these findings is that high levels of student engagement reduce teachers' perceived needs for either teacher or principal leadership. Student engagement could be conceived of as a substitute for leadership as well as a student outcome" (p. 21).

These findings can both support and challenge the impact of transformational leadership on student performance. On one hand, the goal of transformational leadership is precisely to make others engaged in their own learning processes — and engagement, however it is achieved, is a positive outcome. On the other hand, the inherent personality of each leader dictates that a unique style aligned with that leader's character must be authentically expressed to achieve any meaningful level of conviction. Transformational leadership may often be present but disguised in other forms, including more directive, instructional styles.

If student engagement is the key to meaningful and lasting change, avenues beyond leadership adjustment may be necessary. The impact of the family unit on a student's educational development cannot be underestimated in terms of academic learning or emotional readiness. Teachers and principals, as individuals external to the family unit, must accept their role as complementary — rather than primary — forces in student development. This attitude appears to carry significant merit, as it establishes appropriate expectations and responsibilities for all parties involved.

The scope and range of research on the impact of transformational leadership on educational processes is broad and does not converge on any single clear conclusion. Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe (2008) gathered the findings of 27 studies on the impact of leadership on student outcomes and synthesized new ideas about how different leadership types affect classroom strengths and weaknesses. Their research was designed to compare the effects of transformational and instructional leadership on student outcomes. A supplementary analysis also gauged the effects of five inductively derived sets of leadership practices on student outcomes. These practices include: establishing goals and expectations; resourcing strategically; planning, coordinating, and evaluating teacher curriculum; promoting and participating in teacher learning and development; and ensuring an orderly and supportive environment.

In both analyses, the authors reached the same conclusion: "the closer educational leaders get to the core business of teaching and learning, the more likely they are to have a positive impact on students' outcomes. It seems clear that if we are to learn more about how leadership supports teachers in improving student outcomes, we need to measure how leaders attempt to influence the teaching practices that matter" (p. 669).

This finding implies that effective leadership must first identify what is most important before implementing any particular style. The strategic outlook for the organization is paramount, and what matters to each institution must be finely tailored to meet its specific expectations. The source of those expectations may itself be the central challenge, given the considerable number of voices that contribute to the core acts of teaching and learning.

The available literature leads the prudent researcher to explore more deeply the unanswered questions surrounding transformational leadership and its capacity to significantly alter student achievement and educational quality. In order to reduce some of the conceptual ambiguity in the ideas discussed above, new frameworks must be developed to surface the knowledge that lies dormant within existing research.

The first step involves approaching the subject from a more descriptive or qualitative perspective. The volume of research available on terms such as "achievement," "standards," "learning," and even "the educational system" may need to be examined for practical applicability. Advances in technology have allowed information and data to proliferate rapidly, and making sense of these large volumes requires examining the problem through an epistemological lens.

The language used to define what is appropriate in educational professionalism is often vague and misleading, and clarity is frequently absent. This problem is compounded by the special implications that transformational leadership, as a branch of leadership theory, presents. The literature reviewed in this proposal consistently suggests that the character of both the leader and the educator is of greater importance than any single leadership style, whether transformational or instructional.

The following research questions are proposed as a guide for understanding the implications of transformational leadership in educational systems:

The prevalence of meta-analysis may increase as new information and data continue to grow at exponential rates. This suggests that the research proposed here seeks to find common ground on the questions above by providing guidelines and a general approach to the problem. Given the pace at which data accumulates, it is likely that this process will need to be revisited in a relatively short period of time.

A three-level approach will be necessary to best answer the proposed research questions and advance understanding of transformational leadership in education. The first level involves a semantic investigation of the terms used in the research questions. The ideas of leadership and all of its implied dimensions need to be worked through and understood more precisely. Leadership is often distorted by leaders themselves in pursuit of political power and recognition. Rather than treating leadership as something superior, it should be viewed as an appropriate tool suited to a given situation. The demands placed on leaders vary greatly from class to class, school to school, and city to city; transformational leadership must allow for this same degree of variance in order to be fully recognized as a valuable asset to educational professionals.

The next step in this research proposal is to reach a new understanding of the language involved and to construct a model of communication that can express the many varying definitions available in this discussion. This can be accomplished by designing and administering surveys to a highly varied sample population. The specific demands of each individual school or school district create a formidable challenge in developing such a shared lexicon, but this is an inevitable step toward generating true knowledge and wisdom from the investigation.