DETERMINING LEADERSHIP PRACTICES THAT IMPACT ON … · 1.1 chapter preview School principal leadership practices have been linked to teachers’ work commitment by researchers such

DETERMINING LEADERSHIP PRACTICES

THAT IMPACT ON PRIMARY SCHOOL, MID-CAREER TEACHERS’ COMMITMENT TO

THE PROFESSION: MID-CAREER

TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES.

Keith GRAHAM

M Ed, M App Ling, B Ed, Dip T, Grad Cert App Ling

Supervisors Dr Leanne Crosswell

Dr Jill Willis

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education

Faculty of Education Queensland University of Technology

2018

Determining leadership practices that impact on primary school, mid-career teachers’ commitment to the profession: Mid-career teachers’ perspectives. i

Abstract

This study investigated school principal leadership practices and the impact they

may have on mid-career teachers’ work commitment. This multiphase study sought

mid-career teachers’ views on school principals’ leadership practices in relation to

teacher work commitment through: (a) interviews with mid-career teachers who had

recently left the teaching profession (Phase 1, part 1, n=5), (b) interviews with current

school principals (Phase 1, part 2, n=5) and (c) a survey of current mid-career teachers

(Phase 2, n=142). The leadership practices were identified under the five leadership

domains outlined by Educational Queensland to determine and compare the impact

each domain had on the work commitment of mid-career teachers. Key findings

included the impact relational leadership practices had on mid-career teacher work

commitment, the difference in importance placed on the leadership domains by the

teachers and principals in respect to mid-career teacher work commitment, and a

difference in perspective between the school principals and mid-career teachers of the

application of leadership practices.

Understanding leadership practices that affect work commitment may assist to

inform school principals, and wider education systems, with a view to mitigate mid-

career teacher attrition, which is a significant and growing phenomenon facing

education systems today.

ii Determining leadership practices that impact on primary school, mid-career teachers’ commitment to the profession: Mid-career teachers’ perspectives.

Table of Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... i

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... ii

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... v

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... vi

Statement of Original Authorship .......................................................................................... vii

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... viii

Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................... 11

1.1 Chapter Preview ........................................................................................................... 11

1.2 Background to the study .............................................................................................. 11

1.3 Context of Education Queensland ................................................................................ 19

1.4 Education Queensland leadership documents .............................................................. 24

1.5 Significance of this study ............................................................................................. 27

1.6 Purpose of this study .................................................................................................... 30

1.7 Research questions and design ..................................................................................... 34

1.8 Definition of Terms ...................................................................................................... 37

1.9 Chapter summary and thesis overview ........................................................................ 46

Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................... 48

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 48

2.2 Chapter overview ......................................................................................................... 52

2.3 Teacher work commitment .......................................................................................... 52

2.4 Influence a school prinicpal may have on teacher work commitment ......................... 68

2.5 Principal leadership practices ....................................................................................... 83

2.6 Leadership practices that may influence mid-career teacher commitment .................. 89

2.7 Conceptual framework education Queensland school leadership practices ............... 105

2.8 Leadership Matters framework (Education Queensland, 2010) ................................. 108

2.9 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 118

Chapter 3: Research Design ............................................................................ 122

3.1 Chapter Preview ......................................................................................................... 122

3.2 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 122

3.3 Research Questions .................................................................................................... 123

3.4 Conceptual framework ............................................................................................... 126

3.5 research design ........................................................................................................... 129

3.6 data analysis ............................................................................................................... 151

3.7 Validity and reliability ............................................................................................... 155

Determining leadership practices that impact on primary school, mid-career teachers’ commitment to the profession: Mid-career teachers’ perspectives. iii

3.8 Ethical issues .............................................................................................................. 158

3.9 Chapter summary ........................................................................................................ 160

Chapter 4: Data findings – Qualitative interviews: Mid-career teachers who have chosen to leave the teaching profession. ...................................................... 161

4.1 Chapter preview .......................................................................................................... 162

4.2 Overview of interview themes .................................................................................... 163

4.3 Group 1 – Alternate reasons for leaving teaching with inferences for school leadership practices ................................................................................................................................ 168

4.4 Group 2 – Reasons for leaving teaching related to school leadership practices ......... 172

4.5 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 190

Chapter 5: Data findings – Qualitative Interviews: Principals ................... 197

5.1 Chapter preview .......................................................................................................... 197

5.2 Overview of interview themes .................................................................................... 197

5.3 Principal interview findings in relation to the five leadership domains ..................... 202

5.4 Summary of principal interviews ................................................................................ 227

5.5 Comparison of qualitative interviews – teachers and principals ................................ 234

5.6 Chapter summary ........................................................................................................ 242

Chapter 6: Data findings - Quantitative survey: Mid-career teachers ....... 243

6.1 Chapter preview .......................................................................................................... 243

6.2 Demographics of survey participants ......................................................................... 243

6.3 Survey Instrument ....................................................................................................... 245

6.4 Short answer question responses ................................................................................ 246

6.5 Survey data ................................................................................................................. 251

6.6 Survey responses and the impact of the domains of leaderships practice .................. 252

6.7 Top five selected leadership practices from survey instrument .................................. 261

6.8 Quantitative data summary ......................................................................................... 263

6.9 Summary of quantitative and qualitative data ............................................................ 268

6.10 Chapter summary ........................................................................................................ 272

Chapter 7: Research Conclusions ................................................................... 273

7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 273

7.2 Research question conclusions ................................................................................... 274

7.3 Research summary ...................................................................................................... 281

7.4 Additional Findings .................................................................................................... 284

7.5 Implications for Policy and Practice ........................................................................... 289

7.6 Reflections .................................................................................................................. 297

7.7 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 298

Bibliography ........................................................................................................... 299

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 327

iv Determining leadership practices that impact on primary school, mid-career teachers’ commitment to the profession: Mid-career teachers’ perspectives.

Appendix A Initial mid-career teacher survey. .................................................................... 327

Appendix B Mid-career teachers’ views on principal leadership practices ......................... 328

Appendix C Mid-career teachers’ views on principal leadership practices ......................... 330

Appendix D Survey aligned to five leadership domains ...................................................... 332

Appendix E Schedule of interview questions ....................................................................... 334

Appendix F Schedule of interview questions ....................................................................... 335

Appendix G Ethics Approval from Education Queensland .................................................. 336

Appendix H Ethics Approval from Queensland University of Technology ......................... 338

Appendix I Participant consent for interviews ..................................................................... 339

Appendix J Participant consent for surveys ......................................................................... 342

Determining leadership practices that impact on primary school, mid-career teachers’ commitment to the profession: Mid-career teachers’ perspectives. v

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Principals’ leadership practices and mid-career teacher work commitment. ................................................................................................ 71

Figure 2.2 Factors that may affect teachers’ work commitment ............................... 82

Figure 2.3 Educational leadership frameworks – three common models .................. 89

Figure 3.1 Descriptions of leadership practices under each of the five domains outlined in Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) ................. 129

Figure 3.2 Research design to investigate mid-career teachers’ views on principals’ leadership practices .................................................................. 131

Figure 3.3 Data analysis in qualitative research (Creswell, 2009) .......................... 152

Figure 4.1 Comparative frequency of coded leadership practices as identified from former mid-career teacher interviews. .............................................. 167

Figure 5.1 Comparative frequency of coded leadership practices as identified from principal interviews. .......................................................................... 202

Figure 5.2 Line graph of interview responses from principals and ex-teachers ...... 236

Figure 6.1 Comparative frequency of coded leadership practices as identified from short answer responses. ..................................................................... 247

Figure 6.2 Bar graph of mean % of frequency for ‘very important’ and ‘important’ responses of mid-career teachers for each leadership domain. ....................................................................................................... 258

Figure 6.3 Bar graph of % of top five responses in each leadership category. ..... 262

Figure 6.4 Bar graph of order of importance of the leadership domains from the interview and survey data. ................................................................... 270

vi Determining leadership practices that impact on primary school, mid-career teachers’ commitment to the profession: Mid-career teachers’ perspectives.

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Comparison of leadership domains: AITSL and Leadership Matters ....... 26

Table 1.2 Career Stages of Teachers ......................................................................... 42

Table 2.1 Leadership practices - comparison of the three common leadership models ........................................................................................................ 103

Table 3.1 Timeline of research implementation ....................................................... 131

Table 3.2 Mid-career teacher gender and professional context. ............................. 137

Table 3.3 Principal gender and professional context. ............................................. 142

Table 3.4 Results of Factor Analysis for Each of the Five Instructional Leadership Domains .................................................................................. 157

Table 4.1 Identified leadership practices from former mid-career teacher interviews coded under the Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) leadership domains. .................................................... 165

Table 5.1 Identified leadership practices from principal interviews coded under the Leadership Matters (2010) leadership domains. ................................. 200

Table 5.2 Number of participant responses linked to each leadership domain ....... 235

Table 6.1 Demographics of survey participants ...................................................... 245

Table 6.2 Classification of survey short-answer responses in relation to Leadership Matters (2010) ......................................................................... 247

Table 6.3 Descriptive Statistics of “Relational” ...................................................... 252

Table 6.4 Descriptive Statistics of “Educational” ................................................... 255

Table 6.5 Descriptive Statistics of “Intellectual” .................................................... 255

Table 6.6 Descriptive Statistics of “Organisational” .............................................. 257

Table 6.7 Descriptive Statistics of “Personal” ........................................................ 257

Table 6.8 Top 7 leadership practices identified by mid-career teachers as of most importance to their work commitment. .............................................. 263

Table 7.1 Suggested leadership practices to enhance relational leadership ........... 296

Determining leadership practices that impact on primary school, mid-career teachers’ commitment to the profession: Mid-career teachers’ perspectives. vii

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best

of my knowledge and belief, this thesis contains no material previously published or

written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature: QUT Verified Thesis

Date: 10 October 2018

viii Determining leadership practices that impact on primary school, mid-career teachers’ commitment to the profession: Mid-career teachers’ perspectives.

Acknowledgements

Undertaking this research has been both a rewarding and challenging journey.

Reaching the end certainly wasn’t a solo adventure and I would like to acknowledge

and sincerely thank the following people who joined me and whose combined support

and encouragement enabled me to reach completion.

Firstly my Principal Supervisor Doctor Leanne Crosswell and my Associate

Supervisor Doctor Jill Willis; they were amazingly supportive throughout this project

and understood the various constraints of working full-time in a school leadership role

whilst studying part-time. They always displayed confidence in me and understood my

passion and commitment to the task. Their guidance at critical points and timely

feedback, coupled with their encouragement and endorsement of my progress, ensured

I saw it through to the end. I thank them both for their generosity in sharing their

expertise and contributing to my academic development. Special mention to Jill who

I believe ‘got me’ from day one. Jill remained my consistent supervisor ensuring a

smooth transition of primary supervisor when circumstances beyond our control

dictated a change. Secondly, I would like to extend my thanks to my initial Principal

Supervisor Associate Professor Peter Hudson who inspired me with his enthusiasm for

learning and unwavering belief in my potential to undertake and complete this journey.

Even after our formal relationship ended, Peter remained a source of encouragement

and support for which I am extremely grateful.

I would like to thank the Education Queensland primary school principals who

responded to my request for assistance in undertaking my research and allowed me

into their schools to conduct surveys with their mid-career teachers. Their goodwill

was greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank the mid-career teachers, both former

and present who participated in my study, for giving their time and perspectives to me

through interviews and surveys around school leadership practices. Their contribution

to both my research and to informing professional leadership practices has been

invaluable.

Determining leadership practices that impact on primary school, mid-career teachers’ commitment to the profession: Mid-career teachers’ perspectives. ix

To my fellow EdD students, thank you for your support, professional discussions

and group encouragement. The support network we formed was greatly appreciated.

We started this journey together, learned so much from each other along the way, and

I know I would not have come so far without the quiet encouragement and collective

determination.

Finally to my family who sacrificed much to ensure I had the time and space to

complete this task. To my wife Katrin and my children Joshua and Danika, thank you

for your patience and understanding when I have been preoccupied or unavailable. I

have appreciated your love, understanding, support and encouragement. Thank you

deeply!

Determining leadership practices that impact on primary school, mid-career teachers’ commitment to the profession: Mid-career teachers’ perspectives. 11

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 CHAPTER PREVIEW

School principal leadership practices have been linked to teachers’ work

commitment by researchers such as Burkhauser (2016), Dou, Devos and Valck (2016),

Holden (2016) and Huang (2017). While the link between school leadership and

teacher work commitment is established, what is yet to be made clear is the nature of

this connection and how individual leadership practices can influence teacher work

commitment in different ways. This current research investigated which specific

school principal leadership practices impacted on primary school, mid-career teachers’

work commitment from the mid-career teachers’ perspective.

In this chapter the background to the study is provided (Section 1.2) before the context

of Education Queensland where the study was situated is presented (Section 1.3). An

outline of Education Queensland leadership documents is then provided (Section 1.4).

The significance of this study is presented (Section 1.5) before the purpose of the

research is identified and explained (Section 1.6). An overview of the research design

methods is outlined along with the research questions (Section 1.7). Definitions of key

terms relating to the study are then outlined (Section 1.8). This chapter concludes with

a chapter summary and an overview of this thesis (Section 1.9).

1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

A consistent drift of teachers away from the teaching profession can be detrimental to

educational systems. Any teacher attrition is of concern; however, when the more

experienced teachers leave, the associated loss of intellectual capital and experience

12 Determining leadership practices that impact on primary school, mid-career teachers’ commitment to the profession: Mid-career teachers’ perspectives.

within a system is of even greater significance. There are numerous studies about

beginning teachers leaving the profession but significantly fewer about mid-career,

primary teachers and their reasons for leaving, even though this cohort comprises the

majority of staff in most Australian primary schools (McKenzie, Weldon, Rowley,

Murphy, & McMillan, 2014).

Previous research (Ewing, 2001; Holden, 2016; Karsenti & Collin, 2013) has

established that teacher attrition is a serious and increasing challenge facing education

systems around the world. This existing research has also outlined the negative

implications teacher attrition can have on the jurisdictions it impacts such as the loss

of experience and knowledge when mid-career teachers leave and the associated costs

involved in replacing them with new teachers; these implications are expanded on later

in this chapter and then explored more in Chapter 2. Current research outlines that

teacher attrition is not a new phenomenon; however what is new is the fact that over

the past decade the numbers of teachers leaving the profession is beginning to outpace

the number of teachers who are available to replace them. This situation has been

described as a coming crisis for education systems globally (Sutcher, Darling-

Hammond, & Carver-Thomas, 2016).

In the United States where much of the research into teacher attrition has been

conducted, attrition rates of 40% to 50% of teachers have been calculated (Ingersoll,

Merrill & May, 2014). Australian figures are comparable to these US studies with a

review of Australian literature on teacher attrition by the Queensland College of

Teachers reporting a loss rate of anywhere from 8% to 50% of Australian teachers

(Queensland College of Teachers, 2013). While the figures quoted above are of great


significance to understanding the phenomenon of teacher attrition, they do pertain to

teachers in general, at all stages of their career. The above figures do not separate the

more experienced, mid-career teachers who are the focus of this study, from the

beginning teachers, that is, those within their first five years of teaching and amongst

who attrition has traditionally been quite common. It should be noted at this time that

not all teacher attrition is negative to schools and educational systems, a concept which

will be discussed in Chapter 2.

