Transformational School Leadership*K Leithwood, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

ã 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

This article briefly describes the roots of transformationalleadership and summarizes evidence of its effects.A school-specific formulation of this approach to leader-ship is then briefly outlined. The article concludes with aconsideration of several common criticisms of this formof leadership.

TheRoots of Transformational Leadership

The roots of transformational leadership are often attrib-uted to James McGregor Burns’ (1978) Pulitzer Prize-winning book entitled simply Leadership. In this book,Burns argued that transforming leadership ‘‘occurs whenone or more persons engage with others in such a way thatleaders and followers raise one another to higher levels ofmotivation and morality’’ (1978: 20). Such a conception ofwhat effective leadership aims to accomplish divergedradically from the more common view of the day inwhich leaders engage in an exchange relationship withfollowers based on followers’ individual, typically mone-tary, and otherwise extrinsic interests.

Following Burns’s lead, Bernard Bass (1985) provided amore specific formulation of transformational leadershipwhich, along with a survey-based measure, has enjoyedby far the greatest empirical attention in the ensuingseveral decades. Bass’ initial formulation of transforma-tional leadership consisted of five dimensions servingtransformational purposes – charisma, inspirational lead-ership, individualized consideration, and intellectualstimulation. Bass’ formulation also included several trans-actional dimensions reflecting the exchange relationshipson which other leadership conceptions were based –contingent reward, management-by-exception, and laissez-faire leadership. Through these sets of practices, Bassclaimed that transforming leaders:

convert followers to disciples; they develop followers into

leaders. They elevate the concerns of followers onMaslow’s

(1954) needs hierarchy from needs for safety and security to

needs for achievement and self-actualization, increase their

awareness and consciousness of what is really important,

and move them to go beyond their own self-interest for the

good of the larger entities to which they belong. The

transforming leader provides followers with a cause around

which they can rally (1985: 467).

Bass also argued that transformational leaders can bedirective or participative, authoritarian, or democratic,depending on the context. In contrast to Burns’ (1978)original view, Bass also claimed that transformationalleadership augments rather than substitutes for transac-tional leadership. Finally, unlike many earlier theories ofleadership which emphasized rational processes, transfor-mational leadership theory emphasizes emotions andvalues, attributes importance to symbolic behavior, andconceptualizes the role of the leader as helping makingevents meaningful for followers (Yukl, 1989).

In addition to writing that refers explicitly to transfor-mational leadership, writings about charismatic, visionary,cultural, and empowering concepts of leadership can beviewed as part of a transformational orientation, an orien-tation which assumes that the central focus of leadershipought to be the commitments and capacities of organiza-tional members. Higher levels of personal commitment toorganizational goals and greater capacities for accom-plishing those goals are expected to result in extra effortand greater productivity.

Effects of Transformational Leadership

Evidence from studies in both school and nonschool con-texts justifies continuing interest in this form of leader-ship. For example, meta-analyses of research in mostlynonschool contexts (Dumdum et al., 2002; Lowe et al.,1996) indicate that the overall effects of transformationalleadership are typically positive and significant, althoughthose effects are much stronger for subordinate percep-tions of effectiveness than for objective measures of effec-tiveness, such as a company’s financial performance.

A recent review of 32 studies of transformational lead-ership in school contexts (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2005)found positive and significant effects on teachers, forexample, several forms of teacher commitment, teacherjob satisfaction, changed classroom practices, collectiveteacher efficacy, and pedagogical or instructional quality.This form of leadership, the review indicated, also has apositive influence on elements of the school organizationincluding its culture, planning, and strategies for changeand organizational learning. While still limited in amount,

* Some sections of this paper are based on Leithwood, Day, Sammons,Harris, and Hopkins (2006).

158

evidence about transformational approaches to schoolleadership are reported to have promising effects on sev-eral important types of student outcomes (e.g., Leithwoodand Jantzi, 1999; Silins and Mulford, 2004).

Transformational Leadership for Schools

This section provides an account of transformationalleadership specifically designed for school organizations.The account draws on a substantial strand of work carriedout by the author and his colleagues over a 15-year periodaimed at developing a school-specific model of transfor-mational leadership. By now, this model is extensivelyspecified and evidence of its consequences reasonablywell documented (e.g., Leithwood and Jantzi, 2005). Oneof the unique features of the model is its incorporation ofleader behaviors associated with other approaches toleadership but which are both compatible with transfor-mational intentions and demonstrably effective in bothschool and nonschool organizations. The model has fourmajor dimensions – setting directions, developing people,redesigning the organization, and managing the instruc-tional program – each of which includes three or fourmore specific sets of practices.

Setting Directions

This category of practices carries the bulk of the effort tomotivate leaders’ colleagues (Hallinger and Heck, 1998).It is about the establishment of moral purpose (Fullan,2003; Hargreaves and Fink, 2006) as a basic stimulant forone’s work. Most theories of motivation argue that peopleare motivated to accomplish personally important goalsfor themselves. For example, such goals are one of the foursources of motivation in Bandura’s (1986) theory ofhuman motivation.

Three more specific sets of practices are included inthis category, all of which are aimed at bringing a focus toboth the individual and collective work of staff in theschool. Carried out skillfully, these practices are one ofthe main sources of motivation and inspiration for thework of the staff.

Building a shared visionBuilding compelling visions of the organization’s future isa fundamental task included in both transformational andcharismatic leadership models. Bass’ (1985) inspirationalmotivation is encompassed in this practice, a dimensionthat Podsakoff et al., define as leadership behavior ‘‘aimedat identifying new opportunities for his or her unit. . . .and developing, articulating, and inspiring others with hisor her vision of the future’’ (1990: 112). Silins and Mulford(2002) found positive and significant effects of a shared

and monitored mission. Harris and Chapman’s (2002)small-scale study of effective leadership in challengingschools in England found that the alignment of staffs’and heads’ values and vision was a key to success. Locke(2002) argues that formulating a vision for the organiza-tion is one of eight core tasks for senior leaders and a keymechanism for achieving integration or alignment ofactivities within the organization.

Fostering the acceptance of group goalsWhile visions can be inspiring, action typically requiressome agreement on the more immediate goals to beaccomplished in order to move toward fulfilling thevision. Building on such theory, this set of practices aimsnot only at identifying important goals for the organiza-tion, but also doing so in such a way that individualmembers come to include the organization’s goalsamong their own. Unless this happens, the organization’sgoals have no motivational effect. This set of practicesincludes leader relationship behaviors ‘‘aimed at promot-ing cooperation among [teachers] and getting them towork together toward a common goal’’ (Podsakoff et al.,1990: 112).

In school settings, improvement-planning processesare among the more explicit contexts in which thesebehaviors are manifest. One of the 11 effective managerialbehaviors included in Yukl’s multiple linkage model,encompasses a portion of these practices. Planning andorganizing include: ‘‘Determining long-range objectivesand strategies. . ., identifying necessary steps to carry outa project or activity. . .’’ (1989: 130). This apparentlyrational planning process cannot be affected withoutattention to fostering acceptance of group goals.

High-performance expectationsThis set of leadership practices is included as part ofdirection setting because it is closely aligned with goals.While high-performance expectations do not define thesubstance of organizational goals, they demonstrate theleader’s values and, as Podsakoff explains, ‘‘the leader’sexpectations of excellence, quality, and/or high perfor-mance’’ (Podsakoff et al., 1990: 112) in the achievementof those goals. Demonstrating such expectations is a cen-tral behavior in virtually all conceptions of transforma-tional leadership.

Developing People

The three sets of practices in this category make a sig-nificant contribution to motivation. Their primary aimis capacity building; however, capacity building refersnot only to the knowledge and skill staff need to accom-plish organizational goals, but also to commitment andresilience, the dispositions needed to persist in applying

Transformational School Leadership 159

that knowledge and skill (Harris and Chapman, 2002).Individual teacher efficacy is arguably critical to thesedispositions and it is a third source of motivation inBandura’s (1986) model. People are motivated by whatthey are good at. In addition, mastery experiences, accord-ing to Bandura, are the most powerful sources of efficacy.Therefore, building capacity which leads to a sense ofmastery is highly motivational, as well.