Existing research states that the first five years of a teacher’s career are the pivotal

years for deciding whether to remain with or change professions (Clandinin, Long,

Schaefer, Downey, Steeves, Pinnegar, McKenzie-Robblee, & Wnuk, 2015; Lindqvist,

Nordänger, & Carlsson, 2014). Around the western world an increasing number of

beginning teachers elect to leave the profession before completing their fifth year and

this figure has been steadily rising (Buchanan, 2010; Buchanan, Prescott, Schuck,

Aubusso, & Burke, 2013; O’Brien, Goddard, & Keeffe, 2007).

Finding the exact rates of teacher attrition has proved problematic due to inconsistent

research results and unavailable data (Gray & Taie, 2015; Hanna & Pennington, 2015;

Mason & Matas, 2015). Eleven years ago O’Brien, Goddard and Keeffe (2007)

reported that as many as one-third of all new teachers left the teaching profession

within their first five years. Subsequent studies have suggested this number has

continued to rise both in Australia and overseas (Clandinin, et al., 2015; Ingersoll et

al., 2014).


In Australia, conservative estimates suggest as many as 25% of beginning teachers

leave the profession within their first five years of employment. Gallant and Riley

(2014) suggest that around 40% of these beginner teachers actually exit the teaching

profession within their first year. While the exact attrition rates of teachers may be

hard to determine, what is well documented are the reasons teachers give for reaching

their decision to leave the profession. These reasons are influenced by many factors

(Cameron & Lovett, 2015; McInerney, Ganotice, King, Marsh, & Morin, 2015),

including principal leadership practices (Burkhauser, 2016; Dou, et al., 2016; Holden,

2016; Huang, 2017). Whilst it is acknowledged that many influences are in play when

teachers make the decision to leave the profession, this current research is concerned

with school principal leadership practices and the influence they have on teacher

commitment, specifically on mid-career teachers, i.e. teachers past the five year mark

of their career.

The research into teacher commitment clearly outlines that the first five years of a

teacher’s career appear pivotal to teacher attrition, with some teacher loss to be

somewhat expected during this early career period as new teachers decide if they really

are suited to the teaching profession (Buchanan, 2010; Buchanan, et al., 2013;

O’Brien, et al., 2007). However, attrition of teachers past this five year mark (mid-

career teachers), should be of concern to educational systems, as traditionally these

teachers have made a decision to pursue teaching as a lifelong career and have

remained in teaching until retirement. More recent studies are showing that teacher

attrition within this mid-career cohort is increasing at an alarming rate (Bowles &

Arnup, 2016; Hartsel, 2016).


Bowles and Arnup (2016) interviewed 160 Australian teachers who had taught for up

to ten years. Of this group, one third stated that they intended to leave their teaching

career before retirement age. This data should be of great interest to educational

systems as these particular teachers are past the early career stage where historically

the majority of teacher attrition occurred (Buchanan, 2010; Buchanan, et al., 2013).

What we have seen more recently, across education systems, is a new phenomenon

where the older and more experienced teachers, who in the past provided stability to

school workforces, are increasingly re-evaluating their career choices.

A change of career after the five year mark is usually a sign of a significant change in

a teachers’ ongoing work commitment to the teaching profession (Howes & Goodman-

Delahunty, 2015; Ingersoll, Merrill, & Stuckey, 2014; Lindqvist & Nordänger, 2016).

To have any chance of addressing the drift of mid-career teachers, it is important to

identify the reasons for their waning commitment. If the reasons can be identified,

perhaps the drift can be reversed and the more experienced teachers retained within

the profession. This study defined the concept of work commitment in line with the

career change concept outlined in the research of Howes and Goodman-Delahunty

(2015), Ingersoll, et al., (2014) and Lindqvist and Nordänger (2016). For this research,

work commitment is therefore identified as a commitment the teaching profession not

just a commitment to a specific teaching position or particular school.

Current research offers many factors for teacher attrition which this study has

classified as either internal or external to the school context. A school principal can

influence the internal school factors through their leadership practices, but has little

influence over the external factors. Greater understanding of the internal factors can


assist in informing leadership practices which impact on mid-career teachers’ work

commitment and help enhance mid-career teacher retention. Both internal and external

factors will be described in more detail in Chapter 2.

When discussing the attrition rate of teachers it is important to note that the career

research literature traces significant changes around the current concept of career. This

has emerged from Douglas Hall’s (1976) protean career theory which described an

orientation to careers where the individual and not the organisation was the agentic

force. Over forty years ago, Hall (1976), a psychologist researching in the field of

organisational behaviour, began describing newly emerging changes within the

workforce where careers were driven by the individual and their needs and not by

loyalty to an organisation, as had been the tradition. Within this career construct,

workers changed careers and jobs in pursuit of personal internal goals instead of

pursuing an ongoing relationship of commitment to one organisation for their entire

work life (Lyons, Schweitzer, & Ng, 2015). This idea of changing careers for personal

reasons resonates more strongly in Generation X, Y and Millennials as opposed to

workers of times previous. It is a way many of today’s entrants to the workforce think

and design their work career (Becton, Walker, & Jones‐Farmer, 2014) and could

explain increasing teacher attrition rates, however research into this causal effect is

currently inconclusive.

There is no doubt the concept of protean careers accounts for some teachers’ decisions

to leave the teaching profession (Donald, Baruch, & Ashleigh, 2017; Watt &

Richardson, 2008); however, the exact number of teachers impacted by this concept is

still open to debate. There are conflicting findings in the more recent research into the


drivers behind retention and attrition of mid-career teachers. Hartsel (2016) found that

the number of teachers driven by a protean agenda were but a small proportion of the

overall percentage of teachers who elected to leave and attributed other workplace

factors as the catalyst for these decisions. Other researchers (Labarre, 2013; Buchanan,

et al., 2013; Howes & Goodman-Delahunty, 2015) found that overall teachers continue

to view teaching as a long term profession and a vocation, electing to pursue a long

term work commitment by being driven to make a difference in students’ lives. While

teachers did elect to leave teaching early in their careers, once past the five year mark,

teachers expressed a commitment to work and a desire to remain in the career.

Other studies, however, concluded differently and have shown an increase in career

change amongst teachers, with teaching no longer viewed a job for life (Arnup &

Bowles, 2016; Gallant & Riley, 2014). These studies report that teachers past the five

year mark in their career are no longer working with a view that they will remain with

teaching until they retire. Some studies see this construct as a positive and advocate

that teacher attrition is not necessarily a bad thing in terms of school renewal and

reinvigoration (Adnot, Dee, Katz, & Wyckoff, 2017). The specific reasons for the

contradiction of findings are still open to speculation; however a common trend

evident in the majority of these studies is one of declining work commitment in

teachers who do elect to leave the profession.

This current study focussed on this majority of teachers who have passed the five year

mark in their career and do not want to change careers for change’s sake but rather

leave the teaching profession due to a declining work commitment. It also investigated

the link between principal leadership practices and mid-career work commitment. As


stated previously, the term ‘work commitment’ for the purpose of this study refers to

a commitment to the teaching profession, not just to a school or an organisation.

Therefore, this study is about teachers who leave the teaching profession entirely, and

don’t just change schools or jurisdictions. This point does not deny the existence and

importance of other forms of commitment some of which are described later in this

chapter in Section 1.8.4 and expanded upon later in Chapter 2.

1.2.1 Positioning the Researcher

As a current school principal working in Education Queensland, the link between

principal leadership practices and mid-career teacher work commitment has been a

growing area of interest of mine and of great significance to me. Throughout my career

I have seen mid-career teachers leave the profession and have experienced the

associated loss that this attrition brings to schools (see Holden, 2016). As a mid-career

teacher, I have also experienced the organisational cultural change within schools

described in the literature (such as Burkhauser, 2016; Dou, et al., 2016; Huang, 2017)

as new leaders enact policies using different leadership practices than the principals

before them. And finally, as a school principal, I have experienced the tension of

having to balance the delivering of ever increasing departmental demands (Riley,

2014a) while trying to support teachers’ commitment to the job.

The role of a school leader is not easy even in larger schools where the principal is

supported by deputy principals and curriculum leaders. The leadership decisions and

practices which are implemented at schools are primarily decided and driven by the

school principal (Riley, 2014a). In helping me reflect and grow my own leadership

capabilities I wished to pursue some research into the impact of leadership practices


and teacher commitment which proved the catalyst for this current study. This research

aimed to advance existing research by focussing on mid-career teacher work

commitment to identify the specific principal leadership practices which can impact

on this from the teachers’ perspective.

1.3 CONTEXT OF EDUCATION QUEENSLAND

This study into school principal leadership practices was conducted within Education

Queensland state primary schools in Queensland, Australia; it is therefore prudent to

give a brief outline of the context of the Queensland state school system and school

principal selection process.

Education Queensland is the governing body for government, public schools in the

state of Queensland, Australia. Queensland is the second largest state in Australia

covering an area of 1.853 million square kilometres with the most widely spread and

isolated schools in the nation. Education Queensland oversees approximately 1240

government primary and high schools catering for around 488 000 students (Education

Queensland, 2015). These schools vary in size from small remote schools in regional

areas consisting of one teacher to schools of up to 3000 students located in

metropolitan Brisbane. Each state school in Queensland has an appointed principal to

lead the daily site operations of the school. The state of Queensland is divided into

seven educational regions and this study was undertaken in one of these, the South

East Region, located in the south east, predominantly metropolitan and urban corner

of Queensland just south of Brisbane and extending through the Gold Coast to the New

South Wales border.


The schools selected for this research were all metropolitan primary schools with

student populations of 500 students or more. Schools of this size, in the south east

corner of Queensland, were chosen because their staffing make-up would ensure a

number of mid-career teachers would be employed at each school. Remote and

regional schools are smaller in size, in comparison to the metropolitan ones, meaning

fewer staff. These smaller schools also often have young and early career teachers,

appointed to their first teaching position, as the mainstays of their staff. Metropolitan

schools, in general, have staff that have already undertaken their initial service out of

the city areas, and have returned back to the south east corner resulting in a much more

experienced staff with higher numbers of mid-career teachers.

The size of such schools (over 500 students, equating to 20 classes or more) used in

this research meant a number of mid-career teachers would be on staff. This greater

number of teachers on each school site helped keep the anonymity of survey

participants as several teachers completed the surveys not just an identifiable one or

two. The principals of such sized schools would rarely be on their first appointment

and as such would have a range of experiences in leading and managing mid-career

teachers and be well placed to give their perspectives on influencing mid-career

teacher work commitment.

Primary schools were chosen for this research, in preference to high schools, as the

leadership structure from principal to teacher is much more direct in a primary school

(Bennett, Woods, Wise, & Newton, 2007). High schools, in contrast, run as

departments with each faculty having a head of department (HOD) who has direct

responsibility for managing and leading a group of classroom teachers within their


specific subject area. The HODs can number over ten in large schools and are the daily

line managers of their teachers. The HODs themselves are aligned to a deputy

principal, with the school principal overseeing the deputies. It is common practice for

each department to have a separate staff room located all around the school and it is

typical for teachers in large secondary schools to have little direct interaction with the

school principal. Within the secondary school structure, classroom teachers are quite

removed from the direct leadership practices of their school principal (Bennett, et al.,

2007).

Primary schools, by design, have a much clearer line of sight between the teacher and

the principal. Primary school deputy principals may oversee parts of the school

programs, and have some supervision over teachers within their area of concern,

however direct line management generally still resides with the principal. Within a

primary school structure all teachers share one staffroom which is usually located in

the central office building. If the school has a head of curriculum (HOC) - and not all

primary schools do, and those that do are only entitled to one - this role is seen as a

leader of content not a leader of teachers. In primary schools, the principal remains the

day to day line manager of teachers meaning teachers are directly impacted by the

principal’s daily leadership practices (Bennett, et al., 2007). For the above mentioned

reasons, this study elected to concentrate on the leadership practices of state primary

school principals in larger sized schools.

Since 2008, state school principal appointments in Queensland have been determined

through a process of application and assessment by merit against five selection criteria

based on the five leadership domains outlined in Education Queensland’s leadership


framework; Leadership Matters Leadership Capabilities for Education Queensland

Principals (Education Queensland, 2010). This framework was first published in 2006

and was refined in 2008 and refined again in response to the Master’s Report (2009)

in 2010. To be successfully promoted a principal must write and express their

demonstrated capabilities within each leadership domain and accompany this with

evidence. The applicant’s current supervisor will also provide a reflection of the

applicant’s school leadership ability based on the five leadership domains. Successful

applicants are shortlisted and are asked to provide further explanation of their

suitability to the role through an interview process.

As a practising principal, this framework has daily and operational significance to me

which is why it was selected for this research. It is acknowledged that since the

publication of Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010), national standards

and supporting documents have also been developed, however at the time of

undertaking the interviews for this research, these did not yet inform the daily practices

of state primary school principals in the state schools where the data was gathered.

Prior to this current principal selection process, aspiring leaders wrote about their

suitability to lead a specific school and outlined why they would be suited for the

leadership position. Their written application was not based on specific criteria as no

formal framework for leadership existed. The applicants who were shortlisted also

faced an interview panel which assessed the applicants on local beliefs as opposed to

a central leadership capability framework. This system was very open to local

interpretation but was the beginning of selection criteria and an attempt at using a

comparative model to find the best applicant.


Previous to this selection methodology, the state primary school principal selection

process saw individuals work their way through a promotional pathway primarily

based on the size of the school. Teachers wishing to become a principal began their

leadership career at a small one teacher school in the more remote areas of Queensland,

progressing to two teacher and smaller schools, until eventually they were in line for

promotion to a larger metropolitan school. The linear leadership pathway did not allow

for people to enter at any position apart from the start of the continuum and as such

excluded many teachers, particularly females, from being promoted if they did not

serve their time successfully in the remote, regional small schools first. This method

of finding school leaders was not based primarily on the leadership practices of

potential applicants, but rather was one of compliance and ‘ticking the right boxes’ as

your career progressed (Limerick & Andersen, 1999a, 1999b).

In 1990, Education Queensland released the policy document ‘Focus on Schools’

(Education Queensland, 1990) which discussed the concept of devolution of authority,

responsibility and accountability to a school level. This was part of a movement away

from central control and authority and was the beginning stages of reviewing the

school principal’s role. In line with this changing perspective of the requirements of

effective leadership, Education Queensland initiated the establishment of a promotion

policy in the 1990s which was designed to be more equitable and to better identify

leadership skills and demonstrated practices in applicants. This new policy direction

within Education Queensland reflected the growing recognition that a ‘good’

classroom teacher did not necessarily make a ‘good’ school principal. This leadership

policy evolved over time and in 2008 (in conjunction with the University of


Queensland) led to the publication of Education Queensland’s current leadership

framework – Leadership Matters; Leadership Capabilities for Education Queensland

Principals (Education Queensland, 2010). The document describes policy indicators

for highly effective principals within the domains of personal, relational, intellectual,

educational and organisational leadership (Education Queensland, 2010). Presently

principal candidates must demonstrate capability in all five of these domains to be

considered for promotion and provide evidence with endorsement of their leadership

practices.

While other educational jurisdictions have similar research-informed frameworks in

place, the Leadership Matters framework (Education Queensland, 2010), is

particularly important for this study as the research project was conducted within

Queensland state schools. As this specified framework underpinned the appointment

process of state primary school principals, it was used as the tool to help classify,

interpret and analyse the collected data around the impact principal leadership

practices have on mid-career teacher work commitment.

1.4 EDUCATION QUEENSLAND LEADERSHIP DOCUMENTS

Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) was developed by Education

Queensland in conjunction with the University of Queensland, to give school

principals a generic framework for understanding the different facets of leadership

required for state school principals. It describes the knowledge, practices and skills a

school principal should possess and display which are classified into five distinct

leadership domains: relational, educational, organisational, intellectual and personal.

It is a practice based framework which deliberately avoided being linked to one


specific theoretical model so that it can be used across the different leadership theories

emphasised by Education Queensland.

Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) is used to underpin the selection

and recruitment of state school principals evaluating a principal’s leadership capability

against this framework. While Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) is

positioned as a broad framework, it is a very short document consisting of only four

pages. It was designed to be a guide for leadership rather than an explicit blueprint for

prescribed actions based on one theoretical perspective.

Since its publication, Education Queensland has developed other documents to

augment Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) and support the

development of leadership. One such document is Education Queensland’s Principal’s

Capability and Leadership Framework (2012) for small, medium and large schools.

While these later documents give a more detailed outline of the desired skills, practices

and behaviours of principals for specific sized schools, they still are organised under

the five leadership domains originally outlined in Leadership Matters (Education

Queensland, 2010). As such, Leadership Matters continues to be the reference point

for school leadership and the five domains of leadership identified are still used to

underpin the interview and written selection process of state school principals.

At the time of the development of Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010)

the state and territory education systems in Australia operated independently from each

other. There was very little federal oversight and each state and territory developed


their own training and standards for teachers and principals with little consistency or

collaboration. The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young

Australians (2008) addressed this lack of consistency and led to the commitment of

the states and territories to a national curriculum, a common number of years a child

undertakes school and significantly for school leadership, the creation of the Australian

Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). This national body was tasked

with creating a national standard framework for principals across Australia which was

first published in 2011.

The Australian Professional Standard for Principals (AITSL, 2011a) originally

published in 2011 and upgraded in 2015, provides a national leadership framework

setting out what school principals across Australia are expected to know, understand

and do to be successful in their role. The standard recognises leadership requirements

that principals draw upon across five areas of professional practice. While these five

domains of leadership practice in the AITSL standards differ in name to the ones in

Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010), there is clear alignment between

the description of domains and leadership practices of both documents as illustrated

below in Table 1.1. In the context of leadership with Education Queensland, both of

these documents play a key role in shaping school leadership.

Table 1.1 Comparison of leadership domains: AITSL and Leadership Matters

AITSL Leadership Matters Leading teaching and learning Educational leadership

Developing self and others Personal leadership

Leading improvement, innovation and change Intellectual leadership


Leading the management of the school Organisational leadership Engaging and working with the community Relational Leadership

The Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) document was selected for this

current research as the basis for the content analysis of data for two key reasons.

Firstly, this research was conducted in Queensland schools with Queensland principals

and mid-career teachers so it was felt that the Queensland leadership document aligned

well with the location of participants. Secondly, Leadership Matters (Education

Queensland, 2010) has been embedded longer in the principal selection process in

Queensland schools in comparison to the AITSL standard which is still viewed as

being relatively new with the latest version only published in 2015. Leadership

Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) was the document most familiar to the

participants in this current research and the document primarily referred to when this

research began in 2013.

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS STUDY

The influence of school principal leadership has been the focus of much research

attention about teacher commitment over the last four decades. As early as 1989,

Kozlowski and Doherty (1989) identified the school principal, as having the most

significant impact within the work environment. This is understandable as the school

principal, through their leadership practices, can directly influence factors such as a

teacher’s well-being, the school tone and the broader work culture of a school. These

factors, which are heavily influenced by a principal’s leadership practices, can impact

positively or negatively on teachers’ work commitment depending on how the

leadership practices are enacted (Boyd et al., 2011; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins,


2008; Price, 2012). With ever increasing principal autonomy in Queensland schools,

the impact of principal leadership practices and the influence a principal can have on

the school site remains a significant and increasing factor. The concept of leadership

and a definition of leadership practices are discussed in more depth in Section 1.8.

The moderating effects of school principal leadership practices on teachers have been

explained by different theoretical models of leadership. Some effects of leadership

practices are positive for workers as the leader’s practices can act as a buffer between

the greater organisational structure and the worker (Kelloway & Dimoff, 2017;

LePine, Zhang, Crawford, & Rich, 2016). These positive leadership practices; such as

personal connections with staff, allowing for individual circumstances, workplace

culture and tone, interpreting the greater organisational demands and localising these

to suit the individual workplace and supporting workers to perform their roles, can

improve employee work commitment and help prevent stress and burnout. However,

non-supportive leadership practices can increase the stress and dissatisfaction of

employees leading to lower work commitment, specifically when these practices are

tyrannical or control orientated in nature (Kelloway & Dimoff, 2017; LePine, et al.,

2016).

This current research inquiry into mid-career teacher views of principal leadership

practices is based on these previous findings which assert that a school principal’s

leadership practices can influence the work commitment of teachers (Burkhauser,

2016; Dou, et al., 2016; Holden, 2016; Huang, 2017). This topic is explored in more

detail in Chapter 2. It can be assumed from previous research findings that the principal

whose leadership practices were seen as positive by teachers are likely to have a more


consistent and committed workforce. Concurrently, a principal who enacts negative

leadership practices from the mid-career teachers’ perspective may be more likely to

work with less committed staff which may lead to increased teacher turnover. What is

not known, and what this study investigates, is which specific principal leadership

practices impact teacher commitment from the perspective of mid-career teachers.

If a clearer relationship between specific leadership practices and the impact on mid-

career teacher work commitment is understood, leadership training and ongoing

leadership development could focus on the leadership practices of school principals to

ensure a positive correlation between the principal leadership practices and mid-career

teacher commitment, this would ensure that schools receive the best possible outcomes

from both principals and teachers. To investigate these assumed relationships, this

research explored the relationship between school principals’ leadership practices and

mid-career teacher work commitment by seeking to understand the impact of specific

leadership practices on work commitment from the perspective of mid-career teachers.

No previous study in Queensland state schools has taken a practitioners’ perspective

and asked mid-career stage teachers their views on what practices they would like their

principals to display to improve their work commitment and ultimately teacher

retention rates. This study aimed to address this gap and investigated mid-career

primary school teachers’ views about leadership practices of school principals through

a two phased, mixed methods approach. Initially, the perspectives of ex mid-career

teachers and current primary school principals were sought through interviews, before

expanding on the data collection through a survey of current mid-career teachers.


The results from the interviews and surveys were then used to reflect on the current

leadership framework of Education Queensland based on Leadership Matters

(Education Queensland, 2010) to evaluate whether the mid-career teachers’ views

aligned with the leadership capabilities sought by the Education Queensland

promotion process. Through this analysis and identification of the specific leadership

practices mid-career teachers’ desired, from their school principals, educational

organisations around the world may be better placed to support mid-career teachers’

commitment through school principal leadership development and address the

increasing trend of teacher attrition.

1.6 PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY

The purpose of this study was to explore mid-career primary school teachers’ views of

principal leadership practices which impact on their work commitment. The teachers’

views of principals’ leadership practices, and how these practices impacted on

teachers’ decisions to remain or leave the education profession, were used to inform

school principals’ leadership practices with a view of enhancing mid-career teacher

work commitment.

For the purpose of this research, teacher attrition was defined as the act of a teacher

leaving the teaching profession (not just their school, school role or organisation),

before retirement age, to pursue another career or form of work (Ingersoll, 2001). The

engagement with an alternative form of work is seen as a significant factor when

discussing the definition of attrition, as this helped eliminate people who left

employment to start or raise a family and may return to their career after a break, or


those people who no longer needed to work due to their economic situation. These

situations did not fit the definition of attrition used for this research.

Teacher attrition, defined by this study, was the permanent loss of a teacher from the

profession, before retirement age to another career because their commitment was no

longer to teaching (Ingersoll, 2001). By engaging in work other than teaching, the

individual is showing that they still need or wish to work; they just no longer want to

remain in the teaching profession. ‘Work commitment’ for this study, therefore

pertained to a commitment to the teaching profession as opposed to other

interpretations of ‘commitment’ which may see a connection to a particular school or

educational jurisdiction. Participants in this research were clearly explained the

adopted definition of ‘work commitment’ both in the interviews and the survey

introductions to avoid any misinterpretations. The definition used in this study also

aligned well with the context of Education Queensland where these teachers were

employed.

Within the Queensland state education system, teachers are employed by the state

government, not a school or region, and are part of a state wide staffing process which

is centrally organised outside of the individual schools. This system means teachers

cannot easily leave a school if they are unhappy but rather have to go through the state

wide transfer process with no guarantees of movement. If they do move, their new

school could potentially be anywhere in the state and with the size of Queensland this

could see them moved many hours away from their present location or to some very

remote location necessitating a complete move of home. The circumstances of this

transfer system often inhibits lateral movement meaning when a teacher’s work


commitment declines in Queensland state schools, they often choose to leave the

profession altogether and not go through the process of transferring and changing

schools.

Work place attrition is not restricted to the teaching profession and is a part of all work

forces. It can be seen to be both a positive and negative concept. In education systems,

it could be argued that some mid-career teachers need to leave the profession due to

their reluctance to change their teaching practice or undergo professional renewal. As

such these losses could be positioned as beneficial to the school or system (Adnot, et

al., 2017). There is also growing evidence that some teachers who do leave teaching

later return to the profession (Lindqvist, et al., 2014) having more of a career break

than an actual permanent career change in line with this study’s definition of attrition.

This is an emerging area of research with limited studies (such as Lindqvist, et al.,

2014) undertaken in Sweden meaning that the percentage of teachers who leave and

return, particularly in Australia, are yet to be determined to any degree of certainty and

is an area for further research.

What this present study is concerned with is the increasing and permanent move of

mid-career teachers away from the teaching profession which research tells us is

happening in ever increasing rates. The attrition of such teachers, particularly when

happening faster than natural rates would suggest, has negative implications for

educational systems on three levels. Firstly financial, systems need to invest money in

training and recruitment to stem such losses (Watlington, Shockley, Guglielmino, &

Felsher, 2010). Secondly, intellectual capital, which is lost as experienced and long

serving teachers leave (Holden, 2016). Thirdly work place culture, teacher attrition


may be a sign of deeper cultural issues within the workplace contributing to teacher

losses (Ingersoll, 2001). Beyond the ideas mentions above, Holden (2016) believes it

is important to retain competent mid-career teachers, because their expertise is

important cultural capital to schools.

Mid-career teachers need to be retained. They enhance networks, norms, and trust, and

facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit (Holden, 2016). Their importance

has been highlighted in additional, teacher specific research (Ost, 2014; Tsui, 2009)

which found experienced teachers had more detailed and relevant planning and had

superior interactions with students compared to their beginning teacher counterparts.

These studies also suggest the importance of utilising experienced teachers as mentors

for beginning teachers to enhance beginning teacher development. Isenberg,

Glazerman, Bleeker, Johnson, Lugo-Gil, Grider and Britton, (2009) also believe that

mid-career teachers have an important role to play in developing new staff and in

helping the school as a whole achieve better outcomes. Therefore, based on previous

research, retaining and keeping mid-career teachers committed to the profession is

important for all education systems. Holden (2016) believes that one of the ways to do

this is by instilling a stronger commitment to the profession which can be influenced

through school principal leadership practices.

Teacher attrition is a complex construct that includes the effects of leadership practices

on work commitment. Previous research into school leadership and teacher work

commitment (Boyd, et al., 2011; Burkhauser, 2017; Dou, et al., 2016; Holden, 2016;

Huang, 2017) has shown that the most significant influence on mid-career teachers’

work commitment after their first five years of teaching is school leadership enacted


through the school principals’ leadership practices. These leadership practices play a

key role in a mid-career teacher’s decision to remain in the teaching profession.

Existing studies into different school leadership constructs (Aydin, Sarier, & Uysal,

2013; Brezicha, Bergmark, & Mitra, 2015; Bush & Glover, 2014) have analysed the

effects transactional, transformational and instructional leaders have on schools and

student outcomes which touch on teachers in general – but not specifically on their

work commitment. Studies such as Day, Gu and Sammons (2016) and Kythreotis and

Antoniou (2015) have also discussed school principal practices that may improve

student outcomes and school results, yet have not explored simultaneously whether

teachers view these as desired leadership practices and what impact they may have on

teacher work commitment.

There is little available research on teachers’ views of principal leadership practices

that may instil commitment to the profession. Also of significance to this current study

is the fact that little research has built a theory of leadership practice from the mid-

career teacher perspective. Most existing studies are framed from a hierarchical, top-

down structural, leadership paradigm where the school principal’s practices are

imposed onto teachers and the outcomes are then discussed to assess the effectiveness

of that leadership practice (Aydin, et al., 2013; Brezicha, et al., 2015; Bush & Glover,

2014).

1.7 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DESIGN

This research was designed to determine the impact specific school principal

leadership practices have on mid-career teacher work commitment. Specifically it

addressed the following three research questions.


1. What are the specific school principal leadership practices which impact most

on mid-career teachers’ work commitment from the perspective of mid-career

teachers?

2. To what extent do mid-career teachers’ views of leadership practices, in

relation to their work commitment, align with the leadership practices outlined

in Education Queensland’s Leadership Matters document?

3. What alignment exists between the views of mid-career teachers and school

principals in relation to principal leadership practices and mid-career teacher

work commitment?

This research used both qualitative and quantitative methods to investigate the research

aims. A mixed method approach was chosen for this study as this process is noted as

a way to strengthen research design (Creswell, 2012) and the two methodologies can

be combined effectively to undertake a research task (Creswell, 2012). This process

proved appropriate for this present study which was focussed on practice and

perspectives of practice. Initially the perspectives of ex-teachers and current state

school principals were sought and their ideas were aligned to the five leadership

domains outlined in Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010). These

perspectives and the resultant impact of the five domains were then re-examined

through a survey instrument.

There were two phases to the data collection in this research. Phase 1 used an interview

methodology with two separate groups. Group One consisted of five mid-career

teachers who had recently left their teaching position to pursue other careers. These

former state primary school teachers were interviewed to investigate reasons for their

career change and to ascertain what principal leadership practices, if any, may have


led to their decision to leave the teaching profession. Group Two consisted of five

current state primary school principals. The principals were interviewed to ascertain

what leadership practices they had deliberately employed to impact on mid-career

teacher work commitment. The themes from the two sets of interviews in Phase 1 were

matched to the Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) framework and used

to inform the survey instrument in phase 2. The survey instrument was designed to

reflect these inductive themes as well as deductive elements drawn from the literature

review and the Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) framework.

Phase 2 of this research involved a survey instrument which was administered to 142

mid-career teachers currently working in Queensland state primary schools. The

survey sought to investigate which specific principal leadership practices current mid-

career teachers felt impacted on their work commitment. This cross-sectional approach

to data collection was chosen for several reasons, most notable a large number of

quality studies involving teachers have used this survey methodology, for example Gu

(2016) and Kidger, Brockman, Tilling, Campbell, Ford, Araya, King and Gunnell

(2016). The other key strength of a cross-sectional survey is that the complete data set

is available immediately (Creswell, 2012).

The data from both interview and survey phases was analysed with respect to the five

leadership domains outlined by Education Queensland in their leadership framework

Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) – educational, personal, relational,

intellectual and organisational. This data was used to identify the emergence of key

trends or themes from participants and ascertain the impact each domain had on mid-

career teacher work commitment. This information on the impact of each leadership


domain on mid-career teacher commitment was then used to draw conclusions and

recommendations about principals’ leadership and inform practice.

1.8 DEFINITION OF TERMS

The following definitions are provided to assist with understanding the various terms

used in this study.