Providing individualized support/considerationBass and Avolio include, as part of this dimension, ‘‘know-ing your followers’ needs and raising them to more maturelevels. . .[sometimes through] the use of delegation to pro-vide opportunities for each follower to self-actualize and toattain higher standards of moral development’’ (1994: 64).This set of behaviors, claims Podsakoff et al. (1990), shouldcommunicate the leader’s respect for his or her colleaguesand concerns about their personal feelings and needs (emo-tional understanding and support). This is a set of practicescommon to both the two-dimensional models of leadership(Ohio state, contingency theory, and situational leadershiptheory), which include task orientation and considerationfor people. Encompassed by this set of practices are thesupporting, and recognizing and rewarding managerialbehaviors associated with Yukl’s (1989) multiple linkagemodel, as well as Hallinger’s (2003) model of instructionalleadership. This set of leadership behaviors has attractedmore leadership research outside of schools since the 1960sthan any other.

Intellectual stimulationBehaviors included in this dimension include encouragingcolleagues to take intellectual risks, re-examine assump-tions, look at their work from different perspectives,rethink how it can be performed (Avolio, 1994; Podsakoffet al., 1990), and otherwise ‘‘induc[e]. . .employees to appre-ciate, dissect, ponder and discover what they would nototherwise discern. . .’’ (Lowe et al., 1996: 415–416). Waters,Marzano, and McNulty (Marzano et al., 2005; Waterset al., 2003) include challenging the status quo among thepractices contributing to leader effects on students.

The leader’s role in professional development has beenfound to be especially important for leaders of schoolsin challenging circumstances (Gray, 2000; Harris andChapman, 2002). However, there are many informal, aswell as formal, ways in which such development occurs,reflecting current understandings of learning as con-structed, social, and situated. All models of transformationalleadership include this set of practices. A considerableamount of the educational literature assumes such practiceson the part of school leaders, most notably the literature oninstructional leadership which places school leaders at thecenter of instructional improvement efforts in their schools(e.g., Day et al., 2000; Stein and Spillane, 2005).

Providing an appropriate modelThis set of practices entails leading by example. Theseare practices also associated with models of authenticleadership (Avolio and Gardner, 2005) and includedemonstrating transparent decision making, confidence,optimism, hope, resilience, and consistency betweenwords and deeds. Locke (2002) claims that core valuesare established by modeling core values in one’s ownpractices. Both Hallinger (2003) and Waters et al. (2003)note the contribution to leader effects of maintaininghigh visibility in the school, a visibility associated withhigh-quality interactions with both staff and students.

Also encompassed by this dimension is Bass’ idealizedinfluence, a partial replacement for his original charismadimension. Avolio (1994) claims that leaders exerciseidealized influence when they serve as role models withthe appropriate behaviors and attitudes that are requiredto build trust and respect in followers. Such modeling onthe part of leaders ‘‘sets an example for employees tofollow that is consistent with the values the leaderespouses’’ (Podsakoff et al., 1990: 112).

Redesigning the Organization

There is little to be gained by increasing peoples’ motiva-tion and capacity if working conditions will not allowtheir effective application. Bandura (1986) theorizes thatbeliefs about the setting in which one is working is afourth source of motivation. People are motivated whenthey believe the circumstances in which they find them-selves are conducive to accomplishing the goals they holdto be personally important. The three more specific setsof practices included in this category are about establish-ing the conditions of work which will allow staff to makethe most of their motivations and capacities.