1.8.1 Principal

Within a school setting leadership is often invested – or expected of – several people

in positions of authority who occupy various roles. School leaders are those persons

who provide direction and exert influence in order to achieve the school’s goals and

various positions have varying influence on others within a school setting. Despite

leadership in schools being distributed among many stakeholders, there is always a

formal position for the one person tasked with leading the school on behalf of their

employer - the school principal. The principal is the position of most influence and

the key leader at each school.

The role of the principal as the most significant and important site leader at the school

has been established by previous research (Boyd, Grossman, Ing, Lankford, Loeb, &

Wyckoff, 2011; Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2013; Deal & Peterson, 2016; Price &

Moolenaar, 2015). It is this school principal role which exerts the most leadership

influence throughout the work site. For the purpose of this document the terms head

teacher, headmaster, school administrator and principal are recognised and treated as

different terms used to describe identical positions in different educational

jurisdictions. For consistency and reflecting the official term for the appointed formal


school leader used in Queensland where this study was undertaken, the term principal

was used throughout this research.

1.8.2 Leadership Practices

Leadership has been studied from many perspectives. The practices and traits of

individuals form the basis of the classical leadership theories. Researchers

investigating the concept of leadership are therefore faced with the challenge of a range

of definitions of leadership. Early researchers such as Bennis (1959) reflected the

hierarchical and positional component of traditional transactional leadership by stating

leadership is “the process by which an agent induces a subordinate to behave in a

desired manner” (p. 295). Bass and Bass (2008) reflected a more transformational or

inspirational view of leadership stating leadership is an exchange of values between

leaders and followers for the common good. Other researchers such as Charan (2008)

simply stated that leadership is about providing direction and “the ability to mobilize

others” (p. 18), while Murray, Chua, Bond, Lunsford and Padilla (2015) believed

leadership is about intentionally influencing others and having a degree of power over

them. From the above range of identified definitions, it is apparent that there are varied

opinions and inconsistencies over leadership definitions.

Within the school context, leadership is the actions of the school principal which

influence enact and inform others about school direction. These leadership practices

reflect the leader’s operationalising of this intent. Often these practices are not

confined to one leadership theory or framework but do reflect a principal’s deeper

beliefs of leadership either internally or externally influenced. This study recognised

that school principals may operate under a broad umbrella within a range of leadership


definitions and the teachers surveyed would respond to the leadership practices

demonstrated by a number of school principals across a number of Queensland state

school sites.

It is important to note at this point that this study made a distinction between the terms

practices and traits. These terms describe two distinctly different attributes. Practices

are the behaviours and actions that are demonstrated by a leader. Practices relate to

what a leader does and how a leader operates (Leithwood, et al., 2008). The leadership

practices are the results of a leader’s actions and can be quite evident to the mid-career

teachers who are affected by them. This current study was concerned with leadership

practices as it is these that can impact on teachers daily and influence their work

commitment.

Leadership traits by contrast, are the inherent characteristics or attributes of a leader

which may filter a leader’s practices. Traits are not always clearly identifiable. Early

research into leadership (Harbinson & Myers, 1959) focussed on the characteristics of

the leader or ‘great man’ and how these characteristics impact on people being led.

More recent research and leadership literature (Nahavandi, 2016; Northouse, 2015,

2017) demonstrated a change in focus to situated practices as the defining aspects of

leadership. Leadership today is not about the characteristics or personality of a leader

and who they are, but rather about what they do and how they operate and identify

through their actions and practices.

Leadership practices are defined by Northouse (2015) as the interactions between

leaders and followers. Northouse (2015) stressed that leadership practices are pivotal


in leadership and distinguishes the effectiveness of some leaders. The problem with

many previous studies on leadership is their inattention to leadership practice and their

focus on the actual leader. Northouse (2017) explained that these studies dwell mostly

on the ‘what’ of leadership – structures, functions, routines and roles – rather than the

‘how’ of school leadership – the daily performance of leadership routines, functions

and structures. The ‘how’ is of vital importance according to Northouse (2017), as

leadership practice centres not only on what leaders do, but how and why they do it.

Leadership practices are also observable by others such as mid-career teachers.

Leadership practices emerge through the interactions of leaders with followers in

varying situations. It is this interaction and influence on others through their practices

which allow leaders to be able to operate as true leaders and empower people to engage

in change. For many researchers (Anderson, 2010; Bass & Bass, 2008; Beerel, 2009;

Nahavandi, 2016; Northouse, 2015) leadership embodies the practice of empowering

others to believe that change is necessary. A leader, through their leadership practices,

will cope with change, define the direction of change and engage people in the change

process (Anderson, 2010; Bass & Bass, 2008; Beerel, 2009; Nahavandi, 2016;

Northouse, 2015). How successful a leader is at engaging and sustaining change can

be a measure of their leadership ability – particularly when working with mid-career

teachers who are have experienced a number of change cycles.

1.8.3 Mid-career teachers

The stage of a teacher’s career is often related to job commitment. Some research (Day

& Gu, 2009; Guglielmi, Bruni, Simbula, Fraccaroli, & Depolo, 2016) reported that

longer teaching experience is associated with higher levels of job satisfaction, work


commitment and teacher performance. In contrast to this, research conducted by

Orlando (2014) and Veldman, Admiraal, van Tartwijk, Mainhard, and Wubbels (2016)

found that teachers who have taught longer are less committed and satisfied, and that

teachers at different career stages had different needs regarding principal leadership

behaviours. As these two studies have presented contradictory findings, this clearly is

an area for further research.

In regards to the stages of a teacher’s career, research differs as to the exact

composition and description of these stages. Steffy and Wolfe (2001) described six

stages of a teacher’s career which are defined more by performance, confidence and

behaviours rather than length of service. A drawback in using this model and

measuring teachers’ career stage by performance goals is that potentially a teacher may

not move through all stages even if they remain teaching until retirement age. Previous

research (Burden, 1982; Cron & Slocum, 1986; Hall & Nougaim, 1968) identified time

in a role to complement experiences to establish a longitudinal framework of career

stage which progresses in a sequential and progressive order. Cron and Slocum (1986)

described four stages to a career, while Burden (1982) and Hall and Nougaim (1968)

described three. However, even though these researchers agreed about stages of

careers, the aspects and descriptors of each stage varied significantly. It should be

noted that these researchers used time in the job as the basis for their career stage

definitions possibly reflecting the time when careers were more stable and predictable

when this research was undertaken.

Later studies (Bilz, 2008; McCormick & Barnett, 2006) about teacher career stage

based their distinct stages on sequential steps based on combination of time in job and


capabilities and behaviours displayed by the teacher. Bilz’s (2008) study used

Podsen’s (2002) four teacher career stages – inductee, specialist, leader and steward –

while McCormick and Barnett (2006) defined four stages of their own; beginner,

establishment, maintenance and disengagement. These two models are similar in the

descriptors of each stage and make a clear distinction that; early career teachers and

teachers approaching the end of their career are distinct groups who may think and

behave differently to the teachers in the middle of their careers.

Most of the contemporary research into teacher career stages recognises three broad

stages of a teacher’s career; early, middle and late career (Day & Gu, 2009; Buchanan,

et al,. 2013; Hartsel, 2016). While the name of these stages may differ, the broad

discretion of characteristics for each stage remains similar. Most teacher career stage

models described in the research can fit under the umbrella of these three broad teacher

career stages. For the purpose of this study, a framework of teacher career stage (Table

1.2) was developed and recognised three teacher career stages based on Burden’s

(1982) early teacher career stage theory and subsequent evolutions of this.

Table 1.2 Career Stages of Teachers

Years of teaching experience0 to 5 years

After first 5 years and before

final 5 yearsFinal five years

Early Career Stage

Mid-Career Stage Late Career Stage

Practically all of the research and literature into early career teacher attrition, both

contemporary and historical, used the first five years of a teacher’s career as the time

frame of ‘early career’ (Buchanan, et al., 2013; Johnson, Down, Le Cornu, Peters,

Sullivan, Pearce, & Hunter, 2015; Lindqvist, et al., 2014; Mansfield, Beltman, & Price,


2014). Collectively these studies outlined a process where early career teachers work

through from baptism of fire and survival in their first year to an impact and mature

stage by their fifth year in the job.

This five year mark seems to be the pivotal point in time in a teacher’s career which

most of the research into early teacher retention referred to when reporting on whether

a teacher will leave teaching or not (Buchanan, et al., 2013; Lindqvist, et al., 2014;

Mason & Matas, 2015). These first five years are very significant for a teacher as

research showed that it is within this time frame that beginning teachers decided

whether they will stay in the profession long term or leave teaching all together

(Buchanan, et al., 2013; Lindqvist, et al., 2014; Mason & Matas, 2015). It is from this

teacher attrition data that the early career stage has been defined for this study as the

first five years of a teacher’s career.

The second distinct stage experienced by a teacher is mid-career stage. Teachers in

this stage have made the decision to stay within the teaching profession and are

generally committed to the profession (Hartsel, 2016). In her study into why mid-

career teachers are leaving the teaching profession, Hartsel (2016) used an interview

methodology similar to this current research and defined mid-career teachers as “a

teacher with more than five years’ experience who lacks enough years of service to

retire with full pension benefits” (p.6). Mid-career stage therefore begins after the first

five years of teaching and spans the majority of a teacher’s career.

Many other researchers have broken this mid-career teaching stage into clearly defined

subgroups recognising more than one stage of mid-career. While these divisions of


mid-career stage have been recognised and acknowledged by this study, a single mid-

career stage of teaching was used for simplicity of definition. This current research

does not suggest that all teachers within this stage have uniform consistency with their

behaviours, experiences and other factors. This is a broad grouping and it is

acknowledged that there will be variables within the group and that using greater than

five years as the sole variable to define this distinct group is a very simplistic

framework for outlining career stages.

The final career stage is the time when teachers are approaching retirement or the end

of their work careers. This stage has been described as disengagement by Cron and

Slocum (1986), teacher steward stage by Podsen (2002) and the veteran stage by Day

and Gu (2009). These researchers acknowledge that at the end stages of a teacher’s

career, teachers start thinking about their career differently and from a different

mindset. What isn’t as clearly defined in the research is when this final stage actually

begins for teachers, as the decision to retire is made with varying degrees of

premeditation for each individual. For ease of definition within this current document,

and to align with the time frame adopted for the early career teachers, the late career

stage has been defined as the final five years of a teacher’s career prior to the generally

accepted retirement age.

To ensure the greatest accuracy in selection of mid-career teachers for this study,

teachers within five years of Queensland’s retirement age of 65 were not included in

the survey process and other teachers who self-nominated that they were planning

early retirement within five years from the survey date were also excluded from this

study.


1.8.4 Work commitment

Research interest in work commitment has increased significantly since the 1990s due

to the increasing value placed on employee well-being, dedication and loyalty.

Previous research has proved the relationships between low levels of work

commitment and negative organisational outcomes such as absenteeism,

dissatisfaction and worker attrition (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 2013; Stanley,

Vandenberghe, Vandenberg, & Bentein, 2013). In a study to establish the theoretical

and empirical interrelationships between the major forms of work commitment,

Morrow (1983) found enough evidence to conceptualise five separate forms of work

commitment: organisational commitment, work ethic endorsement,

career/professional commitment, job involvement and union commitment. Among

these, career/professional commitment seems to match closely with the focus of this

study.

This multi-dimensional conceptualisation of work commitment is supported by

additional studies (Mowday, et al., 2013; Geldenhuys, Laba, & Venter, 2014),

although most of these exclude union commitment in their studies. This omission is

explained by the fact that the majority of these studies were undertaken in the United

States where union commitment is less universal and declining in applicability

(Klandermans, 2011). Klandermans (2011) identifies three categories of union

commitment; mild, moderate and militant, and identifies mild union commitment as

the growing trend of workers. The different forms of work commitment identified in

the literature are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.


In respect to this study, a person’s work commitment is viewed generically relating to

their holistic profession. Participants in the interviews were guided by questions which

clearly outlined ‘work commitment’ as an attachment or connection to the teaching

profession and not a school or school role. Similarly for the survey participants, the

oral instructions and explanations given before each survey outlined the term

‘commitment’ as a commitment to the teaching profession as opposed to a school and

ensured the correct interpretation of work commitment was used to respond to the

interview and survey questions and that participants could not use their own

interpretation.

1.9 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND THESIS OVERVIEW

Research on the determinants of teachers' job-related outcomes illustrates that school

principals have a significant bearing on teachers' work commitment (Burkhauser,

2017; Dou, et al., 2016; Huang, 2017). Although it is generally acknowledged that

leadership practices play a substantial role in influencing employee commitment, only

a few empirical studies document this relationship and none have done this from a

mid-career teacher’s perspective in Queensland state schools.

This study investigated this gap in research by analysing principal leadership practices

from the perspective of the mid-career teachers on whom the leadership practices

impacted. Unpacking the teachers’ views helped to understand the significance of

principal leadership practices and helped evaluate the effectiveness of leadership

practices with a view to improve school leadership. School leadership practices centre

not only on what school principals do, but how and why they do it and the affects these

actions have on employees. Understanding leadership practice is imperative if research


is to generate usable knowledge about and for school leadership (Du Plessis, Carroll,

& Gillies, 2015; Player, Youngs, Perrone, & Grogan, 2017).

This thesis contains a further six chapters. Chapter 2 presents a literature review giving

an historical and current overview of leadership in schools and the impact this may

have on teachers. An overview of changing leadership agendas and frameworks of

leadership is also presented to provide background to the current instructional

leadership model being promoted in Queensland state schools. Chapter 3 informs on

the research design and methodologies and describes how this specific study was

undertaken. The results of the research are provided in different sections. Chapter 4

provides the data from the former mid-career teacher interviews and provides an

analysis and discussion of the data. Chapter 5 does the same for the school principal

interviews. Chapter 6 provides a summary of the data from the surveys completed by

current mid-career teachers and gives an analysis and discussion of the survey data.

Chapter 6 also provides conclusions and comparisons of all the different data sets.

Chapter 7 contains implications and discussion of this research and is the thesis

summary and conclusion.


Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Any workplace attrition may be a symptom of deep and serious systemic flaws within

the organisation. Employee attrition can mean that workplace leadership practices and

culture may not be conducive to supporting the needs of the workers on whom the

practices impact. According to the earlier research of Bolman and Deal (1992) and

Kozlowski and Doherty (1989), leadership practices are offered as the solution to most

organisational problems. Their research concluded that leadership practices can

significantly influence the commitment of staff and ultimately their decision to remain

or leave their employment.

This assertion has been continually supported by subsequent literature such as Colbert,

Barrick and Bradley (2014), Kalidass and Bahron (2015), Mowday, Porter and Steers

(2013) and Stanley, Vandenberghe, Vandenberg and Bentein (2013) who found the

more committed an employee was, the less likely they were to leave their chosen job.

While these studies investigated workplaces in general, their themes have resonated

with later studies into teacher attrition outlining the challenge involved for school

principals in increasing teacher retention by increasing work commitment through


principal leadership practices (John, 2017; Msila, 2014; Selamat, Nordin, & Adnan,

2013).

Teacher attrition is a growing problem facing education systems round the world today

(Holden, 2016; Ingersoll, Merrill & May, 2014; Karsenti & Collin, 2013). Holden

(2016) examined teacher attrition in urban schools in Carter County, USA and linked

this attrition to five school principal leadership practices: providing leadership,

supporting new teachers, training and mentoring teaching staff, creating a positive

school climate, and promoting teacher autonomy. This study was instigated by the fact

that in the school year of 2007/08, Carter County lost a staggering 50% (7100) of its’

teachers. The career stage of teachers in Holden’s (2016) study was not highlighted.

A study undertaken by Ingersoll, Merrill and May (2014) focussed on teacher

preparation in an effort to examine the high rate of teacher attrition in the first year of

their career. They concluded that teachers with more training in teaching methods and

pedagogy, and who could observe other teachers and received feedback on their own

teaching by someone such as the school principal, were far less likely to leave teaching

after the first year on the job. Karsenti and Collin (2013) also looked into early career

teacher attrition in Canada and concluded among other findings that better support

from the school leadership team, including the school principal, would go a long way

to prevent teacher attrition.

Much of the existing research into teacher attrition is restricted to early career teachers

and the number of teachers who choose to leave within the first five years. Increasingly

later research (such as Arnup & Bowles, 2016) is showing more experienced mid-


career teachers are also electing to leave the teaching profession for significantly

different reasons to their early career counterparts. Arnup and Bowles (2016) place

attrition among Australian mid-career teachers at around 33%, an issue of growing

concern for education systems and the focus of this current research.

Many factors contribute to mid-career teachers reaching this career juncture and

making the decision to leave teaching. A teacher’s perceptions of their school working

conditions were seen in a US study in North Carolina as a major factor influencing

mid-career teacher work commitment (Burkhauser, 2017). This study suggested that

school principals may be in the best position to influence school working conditions

and that teacher ratings of the school environment depended on which principal was

leading the school, independent of other school and district contextual factors. This

study concluded that educational districts struggling with teacher turnover should

assess their workplace culture and climate and use that information to inform and

support principals (Burkhauser, 2017).

Principal leadership practices are seen to be positively linked to teacher’s decision to

leave the profession (Dou, Devos, & Valcke, 2016). Dou, et al., (2016) undertook a

study based in China of 528 teachers at various career stages and 59 school principals

and focussed on teachers and principal leadership practices. They found that principals

with a stronger leadership, particularly increased transformational leadership

practices, had a positive influence on teachers’ organisational commitment (Dou, et

al., 2016).


In another recent study in Taiwan which examined the link between student behaviour

and teacher attrition, principal leadership practices again were seen as being a crucial

factor (Huang, 2017). Huang (2017) surveyed 598 teachers across 242 primary schools

and concluded that teachers who felt supported by a school principal, who enforced

the school rules consistently, rated the school climate more highly than teachers who

felt unsupported with student behaviour. These teachers were less likely to leave

teaching (Huang, 2017). This was particularly the case with the more experienced

teachers.

Previous teacher retention research has often focussed on the relationship between

turnover and the individual teachers’ own characteristics (i.e. beginning teachers and

what types of teachers are more likely to leave the profession), the school

characteristics (physical and organisational), or a theoretical leadership framework and

the impact this may have on staff satisfaction. This current study has a focus on the

relationship between specific school principal leadership practices and mid-career

teacher work commitment. Contemporary studies which explored teacher attrition

such as Burkhauser (2016), Dou, et al., (2016), Huang (2017) and Ware and Kitsantas

(2011), identified multiple factors which may influence teachers’ satisfaction and work

commitment and through these, teacher retention, but all indicated principal leadership

as being very influential in this construct .

As outlined in Chapter 1, the factors which can impact on a teacher’s work

commitment fall into two spheres of influence; those that can be directly influenced

by the school principal through their leadership within the school setting, and those

which are not. At the school level the principal influenced factors become vitally


important to staff work commitment and retention (Holden, 2016). A better

understanding of these is essential for improving principal leadership effectiveness and

reversing mid-career teacher attrition.

2.2 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

This literature review explores the issue of teacher work commitment (Section 2.3)

and the influence a school principal may have on this (Section 2.4). Principal

leadership practices are then discussed (Section 2.5) in conjunction with the principal

leadership practise that may influence mid-career teacher work commitment (Section

2.6). Included in this section is an outline of leadership theory explaining the shift from

individual and trait based leadership to more ecological, situated and practice models.

This is followed by an explanation of the four common leadership models

Transactional (Section 2.6.1), Transformational (Section 2.6.2), Distributive (Section

2.6.3) and Instructional (Section 2.6.4) which are enacted in various ways by principals

within Education Queensland schools. A conceptual framework of Education

Queensland school leadership practices is then given (Section 2.7), and Education

Queensland’s leadership framework, Leadership Matters is then referenced (Section

2.8). A chapter conclusion is then provided (Section 2.9).

2.3 TEACHER WORK COMMITMENT

Work commitment is one of the most prominent work attitudes examined in the work

and organisational literature. Work commitment has been described as the nature of

the employee's attachment to their profession (Shahnawaz & Jafri, 2009) and as the

employee's feelings of obligation to stay with their professions which result from the

normative pressures employees experience (Viljoen & Rothmann, 2009). Other


researchers use similar definitions that refer to work commitment as an employee's

attachment, goal congruency, identification, loyalty and allegiance to their

organisation.

Mowday, et al., (2013) found strong correlations of work commitment and job

satisfaction and concluded that when employees are dissatisfied at work; they are less

committed and will look for other opportunities to leave. Mowday, et al., (2013) did

not focus on teachers for their study; however, the findings around work commitment

provide an important construct in this study of the educational employment field. This

construct is also recognised by Lok and Crawford (2004) who found that, “work

commitment and job satisfaction are important attitudes in assessing employees’

intention to quit” (p. 321). In summary, when workers are committed they will remain

with their profession. If their commitment sufficiently declines they will look to leave

and pursue alternative work options.

Mid-career teacher attrition is defined by this research as the act of a teacher, past the

five year mark in their career, leaving the teaching profession to engage in alternative

work. Research has identified work commitment as the main predictor to teacher

attrition. Studies indicate that those teachers who are less committed to their work are

more likely to leave teaching. In their study into veteran teachers, Day and Gu (2009)

concluded that the work commitment of teachers into their third or fourth decade of

teaching impacted on whether they remained in the teaching profession.

The growing sense of job dissatisfaction and a waning work commitment is an

indicator of what Hartsel (2016) describes as an emerging phenomenon of mid-career


teachers opting out of the career. Hartsel (2016) found four distinct factors which

contributed to a teacher’s work commitment one of which was support from the school

leadership team through principal leadership practices. The studies of Day and Gu

(2009) and Hartsel (2016) were conducted in the US and pertained to American

teachers and context, however the concept of mid-career teacher attrition is a global

one and overseas findings can be directly related to the Australian context (Mason &

Matas, 2015).

Mason and Matas (2015) investigated teacher attrition in Australia from a social

science perspective and concluded that not only do principal leadership practices have

influence over teacher commitment, but it is that social capital which sits in the

relational practices of leadership which has the greatest impact on teacher

commitment. Teachers who are satisfied and committed to their job and working

environment are more likely to remain in the profession and be committed to their

work. Being unsatisfied and uncommitted at work are key contributors to teachers

leaving their chosen career (Hartsel, 2016; Karsenti & Collin, 2013; Struyven &

Vanthournout, 2014) and principal leadership practise play a key role influencing

teacher commitment especially once teachers are past the first five years of their career

2.3.1 Teacher attrition

Teaching is a demanding role and high rates of teacher attrition have become

commonplace amongst early career teachers, and is now increasing amongst more

experienced, mid-career teachers (Hartsel, 2016). If teachers’ work commitment can

be influenced through the school principal’s leadership practices, then understanding

this link is vitally necessary to stem the ever increasing flow of mid-career teachers


choosing to leave the profession. In doing so, education systems will be able to

maintain an experienced and dedicated workforce.

Teacher attrition was initially highlighted as an emerging issue in the 1990s when it

was revealed that in Australian government schools teacher attrition rates ranged from

3% to 8% across all career stages of employed teachers (Macdonald, 1999). In early

career stage teachers – that is, teachers up to five years of experience – the statistics

were even more significant with research showing that 20% to 50% of beginning

teachers decided to leave the profession in their first three to five years (Ewing, 2001;

Riley, 2014) a figure that has tripled between 2012 and 2014 (Riley, 2014). This was

a measurable increase on Gold, Roth, Wright and Michael’s (1991) findings which

placed this figure for the same stage group at 20% to 25% only ten years earlier. Exact

figures for teacher attrition continue to vary and be inconsistent. A study by the

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2005 suggested

that up to 30% of Australian teachers leave their careers within the first five years

(OECD, 2005) while latest studies into Queensland teacher attrition across all career

stages, has figures ranging from 8% to 50% (Queensland College of Teachers, 2013)

as reported in Chapter 1.

The discrepancy and variation in these figures may raise concerns regarding the

trustworthiness of the data collected and the validity of the claims made by the various

sources. However, what is beyond dispute is that fact that teachers are leaving the

profession before retirement age and this trend is continuing to grow at increasing rates

(Gallant & Riley, 2014; Kearney, 2014; Riley, 2013). While teacher attrition alone is

of great significance it becomes even more so in contemporary Australian schools


when viewed in conjunction with the impending teacher shortage predicted here in

Australia (Mason & Matas, 2015; Wheldon, 2015). This teacher shortage is due to

fewer students opting for teaching as a profession, existing teachers leaving in greater

numbers than ever before (Mason & Matas, 2015) and population forecasts which

show the number of primary school students is set to increase dramatically over the

next ten years (Weldon, 2015).

Internationally, teacher retention statistics across the western world have mirrored

what has been reported here in Australia. Research over the past two decades show

that throughout western education systems 25% to 40% of teachers leave the

profession within their first five years (Buchanan, Prescott, Schuck, Aubusson, Burke,

& Louviere, 2013; Committee for the Review of Teaching and Teacher Education,

2003; Lindqvist, Nordänger, & Carlsson, 2014), rising up to 50% in some subject areas

(Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Research and existing literature have established that early

years’ teachers – those within their first five years in the profession – have a high and

anticipated attrition rate. What is significant to this study is the fact that mid-career

teachers past this five year mark are now also choosing to leave the profession in ever

increasing numbers (Arnup & Bowles, 2016; Hartsel, 2016).

In their study, mentioned in Chapter 1, Arnup and Bowles (2016) identified reasons

mid-career teachers gave for leaving the profession. These reasons were varied and

encompassed personal reasons such as more attractive job opportunities, dislike of the

actual work itself, professional autonomy and challenges, the feeling of not making a

difference, and low levels of self-efficacy and resilience (Arnup & Bowles, 2016).

System and school reasons (including principal leadership practices) such as work


conditions, salary, poor student motivation, promotions and recognition, supportive

colleagues, school climate, student discipline and lack of school administration

support were also listed as reasons by mid-career teachers for leaving their teaching

career (Arnup & Bowles, 2016). What this research highlighted is that there are a wide

range of reasons given by an increasing number of mid-career teachers for leaving the

profession, many of which can be linked to a principal’s leadership practices.

The literature is quite clear in identifying the increasing issue of general teacher

attrition and it is something that should be of concern to educational systems. The

increasing loss of mid-career teachers should be of even greater interest, particularly

when the rate of attrition can arguably be reduced (DeFeo, Trang Tran, Hirshberg, &

Cope, 2017; Groundwater, 2016). The literature identifies many ramifications to

education systems when mid-career teachers choose to leave which can be negative at

several levels. These issues were touched on in Chapter 1 and are now explored in

more depth below.

The first level of impact to an educational system is financial; teacher turnover costs

money as new teachers need to be trained and supported to replace ones who have left.

In addition to these costs education systems may also need to look at the financial

incentives to attract the best candidates to teacher training to ensure a future workforce.

At a second level of impact, the loss of experienced teachers also means the loss of

social capital. While new teachers can bring new ideas and energy to a school, they

cannot compensate for the knowledge, experience and leadership of the teachers they

replace. Thirdly, if the pace of attrition and demand for teachers keeps up at the present

pace, education systems across Australia and the world will be unable to find qualified


staff to fill future positions. Teacher retention is recognised as a staffing problem: - “It

is as if we (are) pouring teachers into a bucket with a fist-sized hole in the

bottom…And attrition, the leak in the bucket, has been getting worse.” (NCTAF, 2003,

p. 6 as cited in O’Brien, Goddard, & Keeffe, 2007). If the growing trend of teacher

attrition is to be addressed, the factors which influence teachers’ work commitment

and decision to leave the teaching profession, including principal leadership practices,

must be examined and addressed.

The literature highlights that after the first five years of a teacher’s career the vast

majority of teachers have made the decision to remain in the teaching profession, and

view teaching as a lifelong career. It is only if the work commitment declines that these

teachers begin to look for alternative work. Research has repeatedly shown that mid-

career teacher’s work commitment can be influenced by the leadership practices of the

school principal (Burkhauser, 2017; Dajani, 2014; Dou, et al., 2016; Holden, 2016;

Huang, 2017; Hudson, 2009; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008; Reynolds &

Teddlie, 2000; Rice, 2014). This illustrates the important role principal leadership

practices play in shaping teacher work commitment and ultimately influence whether

a teacher stays with the profession or leaves (Day & Gu, 2009; Hartsel, 2016; Mason

& Matas, 2015). Where principal leadership practices are perceived as positive, work

commitment is similarly influenced (De Nobile, 2017; Huang, 2017). Where

leadership practices were viewed in an unfavourable way, teachers work commitment

was also negatively influenced (De Nobile, 2017; Huang, 2017).

If teacher’s work commitment can be influenced through the school leader’s leadership

practices, then establishing a deeper understanding of the specific leadership practices


and how they influence mid-career teacher work commitment should play an important

role in principal leadership development to try and stem the flow of mid-career

teachers choosing to leave the profession. If teachers have a high level of commitment,

then schools and ultimately whole education jurisdictions will benefit, equally if

teachers have low or declining commitment, schools and jurisdictions not only gain no

benefit but also are impacted upon by the associated results of this waning work

commitment (Leithwood, et al., 2008). By addressing this link, through principal

leadership practices, education systems will be able to maintain an experienced and

dedicated workforce.

As mentioned briefly previously, not all teacher attrition is particularly negative to a

school and the profession. All workplaces, including schools, will experience some

staff turnover without it necessarily indicating an underlying issue with the

organisation’s leadership or culture. Additionally, some prospective teachers are not

suited to the teaching profession and their not leaving would initiate a different raft of

implications within schools. Similarly some mid-career teacher loss can actually assist

schools if the right teachers are the ones leaving (Adnot, Dee, Katz, & Wyckoff, 2017).

If the mid-career teachers who are low-performing, disillusioned, in a rut and/or

reluctant to engage in new ideas are the ones leaving and are replaced with more

effective teachers, Adnot, et al., (2017) believe this is beneficial for a school and will

improve student outcomes. In any occupation ‘natural attrition’ helps to keep the

workforce fresh and focussed removing employees who may be remaining for the

wrong reasons.


It must also be noted that some of the teachers who leave the profession do so only in

a temporary capacity and then return to teaching over time (Lindqvist, et al., 2014).

This study by Lindqvist, et al., (2014) was undertaken in Sweden and used a small

sample size (n = 87) which makes drawing wider conclusion, across different

education systems for such a complicated concept difficult. That said McKenzie,

Weldon, Rowley, Murphy, & McMillan’s (2014) Staff in Australia’s Schools reported

similar findings. Their report stated 12.7% of current primary school teachers have

resigned from school teaching at some stage but then returned to the profession. While

some of these teachers resigned from state run systems to work in the independent or

private sectors, or to pursue teaching opportunities overseas, the data does suggest that

there is substantial movement out of and back into teaching.