Building collaborative culturesA large body of evidence has accumulated since Little’s(1982) early research which unambiguously supports theimportance of collaborative cultures in schools as beingcentral to school improvement, the development of pro-fessional learning communities, and the improvement ofstudent learning (e.g., Louis and Kruse, 1998; Rosenholtz,1989). Additional evidence clearly indicates that leadersare able to build more collaborative cultures and suggestspractices that accomplish this goal (e.g., Waters et al.,2003). For leaders of schools in challenging circumstances,creating more positive collaborative and achievement-oriented cultures is a key task (West et al., 2005).

Connolly and James (2006) claim that the success ofcollaborative activity is determined by the capacitiesand motivations of collaborators together with opportu-nities for them to collaborate. Success also depends onprior conditions. For example, a history of workingtogether successfully will sometimes build trust, thus

160 Leadership and Management – School Effectiveness and Improvement

making further collaboration easier; whereas a history ofunsuccessful attempts to collaborate will reduce trust.Trust is increasingly recognized as a key element inencouraging collaboration. People are more likely totrust those with whom they have established good rela-tionships (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Louis and Kruse,1995). Participative leadership theory and leader–memberexchange theory are concerned with the nature and qual-ity of collaboration in organizations and how to manage itproductively.

Leaders contribute to productive collaborative activityin their schools by being skilled conveners of that work.They nurture mutual respect and trust among thoseinvolved in collaborating, by being trustworthy them-selves, ensure the shared determination of group pro-cesses and outcomes, help develop clarity about goalsand roles for collaboration, encourage a willingness tocompromise among collaborators, foster open and fluentcommunication among collaborators, and provide ade-quate and consistent resources in support of collabora-tive work (Connolly and James, 2006; Mattessich andMonsey, 1992).

RestructuringThis is a set of practices common to virtually all concep-tions of management and leadership. Organizationalculture and structure are two sides of the same coin.Developing and sustaining collaborative cultures dependon putting in place complementary structures, typicallysomething requiring leadership initiative. Practices asso-ciated with such initiatives include creating commonplanning times for teachers and establishing team andgroup structures for problem solving (e.g., Hadfield,2003). Hallinger and Heck (1998) identify this variableas a key mediator of leaders’ effects on students. Restruc-turing also includes distributing leadership for selectedtasks and increasing teacher involvement in decisionmaking (Reeves, 2000).

Building productive relationships with families andcommunitiesShifting the attention of school staffs from an exclusivelyinside-the-school focus to one which embraces a mean-ingful role for parents and a close relationship with thelarger community was identified during the 1990s as thebiggest change in expectations for those in formal schoolleadership roles (e.g., Goldring and Rallis, 1993). Morerecently, Muijs et al., (2004) have identified this corepractice as important for improving schools in challengingcircumstances. Attention to this focus has been encour-aged by evidence of the contribution of family educationalcultures to student achievement in schools (e.g., Coleman,1966; Finn, 1989), the increase in public accountabilityof schools to their communities through the wide-spread implementation of school-based management

(Murphy and Beck, 1995), and the growing need forschools to actively manage public perceptions of theirlegitimacy (e.g., Mintrop, 2004).

Connecting the school to its wider environmentSchool leaders spend significant amounts of time in con-tact with people outside of their schools seeking informa-tion and advice, staying in tune with policy changes, andanticipating new pressures and trends likely to have aninfluence on their schools and the like. Meetings, informalconversations, phone calls, e-mail exchanges, and Internetsearches are examples of opportunities for accomplish-ing these purposes. The extensive number of networklearning projects facilitated by the National College ofSchool Leadership in England provides especially power-ful opportunities for connecting one’s school to its widereducational environment (Jackson, 2002) as do those inother countries. Referring to it as networking, Yuklincludes it in his multiple linkage model of leadership asone of the 11 critical managerial practices. He describesthis practice as ‘‘Socializing informally, developing con-tacts with people who are a source of information andsupport, and maintaining contacts through periodic inter-action, including visits, telephone calls, correspondence,and attendance at meetings and social events’’ (1994: 69).

Bringing in external support may also be a produc-tive response to schools engaged in significant school-improvement projects (Reynolds et al., 2001).

Managing the Instructional Program

Both Burns’ (1978) and Bass’ (1985) conceptions of trans-formational leadership include several different sets oftransactional leadership behaviors built on exchangetheory. These behaviors have proven to be among themost problematic features of transformational leadershiptheoryas it has been subject to empirical tests. One ele-ment of Bass’ formulation (contingent reward) has almostalways behaved as a transformational practice and mostof the remainder makes little or no contribution toimportant outcomes of leadership. For this reason, theauthor and his colleagues have replaced transactionalleadership with managerial practices in their school-specific model of transformational leadership. Whenthese managerial practices, four in total, have beenincluded in research on school leadership effects, theyhave proven to be consequential (e.g., Leithwood andJantzi, 1999) in creating stability and strengthening theorganization’s infrastructure.

Staffing the programAlthough not touched on by Hallinger (2003) or Waterset al. (2003), this has proved to be a key function of leadersengaged in school improvement. Finding teachers withthe interest and capacity to further the school’s efforts is

Transformational School Leadership 161

the goal of this activity. Recruiting and retaining staffconstitute a primary task of leading schools in challengingcircumstances (Hargreaves and Fink, 2006).

Providing instructional supportThis set of practices, included in both Hallinger’s (2003)and Waters’ et al. (2003) research on effective leadership,includes supervising and evaluating instruction, coordi-nating the curriculum, and providing resources in supportof curriculum, instruction, and assessment activity. Westet al. (2005) indicate that, for leaders of schools in chal-lenging contexts, focusing on teaching and learning isessential. This includes controlling behavior, boostingself-esteem, and talking and listening to pupils. It alsomay include urging pupils and teachers to place a strongemphasis on pupil achievement. Such an academic cli-mate makes significant contributions to achievement (DeMaeyer et al., 2006).

Monitoring school activityWaters et al. analyze associated leadership effects on stu-dents with leader monitoring and evaluating functions,especially those focused on student progress. The pur-poseful use of data is reported by West et al. (2005) to be acentral explanation for effective leadership in failingschools (see also Reynolds et al., forthcoming). Hallinger’s(2003) model includes a set of practices labeled monitor-ing student progress. Monitoring operations and environ-ment is one of Yukl’s (1989) 11 effective managerialpractices. Furthermore, Gray (2000) reports that trackingstudent progress is a key task for leaders of schools inchallenging circumstances.

Buffering staff from distractions to their workA long line of research has reported the value to organi-zational effectiveness, of leaders who prevent staff frombeing pulled in directions incompatible with agreed-ongoals (Copland, 2003; DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran,2005; Dwyer, 1985). This buffering function acknowledgesthe open nature of schools and the constant bombardmentof staff with expectations from parents, the media, specialinterest groups, and the government. Internal buffering isalso helpful, especially buffering teachers from excessivepupil-disciplinary activity.

The four sets of leadership practices in this categoryprovide the coordination for initiatives stimulated by theother core leadership practices. They help provide thestability which is so necessary for improvement to occur.

Conclusion

In his summary of transformational approaches to leader-ship, Northouse (2007) identifies five common criticismsof transformational approaches to leadership. First, some

have argued that this approach to leadership lacks concep-tual clarity, meaning that its dimensions and associatepractices overlap with other views of leadership. Theschool-specific model described in this article is especiallyguilty of this quality. However, this is a criticism only if thegoal is to distinguish one model of leadership fromanother. If, as in this case, the goal is to develop a modelof leadership that incorporates practices which reflect thebest evidence about what works, then lack of distinguish-ing features is inevitable and certainly not a weakness.

A second criticism is that transformational approachestreat leadership as a personality trait rather than a setof practices that can be learned. This is a legitimatecomplaint of models that include a charismatic dimen-sion. At least some forms of charisma depend on thepossession of attractive personality traits. However,many models of transformational leadership no longerinclude charisma. The school-specific model describedin this article includes only behaviors or practices thatalmost anyone with an interest in leadership could learnor improve on.