Further investigation is needed to ascertain if the reason for teachers leaving and

returning is impacted on by the leadership practices of principals or not and whether

these movements happen in the first five years of teaching or later as mid-career

teachers. The research would suggest that much of this movement is within the first

five years when attrition is expected and not past the five year mark when principal

leadership plays such a key role in attrition.

The research into teacher attrition repeatedly highlights that the first five years of a

career is the critical time for a teacher to opt for a career change (Arnup & Bowles,

2016; Buchanan, et al., 2013; Lindqvist, et al., 2014). Arnup and Bowles (2016) clearly

defined the five year mark of a teaching career as vital in regards to teacher attrition

and when attrition is most likely to occur. Likewise, Buchanan, et al., (2013)

highlighted a distinct difference in thinking and context of teachers within their first


five years and post five years. These differences impacted on teachers’ commitment

and decision to remain in teaching in very separate ways. In their longitudinal study

into Swedish teachers Lindqvist, et al., (2014) also highlighted the clear demarcation

between beginning teachers in their first five years and the different mindset and

thinking of the mid-career teachers past this five year mark.

Once past these first five years, the majority of teachers have a strong work

commitment and have made a definitive choice to commit to teaching as a career

(Arnup & Bowles, 2016; Buchanan, et al., 2013; Lindqvist, et al., 2014). The

importance of understanding work commitment for mid-career teachers is therefore

significant. Aydin, Sarier, and Uysal (2013) found in their meta-analysis of twelve

studies undertaken in Turkey examining the relationship between principal leadership

styles and teacher job satisfaction and work commitment that the leadership style of

the principal greatly impacted a teacher’s commitment. They found that as the

leadership practice changed from traditional transactional practices to more

transformational styles of leadership, teacher organisational commitment rose. This

point is of significance to this current study as transactional and transformational

leadership are two styles of leadership used historically by Educational Queensland

and implemented during the career of the participants in this study.

While the work of Aydin, et al., (2013) was around specific school leadership

frameworks, Boyd, Grossman, Ing, Lankford, Loeb and Wyckoff (2011) looked at

teacher retention in New York from the teachers’ perspective. Specifically they

administered a survey to 4360 beginning teachers in New York City. These beginning

teachers may not have been in their first year of teaching, many having a history of


teaching before transferring to New York, but rather were in their first year of teaching

in the New York City System. Follow up surveys were administered a year later to

those teachers who remained in the teaching profession and to those who had left.

Boyd, et al., (2011) concluded that teachers’ perceptions of the school administration

had by far the greatest influence on teacher commitment and thus their retention

decisions. The studies by Boyd, et al., (2011), Aydin, et al., (2013) and others

demonstrated that regardless of the framework used to investigate teacher work

commitment, it was the teachers’ perception of the school leadership practices which

was most influential on their work commitment.

2.3.2 Factors that enhance teacher commitment

The importance of studying work commitment is sufficiently established in its

potential impact on employee attitudes and behaviours (Day & Gu, 2009; Hartsel,

2016). In her foundational work into the relationship between work commitment and

career change, Morrow (1983) suggested that the traditional five forms of work

commitment - protestant work ethic, career salience, job involvement/work as a central

life interest, organisational commitment, and union commitment – have become

partially redundant and insufficiently distinct to warrant continued separation. She

found workers changed careers increasingly and for varied reasons and suggested that

growth in research in the area of work commitment has increased due to a widespread

perception that employees are suffering declining levels of commitment to their work.

Whether declining levels of work commitment have continued to increase is open to

conjecture, however later studies reinforced the crucial link between declining work

commitment and career change.


Mowday, Porter and Steers (2013) took a psychological perspective when

investigating organisational commitment in workplaces in general. Their book

summarised theory and research on employee/organisational linkages, including the

process through which employees become linked to work organisations, the quality of

such linkages and how linkages are weakened or severed. They viewed work

commitment as a cognitive process which manifested in three distinct forms:

attendance (or absenteeism), retention (or turnover/attrition), loyalty to a work place.

Mowday, et al., (2013) concluded that when an employee lost psychological

attachment to a work place their commitment declined. Therefore, the leader needs to

keep an employee psychologically engaged with the organisation through their

leadership practices and engaged at a personal level to change their mindset and

increase their work commitment. There is a caution with this, as having to convince a

worker to remain with an organisation when they have become psychologically dis-

attached may not be in the best interests of the organisation or the individual.

Supeli and Creed (2016) investigated work commitment in the manufacturing industry

in Indonesia and also found the mindset factor as an indicator of work attrition. They

concluded that workers with lesser attachments to an organisation were associated with

lower levels of work commitment and job satisfaction and higher levels of intention-

to-quit. Conversely, work commitment could be increased when workers felt attached

to the organisation and had a career plan, with future prospects instead of viewing the

work with a protean mindset.

While the above studies on work commitment were based in general industry and not

specifically the teaching profession, later studies have been teacher specific such as


Selamat, et al., (2013) who surveyed 186 teachers in Malaysia. They found that beyond

the psychological attachment of a teacher, principal’s leadership practices played a key

role in increasing teacher commitment. Similar to Aydinet et al., (2013), Selamat, et

al., (2013) concluded that the style of leadership, and the associated practices, was

what was important to work commitment. The findings revealed a positive and strong

linear relationship between transformational leadership behaviour and work

commitment recommending that a principal exercises transformational leadership

behaviour to ignite teachers’ work commitment.

A later study into Malaysian teacher commitment by Ling and Ling (2016) identified

the school principal as the most powerful and influential individual in school in regards

to teacher work commitment. Like previous studies mentioned, Ling and Ling (2016)

highlighted the importance of transformational leadership in improving the level of

teacher commitment. Their study also identified specific leadership practices, within a

transformational framework such as treating teachers as individuals and respecting

their individuality, being motivating to staff and giving staff intellectual stimulation,

which help do this stating leaders use interpersonal or inspirational influence tactics to

help improve teacher commitment

Crosswell (2006) believed that teacher commitment understanding can be

extrapolated from the general literature on work commitment and assumptions made

about the ways that teachers define, describe and characterise their work commitment.

In her study of teacher commitment, Crosswell’s (2006) conceptualisation of teacher

commitment is framed by earlier research undertaken around organisational

commitment (Kanter, 1974; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). Crosswell’s (2006)


study acknowledged that teacher work commitment has many layers and dimensions.

While a school principal may have varying degrees of influence on work commitment,

these dimensions are interconnected and have some influence on each other (Devos,

Tuytens, & Hulpia, 2013; Jo, 2014; Ling & Ling 2016). It is therefore inherently

difficult for a teacher to isolate one pure form of work commitment and an overarching

assumption of this proposed research is that any self-evaluating answer regarding mid-

career teacher work commitment will be multidimensional. What is clear from the

various studies and the views taken from different literature is that finding what an

individual needs to enhance their work commitment is the challenge of leadership.

2.3.3 Factors that decrease work commitment

Previous research has provided a plethora of factors which can affect teacher work

commitment. These include: low salary, poor student behaviour, lack of school

leadership support, large class sizes and lack of resources. All of these factors are

influential in relation to teacher work commitment, and many can be influenced by

principal leadership practices. Principal support of teachers plays a very key role in

relation to their work commitment.

Boyd, et al., (2011) particularly noted the importance of school leadership support to

teachers in their New York study. Teachers who did not feel supported by their

leadership team particularly in the area of student behaviour reported a decline in their

work commitment. The lack of school administration support and its link to declining

work commitment is also the findings of additional research by Cancio, Albrecht and

Johns (2013). They found the extent of administrative support strongly correlated with

a teacher’s intent to stay or leave the teaching profession.


In a study into the relationship between work commitment and job expectations, Terry

(1997) identified six expectations that could cause decreased teacher work

commitment. The six factors identified by Terry (1997) were: unrealistic expectations

of the teaching role, lack of feedback from administration, job responsibilities,

additional job duties beyond direct teaching of their class, salaries, and student

behaviour.

A later study by Eberhard, Reinhardt-Mondragon and Stottlemyer (2000), identified

nine factors that correlate to teachers’ commitment. These nine factors were: salary,

teacher assignment (i.e. the specifics of their first teaching placement), paperwork,

duties other than direct teaching, class size, student behaviour, special education

requirements, recognition from administrators, and support from administrators. A

teacher’s negative perception of these factors saw a decrease of their work

commitment levels. What is significant about the factors identified by Eberhard, et al.,

(2000) and Terry (1997) is that they can all be directly influenced by the leadership

practices of the school principal.

Subsequent research also identified additional factors which impact on teacher attrition

but are not easily influenced by principal leadership practices (Boyd, et al., 2011;

Buchanan, et al., 2013; Cancio, et al., 2013; Lindqvist, et al., 2014; Hartsel, 2016;

O’Brien, et al., 2007). These new factors included: remuneration, society’s

expectations of teachers, how teachers are portrayed in the broader community and the

actual reality of the role. All of these factors reside beyond the principal’s direct sphere

of influence and cannot be easily influenced by principal leadership practices.


Teacher burnout has been the focus of many studies (Brunsting, Sreckovic, & Lane,

2014; O’Brien, et al., 2007; Pietarinen, Pyhält, Soini, & Salmela-Aro, 2013) where

conclusions remain open as to whether burnout is a result of other, external factors or

a factor in itself of teacher attrition. There are several definitions of burnout that have

been presented in related literature; however, the most widely accepted definition is

Maslach’s (1982) which states: “Burnout is a three dimensional syndrome of

emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and reduced personal accomplishment that

occurs among individuals who work with people in some helping capacity” (p. 3).

More recently burnout has been described by Maslach (2003) as “what occurs when

teachers undergoing stress for long periods of time experience emotional exhaustion,

depersonalization, and lack of personal accomplishment” (p. 190), and by Akbaba

(2014) as “a syndrome with physical, emotional, and mental dimensions, including

negative attitudes toward life, towards other people, or towards a career” (p. 1253).

Burnout is a chronic state of physical, emotional and mental exhaustion that arises in

employees from cumulative demands of their work. Burnout therefore, is a drastic end

point in response to ongoing stressors in a workplace. By definition, burnout suggests

that it is a phenomenon more prevalent in longer term workers, but this is not always

the case and there is a lot of research focusing on burnout in early stage and newly

appointed teachers (Buchanan, et al., 2013; Kim, Youngs, & Frank, 2017). Arguably,

burnout could be discussed as a predisposition in some people; however, this author

believes that burnout is a symptom of the impact of external factors which can be

potentially influenced by the school principal.


Generally research into the concept of teacher burnout has taken a similar focus; that

is, to analyse the external factors that may be a contributor to burnout and how these

can be overcome or mitigated (Brunsting, et al., 2014; Kim, et al., 2017; O’Brien, et

al., 2007; Pietarinen, et al., 2013). Sometimes the concept of teacher burnout is not an

isolated concept but the result of additional factors impacting on a person’s existing

predisposition. The significance for this study is often these additional factors can be

impacted on by school principals through their leadership. This once again reinforces

the importance of principal leadership practices to teacher attrition.

Previous research established a link between the personal and societal factors, teacher

burnout, and teachers’ decision to leave the teaching profession (Boyd, et al., 2011;

Buchanan, et al., 2013; Hultell, Melin, & Gustavsson, 2013; Lindqvist, et al., 2014;

Pietarinen, et al., 2013; Sanford, 2017). However, the research also states that once

past the five year mark in their career the number of teachers leaving the profession

for these reasons is small. Predominantly the reason mid-career teachers gave for

leaving teaching is declining work commitment (Howes & Goodman-Delahunty,

2015; Ingersoll, Merrill, & Stuckey, 2014; Lindqvist & Nordänger, 2016) and this

declining work commitment can be the result of principal leadership practices

(Burkhauser, 2016; Dou, et al., 2016). It is therefore prudent to examine school

principal leadership in depth and look at the frameworks and beliefs which have

influenced principal leadership practices in schools.

2.4 INFLUENCE A SCHOOL PRINICPAL MAY HAVE ON TEACHER WORK COMMITMENT

The research has established a clear link between work commitment and teacher

attrition, and has also identified that principals’ leadership practices are one factor


which can influence teacher commitment. Previous researchers have tried to classify

these factors to better understand what specific issues impact on a teacher’s decision

to leave the profession. This research highlights the influence a school principal can

have on teachers work commitment and through this the decision to remain or leave

teaching. This section explores the factors which have been identified as influencing

teacher work commitment, and isolate those over which a principal can influence

through their leadership practices.

In their review of school principal leadership literature, Bush and Glover (2014)

reviewed current and recent writing on leadership models. They examined theoretical

literature, to see how leadership is conceptualised and empirical literature, to

demonstrate whether and how the research evidence supports these concepts. Bush and

Glover (2014) reviewed a few leadership models including transformational leadership

and how this model aims to raise the level of teachers’ commitment to the organisation

and its goals. Some critics have argued that the values and goals advocated in

transformational leadership are actually those of the government, the organisation, or

the school principal rather than those of the individual teachers. While this criticism

may have merit, it pertains to leadership styles as opposed to being critical of the link

between principal leadership practices and teacher commitment. Bush and Glover

(2014) concluded that school principals had a strong and positive influence on

teachers’ work commitment.

McKenzie, et al., (2014) in their Staff in Australia’s Schools report surveyed 5 213

primary school teachers from 619 schools across Australia. Through an analysis of

teacher responses, three broad areas which impacted a teacher’s decision to remain or


leave the profession were identified with many sub-factors in each area. The areas

identified were: (1) teacher personal factors – family and personal reasons, pregnancy,

self-esteem and health; (2) school factors – supervision, lack of mentoring, poor

administration support, student behaviour; and (3) societal factors - government

policies, poor salary, community attitudes and expectations, portrayal of teachers by

mass media.

These three broad factors can be refined even further and have been categorised for

this study into two, distinct spheres: factors a principal can impact on through their

leadership practices and factors that cannot be impacted in this way. The personal

factors and societal factors, from the classification above fall into a sphere over which

the school principal has little influence, while the school factors encompasses elements

within a sphere that can be significantly influenced by school principals through their

leadership practices (Aydin, et al., 2013; John, 2017; Ling & Ling, 2016). What isn’t

clear about the school factors is whether they directly relate to a teacher’s

organisational commitment i.e. the school or to their professional commitment and the

overall teaching profession in general. It is difficult to establish a clear correlation

between principal leadership practices and teachers leaving the profession. This is the

gap in the research which this study aimed to address.

Understanding this interplay between school principal leadership practices and mid-

career teacher work commitment is vital for addressing this research gap relating to

the issue of teacher retention. Figure 2.1 outlines the personal, societal and school

factors which may influence mid-career teacher work commitment and the sphere of

influence a school principal may have on these factors through their leadership


practices. This diagram illustrates a clear line of influence between principal leadership

practices and mid-career teacher retention which serves to highlight the interconnected

relationships that underpin this current research. The personal and societal factors and

the school factors are then discussed below

Figure 2.1 Principals’ leadership practices and mid-career teacher work commitment.

Personal teacher factors. These are the factors which reside ‘within’ a teacher; they

are personal or intrinsic in nature and often are evident before the teacher begins their

career. Since the turn of the century, studies have found teachers are giving more

personal or community factors for their reasons for leaving teaching, particularly in

the first five years of teaching. Studies such as Buchanan, et al., (2013), Canciao, et

al., (2013), Day and Gu (2009) and Lindqvist, et al., (2014) all noted a degree of

personal factors within their research into teacher attrition. These factors included

individual teacher background (levels of resilience or predisposition of a person to the

teaching role), personal circumstances (medical or moving due to partner’s work) and

Education Queensland’s predominant models of principals’ leadership practices

Transactional – pre 1990 Transformational – 1990-2008 Instructional – 2009 to present

Factors that may impact on teachers’ work commitment

Personal and Societal factors

School factors

Family Considerations

Individual, internal Factors

Community and Society Factors

Teaching Factors

School Factors

Job Satisfaction

Support and Recognition

Teacher work commitment

Early Career

Mid-Career

Late Career


family as predictors of teacher attrition. These factors are usually beyond the scope of

the school principal and have increased as identifiable factors over time.

In the study undertaken by Buckley, Schneider and Shang (2004) involving 835 year

K-12 teachers in Washington , D. C., teachers listed family or personal reasons such

as pregnancy and child rearing and health as catalysts for considering leaving the

teaching profession. These factors appeared to be independent from any teaching

related concerns. Other factors may be a reflection of inherent personality or personal

traits such as anxiety or low resilience. These personal traits may also be the reason

why some teachers appear more susceptible to burn out than others, a point indicated

in research into teacher burnout (Hultell, et al., 2013; Pietarinen, et al., 2013; Sanford,

2017).

Hultell, et al., (2013) in their longitudinal study tracked 816 first year teachers over

the first three years of their employment in Sweden and compared burnout in teachers

over time. They found no significant variance between beginning teachers and more

experienced teachers. Time in the profession appears to not be a significant factor to

burnout by this evidence. The research by Mansfield, Beltman, Broadley and

Weatherby-Fell (2016) reviewed literature over the past 15 years from around the

world identifying key factors associated with teacher resilience. The results of the

literature summary raised the question about whether people enter the teaching

profession already exhibiting signs of burnout (hence the significant high rates in early

career stage teachers) or are teachers more susceptible (as a holistic group) to burnout

caused by their job dissatisfaction. Further research is needed here to clarify the link


between an individual’s predisposition and their susceptibility to burnout as opposed

to the influence of work related factors; however it is beyond the scope of this study.

Questions about the personal traits of teachers which can impact on their decision to

remain in the teaching profession have also been raised by Zysberg, Orenshtein,

Gimmon, and Robinson (2017) in a study into teacher emotional intelligence and

personality. Zysberg, et al., (2017) believed teachers need knowledge of how to reflect

and time to think about their practice as these skills are essential to problem solve and

cope with work challenges. Other personality traits which were seen to be positive in

regards to continued work commitment were; a positive mindset and the ability to alter

one’s thinking and behaviour. These are not skills developed in most teacher education

training programs and thus rely to a major extent on the self-disposition of each

individual teacher (Zysberg, et al., 2017).

The literature on teacher burnout has shifted from focussing on job related or

environmental factors (Ullrich, Lambert, & McCarthy, 2012) to innate and personal

factors such as personality, emotional regulation, and coping strategies, that either put

an individual at risk of or resistant to burnout (Ebstrup, Eplox, Pisinger, & Jorgensen,

2011; Morimoto & Shimada, 2015; Zysberg, et al., 2017). This latest research would

support previous findings that principal leadership practices have little influence over

the personal factors of individual teachers.

Societal and systems factors. Society and government education policies can also

affect a teacher’s decision to remain with teaching. Teachers have noted competing

agendas in government policies, the lack of clear and accurate information and


government cost cutting as factors which affect their work commitment (Ball,

Maguire, & Braun, 2012; Bates, Lewis, & Pickard, 2011; Braun, Ball, Maguire, &

Hoskins, 2011). Additionally the social status of the teaching profession in the broader

community also impacted on teachers’ deciding to remain or leave the teaching

profession (Lindquvist, et al., 2014). Teachers felt that the community had great

expectations from teachers and education; however teachers are accorded low social

status, are held in low esteem and have a poor public image (AITSL, 2016; Lindqvist,

et al., 2014; Martin & Mulvihill, 2016)

More recent evolutions of the teaching role have seen the expectations and practices

of teachers become more diversified (Lindqvist, et al., 2014; Martin & Mulvihill,

2016). In addition to continuing the core business of teaching the academic

curriculum, teachers today are expected to keep abreast of ever growing information

and skills, stay at the forefront of technology change and new innovations and

undertake what has previously been seen as parenting roles such as caring for student

diet, obesity and social skills. Furthermore, schools have experienced an increased

number of difficult-to-teach students with limited additional support (Lindqvist, et al.,

2014; Martin & Mulvihill, 2016). All the while parents and the wider community

continue to demand wider expectations of the education system while the authority

and respect of the teaching position has slowly been eroded away (Tan & Liu, 2017).

This intensification of the teaching role through changing societal expectations as

described above can also contribute to increasing levels of teacher attrition and have

changed the role of teaching.


Another societal system factor that can impact on teacher commitment can be

described as role reality. Many teachers begin their careers with large gaps between

their view of what teaching will be like and the reality of teaching (Kim & Cho, 2017).

Farrell (2016) reported that beginning teachers also felt that they had to put in greater

effort than their more experienced colleagues and that this effort to undertake teaching

was greater than the rewards of teaching. As teachers became aware of discrepancies

between expected and actual teaching, they began to question if the career is indeed

right for them. Farrell (2016) also linked the gap between expected and actual teaching

experiences to burnout and decision to change careers in beginning teachers.

Additional societal predictors relating to teacher attrition are salary and facilities

(Lindqvist, et al., 2014). Teachers who felt that they are not paid at a level

commensurate with their skills, abilities and task requirements begin to question the

longitudinal value of the career (Lindqvist, et al., 2014). This was particularly

significant with more experienced teachers who felt that their remuneration did not

keep pace with their increasing contributions to the profession (Lindqvist, et al., 2014).

School facilities too can play their part in teacher retention. The quality of school

facilities can affect the ability of teachers to teach, teacher morale and health and safety

(Simon & Johnson, 2015). While literature into the link between teacher attrition and

facilities is limited, teacher attrition in developing nations and low social-economic

schools has been linked to poor school facilities and classroom conditions (Simon &

Johnson, 2015).

Primarily the systems and society based factors discussed above, reside outside the

direct influence of the school principal. They are not seen to be something a school


principal can influence significantly each day through their leadership practices. The

school factors, however, are strongly influenced by principal leadership practices and

through these the school principal can strongly influence the commitment of mid-

career teachers. The school based factors, influenced by a principal’s leadership

practices, are discussed below.

School factors that can be influenced by the school principal. A common thread

for many of the influential factors regarding teacher work commitment is the school

principal’s support within the school context (Boyd, et al., 2011; Buchanan, et al.,

2013; Lindqvist, et al., 2014). The school principal’s influence can take many forms,

and teachers have used the term ‘administration support’ in different contexts in

different studies. Support from school principals has included: giving feedback, giving

encouragement, close supervision, setting and enforcing student behaviour standards,

adequacy of resources and employing participatory decision-making. It has also

included support with student and parent issues, and the positive interactions and

influences of other staff set by the context and tone provided by the principal (Boyd,

et al., 2011).

The principal’s role is the key to the success of a school even when we recognise that

success can be defined in different ways. Several studies (Gruenert & Whitaker, 2015;

Ng, 2016; Thompson, 2016) have established a link between a principal’s leadership

practices and school climate and teacher job satisfaction. While student achievement

and teacher/student interactions were seen to be elements identified by teachers as

contributing to their job satisfaction and work commitment, the studies concluded that


teachers’ derive their job satisfaction and work commitment from the climate within

the school, and the school principal is the main contributor to school climate.

With regard to principals’ support of teachers, studies have linked principals who give

feedback, encouragement and employ participatory decision making to fostering

commitment within their staff (Boyd, et al., 2011; Thompson, 2016). Other authors

(Hansen, 2016; Martin, 2016) support this view believing that the context provided by

school principals influences interaction among staff, teachers’ feelings of being valued

for their work and their sense of involvement in the school. The literature on school

principal leadership practices often refers to Leithwood and Jantzi’s (1996) research

undertaken in British Columbia, Canada. This longitudinal study involved 1527

teachers across 423 primary and secondary schools and has emerged as a point of

reference to base studies about leadership practices of principals and the impact on

teachers’ levels of organisational commitment. The significance of this study has been

highlighted by numerous authors including: Buchanan, et al., (2013), Groundwater

(2016), Hartsel (2016), Lindqvist, et al., (2014), and Mason and Matas (2015).

Significantly, principals’ leadership practices which had a negative impact on

teachers’ satisfaction and work commitment were a major reason teachers provided

for choosing to leave the profession. Teachers cited a lack of professionalism and

administrative support highlighting the important role a principal can play in retention

of teachers (Buchanan, et al., 2013; Lindqvist, et al., 2014). Teachers reported greater

satisfaction and commitment to their work when they perceived their principal as

someone who shares information with others and keeps channels of communication

open with the teachers (Boyd, et al., 2011; Thompson, 2016). Other studies


(Groundwater, 2016; Hartsel, 2016; Mason & Matas, 2015) have all argued that the

single important factor to teacher work commitment is the school principal’s support.

Therefore, while there may be varied factors contributing to teacher work

commitment, school principals’ leadership practices are a major contributor and one

which can be addressed within a school context to avoid decreasing teacher

dissatisfaction and work commitment.

The importance that teachers placed on principals’ leadership practices and how these

practices can impact on teacher work commitment was a focus of the US Department

of Education, National Centre for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing survey,

2007 - 2008. This survey conducted amongst first year teachers in the New York area

found that if given a choice between a more supportive principal and a significantly

higher salary, over 70% of first year teachers preferred a more supportive principal.

While the term ‘supportive’ was not defined and left up to the individual respondents

to interpret, this study was significant as it concluded that a principal’s leadership

practices and influence on teachers rates more highly than increased pay for these

teachers. To teachers, principals’ leadership practices were paramount to their work

commitment.

Within the context of the above research it is also significant to note that in the United

States where the studies found the importance of principal practices as a primary factor

in determining teacher commitment, the hierarchical structure of education in many

US jurisdictions includes school boards that oversee a principal’s actions and to which

a principal is openly answerable. Indeed within this structure, the school principals in

the US are often referred to as middle managers or members of a management team


and often have their leadership diluted in comparison to Education Queensland State

Schools. Since the Focus on School initiative (Education Queensland, 1990),

Queensland principals have had more autonomy than their American counterparts

having a much more direct say over the day to day running of the school; and as such

a greater sphere of influence within their school. Over the past decade Queensland

state schools principals have experienced ever increasing leadership autonomy through

initiatives such as Independent Public Schools (Education Queensland, 2012) giving

them even more influence over the school site which is manifested through their

leadership practices.

In summarising the literature about factors which impact on teacher work commitment,

the biggest influence on mid-career teachers’ work commitment and their decision to

remain with the teaching profession is school leadership and principals’ leadership

practices. Different leadership models are often suggested or favoured as the preferred

style of leadership for an educational system, depending on the specific agenda and

context of the time.

Leadership practices have been examined through different leadership frameworks

including transformational and transactional models of leadership, both of which were

proven to have a definite correlation with teachers’ work commitment. To better

understand teacher work commitment it is important to understand principal leadership

practices in schools and the interplay between the two. Understanding this interplay is

vital to addressing the issue of teacher retention.


When the principals and the majority of the mid-career teachers in this current study

began their teaching careers, the prevailing style of leadership was a traditional

transactional framework. The changing agendas of education in Queensland in the

1990s saw this leadership framework change to a more transformational style.

Currently in Queensland, as a result of the Master’s Report (2009) there has been a

shift of focus towards instructional leadership as the basis of principal practice. While

the philosophy and framework for the enactment of this leadership framework is

systems based, the interpretation and daily application of this model is open to the

interpretation of each individual school principal. The ‘what to do’ of school

leadership is often directed to the principal by the greater system from above, the ‘how

to do it’ is left to fall on the individual school principal and enacted on the school site

through their leadership practices (Riley, 2014). This point that the individual school

principals are tasked with the ‘how to do’ of policy enactment, underlines the

importance of understanding individual principal leadership practices, as it is through

these that the actualisation of school practice is determined and impact on teacher

commitment established.

Much of the existing research regarding principal leadership practices (Walker &

Hallinger, 2015; Harris, Jones, Cheah, & Adams, 2017; Quin, Deris, Bischoff, &

Johnson, 2015; Shatzer, Caldarella, Hallam, & Brown, 2014; Urick & Bowers, 2014)

has taken a holistic approach where a group of leadership practices defined by a

theoretical model, that is, transactional and/or transformational, have been

implemented by principals in leading teachers, and the correlative outcomes examined.

There has been very little research on isolating specific principal leadership practices


and asking teachers to evaluate these practices from their practitioner’s perspective,

independent of a leadership model.

The existing studies did not explore the impact of specific principal leadership

practices and teachers’ perception of these in relation to their work commitment.

Instead they assumed a hierarchical structure within the school setting where a

leadership framework was enacted on teachers and the impact and efficacy of this

leadership framework was the focus of the research. In contrast to this top down

approach to leadership, this current study is asking teachers to report on the impact

specific practices may have on their work commitment as opposed to evaluating

leadership through a framework based lens. While this study initially was intending to

examine school based factors, identified in the literature, which a school principal can

influence and which impact on teachers’ work commitment (Figure 2.2), recent

changes in the role of principals in state schools in Queensland has led to an increasing

sphere of influence for school principals.

Personal System School Hultell, Melin, & Gustavsson, 2013; Pietarinen, Pyhältö, Soini, & Salmela-Aro, 2013; Sanford, 2017

- self efficacy - family - pregnancy

Ball, Maguire, & Braun, 2012; Bates, Lewis, & Pickard, 2011; Braun, Ball, Maguire, & Hoskins, 2011

- salary - class size - demands related to student with diverse learning needs

Boyd et al., 2011; Buchanan et al., 2013; Lindqvist et al., 2014

- feedback - student behaviour - teacher assignment - paper work - additional duties


- self esteem - health - protean career

- unrealistic expect. - policies - media portrayal

- recognition from admin - support from administration - supervision - lack of mentoring - principal leadership styles - school tone - helping with student/parent issues

Figure 2.2 Factors that may affect teachers’ work commitment

Leadership in Queensland state schools has seen significant changes in the past decade

with the introduction of the Independent Public School initiative (Education

Queensland, 2012) and the associated increased autonomy for school principals. Prior

to this initiative, principals’ leadership practices were influenced heavily by a

centralised, hierarchical model and a top down structure from the system. The move

towards more autonomous schools has seen greater importance and pressure placed on

principal leadership practices (Cranston, 2014; Gobby, 2013; Riley, 2014). Where

previously, principals were heavily guided and directed by the greater system decisions

and the implementation of these generally rested at the regional level, the move

towards greater autonomy and Independent Public Schools has seen a shift in the

decision making position from laying outside of the school in the past, to now reside

at the school principal level within each school.

The school principal, through their leadership practices, coupled with greater

autonomy is now more than ever in a position to influence the school climate and

ultimately teacher work commitment. While enabling more influence on their school

site, increased autonomy is also offering new challenges for principals (Cranston,

2014; Riley, 2014). Decisions which were previously made systemically are now in


the hands of school principals for local decision making. Community input and school

councils add another layer of complexity for principals to navigate through while still

maintaining their focus on student learning.