Some have also criticized transformational leadership asbeing elitist. This criticism seems to have arisen becausemuch of the research literature in nonschool contexts hasfocused on the leadership of those at the top of the organi-zational hierarchy. The model outlined in this articleincludes practices that can bewidelydistributed throughoutthe organization; recent evidence suggests that they oftenare (Leithwood et al., 2003; Leithwood et al., 2007). Thisevidence is also a response to the criticism that transforma-tional approaches reflect heroic images of leadership.

A final criticism is that this form of leadership has thepotential for abuse. Early descriptions of transformationalleadership sometimes cited, as examples, highly influen-tial leaders who, nevertheless, pursued morally andsocially unacceptable goals – Hitler, for example. Consid-erable effort has been made since those early writings tocraft an account of transformational leadership in pursuitof morally and socially desirable ends, an authentic asopposed to inauthentic or pseudo-transformational formof leadership (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Price, 2003).Generally, charisma-free models are less susceptible tothis criticism.

Both the demonstrably positive effects of transforma-tional leadership and the insubstantial nature of its appar-ent limitations argue for continuing to further developand assess this leadership approach.

Bibliography

Avolio, B. J. (1994). The alliance of total quality and the full range ofleadership. In Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (eds.) ImprovingOrganizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership,pp 121–145. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

162 Leadership and Management – School Effectiveness and Improvement

Avolio, B. J. and Gardner, W. (2005). Authentic leadership development:Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The LeadershipQuarterly 16(3), 315–338.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations.New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving OrganizationalEffectiveness through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Bryk, A. S. and Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in Schools: A Core Resourcefor Improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity.Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office.Connolly, M. and James, C. (2006). Collaboration for school

improvement: A resource dependency and institutional framework ofanalysis. Educational Management Administration and Leadership34(1), 69–87.

Copland, M. A. (2003). The Bay Area school reform collaborative:Building the capacity to lead. In Murphy, J. and Datnow, A. (eds.)Leadership Lessons from Comprehensive School Reforms, pp159–183. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H., and Beresford, J. (eds.)(2000). Leading Schools in Times of Change. Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press.

De Maeyer, S., Rymenans, R., Van Petegem, P., van der Bergh, H., andRijlaarsdam, G. (2006). Educational leadership and pupilachievement: The choice of a valid conceptual model to test effectsin school effectiveness research. Unpublished paper: Universityof Antwerp.

DiPaola, M. F. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2005). Bridging or buffering?The impact of schools’ adaptive strategies on student achievement.Journal of Educational Administration 43(1), 60–71.

Dwyer, D. C. (1985). Contextual antecedents of instructional leadership.The Urban Review 17(3), 166–188.

Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., and Avolio, B. J. (2002). A meta-analysisof transformational and transactional leadership correlates ofeffectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. In Avolio, B. J.and Yammarino, F. J. (eds.) Transformational and CharismaticLeadership: The Road Ahead, pp 35–66. Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of EducationalResearch 59(2), 117–143.

Fullan, M. (2003). TheMoral Imperative of School Leadership. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Goldring, E. and Rallis, S. (1993). Principals of Dynamic Schools.Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.

Gray, J. (2000). Causing Concern but Improving: A Review of Schools’Experience. London: Department for Education and Skills.

Hadfield, M. (2003). Building capacity versus growing schools.In Harris, A., Day, C., Hopkins, D., et al. (eds.) Effective Leadership forSchool Improvement, pp 107–120. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on thepractice of instructional and transformational leadership. CambridgeJournal of Education 33(3), 329–351.

Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contributionto school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness andSchool Improvement 9(2), 157–191.

Hargreaves, A. and Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable Leadership. SanFrancisco, CA: Wiley.

Harris, A. and Chapman, C. (2002). Effective Leadership in SchoolsFacing Challenging Circumstances. Nottingham: National College forSchool Leadership (NCSL).

Jackson, D. (2002). The Creation of Knowledge Networks: CollaborativeEnquiry for School and System Improvement. Paper presented at theCERI/OECD/DfES/QCA ESRC Forum Knowledge Management inEducation and Learning, Oxford, UK.

Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (1999). The relative effects of principal andteacher sources of leadership on student engagement with school.Educational Administration Quarterly 35(supplement), 679–706.

Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational schoolleadership research: 1996–2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools4(3), 177–199.

Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., et al. (2007). Distributingleadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of thesystem. Leadership and Policy in Schools 6(1), 37–67.

Little, J. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplaceconditions of school success. American Educational ResearchJournal 19, 325–340.

Locke, E. A. (2002). The leaders as integrator: The case of Jack Welchat General Electric. In Neider, L. L. and Schriesheim, C. (eds.)Leadership, pp 1–22. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Louis, K. and Kruse, S. (1995). Professionalism and Community:Perspectives on Reforming Urban Schools. Newbury Park, CA:Corwin.

Louis, K. S. and Kruse, S. D. (1998). Creating community in reform:Images of organizational learning in inner-city schools.In Leithwood, K. and Louis, K. S. (eds.) Organizational Learning inSchools, pp 17–45. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996).Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactionalleadership: A meta-analytical review of the MLQ literature.Leadership Quarterly 7(3), 385–425.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., and McNulty, B. A. (2005). SchoolLeadership that Works: From Research to Results. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mattessich, P. W. and Monsey, B. R. (1992).Collaboration: What Makesit Work? St. Paul, MN: Amherst.

Mintrop, H. (2004). Schools on Probation: How Accountability Works(and Doesn’t Work). New York: Teachers College Press.

Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., and Russ, J. (2004).Improving schools in socieconomically disadvantaged areas –A review of research evidence. School Effectiveness and SchoolImprovement 15(2), 149–175.

Murphy, J. and Beck, L. (1995). School-based Management as SchoolReform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4th edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., and Fetter, R. (1990).Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trustin leader satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors.Leadership Quarterly 1(2), 107–142.

Reeves, J. (2000). Tracking the links between pupil attainment anddevelopment planning. School Leadership and Management 20(3),315–332.

Reynolds, A. J., Stringfield, S., and Muijs, D. (forthcoming). Results forthe high reliability schools project. Unpublished manuscript.

Reynolds, D., Hopkins, D., Potter, D., and Chapman, C. (2001). SchoolImprovement for Schools Facing Challenging Circumstances:A Review of Research and Practice. London: Department forEducation and Skills.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ Workplace: The Social Organizationof Schools. New York: Longman.

Silins, H. and Mulford, B. (2004). Schools as learning organizations –Effects on teacher leadership and student outcomes. SchoolEffectiveness and School Improvement 15(3–4), 443–466.

Silins, H. and Mulford, W. (2002). Leadership and school results. InLeithwood, K. and Hallinger, P. (eds.) Second InternationalHandbook of Educational Leadership and Administration, pp561–612. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Stein, M. and Spillane, J. (2005). What can researchers on educationalleadership learn from research on teaching: Building a bridge. InFirestone, W. and Riehl, C. (eds.) A New Agenda for Research inEducational Leadership, pp 28–45. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., and McNulty, B. (2003). BalancedLeadership: What 30 Years of Research Tells Us about the Effect ofLeadership on Pupil Achievement. A Working Paper. Aurora, CO:Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

West, M., Ainscow, M., and Stanford, J. (2005). Sustaining improvementin schools in challenging circumstances:A studyof successful practice.School Leadership and Management 25(1), 77–93.

Yukl, G. (1989). Leadership in Organizations, 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in Organizations, 3rd edn. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Transformational School Leadership 163

Further Reading

Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., and Hopkins, D.(2006). Successful School Leadership: What It is and HowIt Influences Pupil Learning. London: Department for

Education and Skills. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR800.pdf(accessed May 2009).

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., and Dart, B. (1990). Transformationalleadership: How principals can help reform school cultures. SchoolEffectiveness and School Improvement 1(4), 249–280.

164 Leadership and Management – School Effectiveness and Improvement