The push for Independent Public Schools comes with increased transparency and

accountability for principals. Principals are able to make their own local decisions but

still must remain within the accountability of the system. This balance of autonomy

and system’s accountability has led to increased pressure and tensions for the

leadership role (Cranston, 2014; Riley, 2014). There is a strain and expectation of

school leaders to enact policy within their local context, delivering the system

imperatives while maintaining the commitment of staff. The leadership practices of

principals are crucial in achieving this balance.

2.5 PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES

Existing literature has established a link between leadership practices and work

commitment. Inherent within this current research inquiry is the assumption that

leaders should be responsible for the work commitment and quality of support for

employees. This assumption is not the focus of some early leadership theories that

regarded worker commitment as the responsibility of the workers. Later leadership

theories also had different ideas about how leaders may be expected to support

employees. That is why it is important to explore the various leadership theories that

may be influencing principal practices, before outlining the leadership practices in

Education Queensland schools and the origins of these.


It is difficult to determine one simple definition for what leadership or being a leader

is. There are countless definitions of leadership, and each person who attempts to

explain the concept has a slightly different interpretation of the word (Maxwell,

2013, 2014; Nahavandi, 2016; Northouse, 2015, 2017). At its simplest form a leader

is someone who has followers; however the multitude of study and research around

the topic of leadership proves that leadership is a much more complex notion than

just having followers.

At the core of most definitions of leadership are two underpinning functions: providing

direction and exercising influence; leaders harness and work with others to achieve

shared goals (Maxwell, 2013, 2014; Nahavandi, 2016; Northouse, 2015, 2017).

Leadership is a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and

support of others in the accomplishment of a common task. Leadership is about

organising and influencing the actions and attitudes of a group of people to achieve a

goal and this study will use this leadership definition as the underpinning belief about

school leadership, and the context within which school principals lead their schools.

Theories of leadership are as dynamic as the definition of leadership. Over time,

leadership theories have evolved to meet organisational needs and reflect policy

priorities. Leadership theories traditionally describe leaders and organisations within

the business realm, but these easily transfer into the area of school leadership even if

specific school leadership studies are a relatively recent area of interest. At the end of

the 20th century, Leithwood, Begley and Cousins (1992) made the observation that

researchers are only just beginning to make systematic attempts to explore the meaning


and utility of leadership in schools, and little empirical evidence is available about its

nature and consequence.

Later studies (Leithwood, et al., 2008; Leithwood & Sleegers, 2006) were no longer

reflective of this earlier view of leadership, and a more thorough understanding and

view of the world in which leadership exists has emerged. Leadership is not only a

descriptive term but one changeable over time reflecting the contexts of evolving

understandings. This historical shift has seen the understanding of leadership move

from individual and trait based perspectives to more situated and practice based models

with recent emphasis on measurable outcomes. Following is a summary of leadership

theory development over time.

2.5.1 The emergence of concern for teacher commitment within educational leadership theories

In the late 1800’s scientific management was the popular leadership theory. This

theory concentrated on improving the efficiency of work processes and focussed on

factories and products, not people (Keith & Girling, 1991) and did not translate well

to a school setting. By the early to mid-1900’s leadership research focussed on the

notion that leaders were born, not created; The Great Man Theory. Palestini (2003)

wrote of trait theories that a person needs to possess certain characteristics to be an

effective leader. These characteristics include personality, social and physical traits

and as such leadership could not be developed. This theory believed that unless you

were born with the traits of a leader you were genetically prevented from assuming a

leadership role. The leader had many responsibilities and used coercion when workers

resisted work. The idea and beliefs of the Great Man Theory and leadership dominated

leadership theory for over half a century. The debate by researchers into the


shortcomings of Trait Theory gave rise to the behaviour theories which held that a

person’s behaviour as a leader made a difference in the organisation. Out of behaviour

theories of leadership grew the theory of situational or systems leadership which

professed different situations and circumstances determined an individual’s leadership

practices. These theories each are underpinned by different theories of how leaders

may motivate workers, and can inform the analysis of the data in this study.

In systems theories the leader views the organisation as a one large system made up of

many smaller systems. If there is a change in one part of the system, it causes a change

in other parts of the system (Keith & Girling, 1991). Within systems theories, leaders

work on the system while workers work in the system and were part of the whole.

Keith and Girling (1991) explained that within this theory, the individual was

sometimes overlooked and this issue gave rise to human relations theories.

The 1960s and 1970s saw the emergence of human-relations leadership theories also

referred to as human resource theories which addressed productivity and effectiveness

in social terms and had a common base of belief in people i.e. the workers. Human

resource leaders believed in productivity through people and focussed their leadership

on interacting with workers (Palestini, 2003). Motivations for workers within these

theories included recognition and achievement. Leaders used this information to

encourage the worker to strive for better performance (Bolger, 1999). Under this

construct two sub theories emerged. Theory X believed that workers needed to be

coerced, directed and pressured to do work. It assumed that most people wanted to be

directed by a leader as they disliked work and would try to avoid it. The second belief,

Theory Y took a view that work was as natural as play or rest and under proper


conditions, people accept and seek responsibility (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1996).

Theory Y focussed on arranging an organisation to best fit a situation and not on

organisational structure.

From Theory Y (Keith & Girling, 1991) human resource leadership theories rose

organisational leadership theories which highlighted openness, participation and

empowerment. Organisational theories embraced many ideas and practices that are

based upon the set-up of an organisation including shared vision, meeting human needs

and empowering staff (Palestini, 2003). By the 1970s and 1980s leadership research

had developed and began to look into the notion that behaviours and actions were the

distinguishing features of effective leaders. In 1974, Stogdill determined six categories

of personal behaviours which were associated with leadership: capacity, achievement,

responsibility, participation, status and situation. While this research is referred to as

the start of modern day leadership theory, in a contemporary light this research is seen

to be too narrow and reflective of earlier Trait Theory as no person becomes a leader

simply by possessing a certain list of characteristics or behaviours (Avolio,

Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Bush, 2008).

Stogdill (1974) refined his theory to look at two key aspects of leadership – concerns

for results and concern for people – and then identified four leadership styles by

considering the same two aspects of leadership, without assuming a leader had to be

just one or the other. His four styles were: high concern for results and high concern

for people, high concern for results and low concern for people, low concern for results

and a high concern for people and, low concern for results and a low concern for

people. Today’s leadership demands in schools would suggest that a school principal


needs to be positioned in the style of high concern for results particularly the outcomes

of students and school performance, and high concern for people by keeping teacher

committed to the school and their career.

The emergence of differing behaviours for different situations and tasks, and the

concept of a leader moving between a range of leadership practices also began the

theoretical division between management and leadership in the 1980s and 1990s

(Bush, 2008). Management pertained to the day to day running of an organisation and

ensuring that the systems were all in place, it was concerned with the technical aspects

of an organisation. Leadership, in contrast, was concerned with the strategic views of

the organisation and developing solutions for issues which the systems could not

anticipate.

These shifts in leadership theories are reflected in leadership practices evident in

Queensland state schools during the careers of the mid-career teachers, and the school

principals, identified for this research. It is important to acknowledge these dominant

leadership approaches, and examine the likely practices associated with these theories,

as these are the practices that will most likely have shaped the mid-career teacher

experiences and commitments. To look at these practices effectively it is vital to

explore the history of each theory and situate each contextually within Education

Queensland.

Transactional – traditional hierarchical style predominant pre-1990

Transformational – brought about by the changing educational agendas

introduced in the Focus on Schools (1990) and Leading Schools (1997) policy

documents, and


Instructional – current departmental focus of school leadership in Queensland

schools, articulated in the Masters Report (2009) and the revised Leadership

Matters (2010) document.

2.6 LEADERSHIP PRACTICES THAT MAY INFLUENCE MID-CAREER TEACHER COMMITMENT

Reviews of the literature into educational leadership have identified tensions between

transactional and transformational leadership practices (Busher, Harris, & Wise 2000;

Christie & Lingard, 2001; Hopkins, 2003). Ritchie, Tobin, Roth and Carambo (2007)

described the difference and often conflictions in practices between these two

frameworks by stating that in stable school contexts transactional leadership practices

are likely to be used by principals to manage school systems and structures. In contrast

transformational leadership practices are more aligned with cultural change where the

focus is on the people involved and their relationships and changing their feelings,

attitudes and beliefs (Bono & Judge, 2004; Hartog, Muijen, & Koopman, 2011; Judge

& Piccolo, 2004). Figure 2.3 outlines the distinction between transactional,

transformational and instructional leadership. Transactional and transformational

leadership form the basis of foundation leadership research. Instructional leadership is

a relatively new focus area for both researchers and Education Queensland.

Educational Leadership Frameworks

Transactional – Traditional exchange of one thing for another. (Burns, 1978; Hartog, et al., 2011; Wahyun, et al., 2014) Transformational – Leaders and followers united in pursuit of common goals. (Baylor, 1990; Burns, 1978; Murray & Feitler, 1989) Instructional – Promoting vision and leading core business by example. (Lashway, 2002; Murphy, 1988; Murphy, 1990)

Figure 2.3 Educational leadership frameworks – three common models


2.6.1 Transactional leadership

Historically the two basic models in which all leadership interactions occur fall into

two fundamentally different frameworks. Burns (1978) calls the first and traditionally

based leadership practices transactional because this style occurs when one person

takes the initiative in making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of

valued things. The exchange could be economic or political or psychological in nature;

a swap of goods or of one good for money; a trading of votes between candidate and

citizen or between legislators; hospitality to another person in exchange for willingness

to listen to one's troubles. Each party to the bargain is conscious of the power resources

and attitudes of the other (Hartog, et al., 2011; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Wahyun,

Christiananta, & Eliyana, 2014). Transactional leadership practices are very direct and

hierarchical, and the workers’ commitment is driven by what they receive in exchange

for their actions.

Transactional leadership is noted as a traditional role of leadership. It occurs when

there is a simple exchange of one object for another (e.g., work for reward). Burns,

(1978) states that, transactional leadership exists when “one person takes the initiative

in making contact with others for the purpose of exchange of valued things” (p.19).

Transactional leadership therefore, is based on ‘give and take’ and the leader and

followers exchange needs and services in order to accomplish independent objectives.

Transactional leadership is one that promotes compliance of followers through rewards

and punishments and is often described as ‘traditional’ management. Practices of a

transactional school principal reinforce the hierarchy and the right systemic processes

– simply put, these leaders do things by the book and follow the system’s expectations

at all times (Bono & Judge, 2004; Hartog, et al., 2011; Wahyun, et al., 2014).


Transactional school principals do not seek change or deliver individual initiatives

beyond the system, but rather seek to maintain the status quo and pay attention to

followers’ work in order to find faults and corrections. These principals want to ensure

teachers know what is right and wrong and believe it is their job to ensure everyone

stays on the right path at all times. With transactional leadership, teachers’ negative

behaviours are punished and teachers are motivated through incentives to perform.

More specifically, transactional leadership is rooted in day-to-day transactions

between leaders and their employees and comprises three factors: active management-

by-exception (MBEA), passive management-by-exception (MBEP), and contingent

reward (Hater & Bass, 1988; Howell & Avolio, 1993). With MBEA, leaders

continuously monitor followers' performance to anticipate mistakes before they

become a problem and immediately takes corrective action when required, while with

MBEP, they intervene with criticism and reproof only after mistakes are made and

standards are not met (Howell & Avolio, 1993). Contingent reward leadership is

viewed as a positive exchange whereby followers are rewarded or recognized for

accomplishing agreed-upon objectives (Howell & Avolio, 1993). Transactional

leaders can be influential in groups under stress, because such leaders can supply

solutions for immediate members' needs, even if the effectiveness of such a style in

the long run is questionable (Bass, 1990).

2.6.2 Transformational leadership

The second and more recent paradigm of leadership was identified by Burns (1978) as

transformational leadership. Transformational leadership occurs when one or more

persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another


to higher levels of motivation and morality. Their purposes, which might have started

out as separate but related, (as in the case of transactional leadership), become fused

and has a transforming effect on both parties (Bono & Judge, 2004; Hartog, et al.,

2011). Transformational Leadership enables leaders and followers to unite in the

pursuit of higher-order common goals, when “one person engages in others in such a

way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and

morality” (Burns, 1978, p. 20). This definition implies that the leader-follower

relationship is one in which the purpose of both become fused, creating unity and

collective purpose (Avolio & Yammarino, 2013).

This distinction between transactional and transformational leadership is critically

important in analysis of the contributions made by school principals to the operational

success of schools. Transactional leadership has agreed upon and accepted roles,

program structures, and authority relationships. It is the basic ingredient in day-to-day

school operations. Working within defined policy and agreed work conditions the

principal routinely defines tasks, assigns staff to perform them, and interprets the

consequences. These transactional routines cannot be expected to work, however, if

the goal is to alter or reform the school. The reason is simple: transactional leadership

depends upon the pre-existence of agreed-upon goals and shared motives. Reforms, by

contrast, are planned and instituted precisely because existing patterns of aspiration

and established role relationships are not leading to effective programs and practices

(Hartog, et al., 2011; Judge & Piccolo, 2004).

Transformational leadership is required if principals are to secure new modes of

teaching and learning (Bush & Glover, 2014; Liu, 2015). In this environment staff


members must learn to aspire to new goals and to re-conceptualise the basis of their

working relationships with one another. That said there is still value placed on the

traditional, transactional practices of leaders. Where educational programs and

practices are sound, the more mundane actions of transactional leaders are often most

appropriate (Leithwood & Sleegers, 2006; Mette & Scribner, 2014). Moreover, even

where changes are identified and needed, leaders may find transactional give-and-take

leadership to be most effective in overcoming some of the most serious threats to

innovation or for securing the compliance, if not the understanding, of followers who

are unwilling or unable to respond to the higher morality of reform (Leithwood &

Sleegers, 2006; Mette & Scribner, 2014).

In contrast to transactional leadership, transformational leaders motivate their

followers to do more than initially expected. They are change agents, are concerned

by long-term objectives, and transmit a sense of mission. These leaders engage

practices which instil faith and respect (charisma), and treat each employee as an

individual (individualised consideration). Transformational leadership was not

promoted as replacing transactional leadership; rather adding to it (Waldman, Bass, &

Yammarino, 1990). A transformational leader motivates followers to work for

transcendental goals instead of immediate self-interest for achievements and self-

actualisation, and creates within followers a capacity to develop higher levels of

commitment to organisational goals (Bush & Glover, 2014; Leithwood & Sleegers,

2006; Liu, 2015). Additionally, Burns (1978) explained that a transformational leader

encourages followers to come up with new and unique ways to challenge the status

quo and to alter the environment to support being successful.


Studies into transformational school leadership found teachers often felt empowered

and stimulated to explore and experiment with unknown practice. However, teachers

with a traditional view of leadership felt that there is a lack of day to day supervision

and an absence of strong and structured hierarchical leadership or someone in charge

(Day, Gu, & Sammons, 2016; Orphanos & Orr, 2014; Shatzer, Caldarella, Hallam, &

Brown, 2014). Transformational leaders were seen to motivate followers by appealing

to strong emotions regardless of the ultimate effects on the followers and did not

necessarily attend to positive moral values. Transformational leaders utilised great

influence to spark individual capacity and initiative in all followers. Their great

responsibility was to harness the critical mass and abide by a correct moral compass.

(Bush & Glover, 2014; Day, et al., 2016; Liu, 2015; Orphanos, & Orr, 2014; Shatzer,

et al., 2014).

Transformational leadership had strong correlations with job commitment (Bush &

Glover, 2014; Leithwood & Sleegers, 2006; Liu, 2015) and principals who

demonstrated transformational practices, such as paying personal attention to the needs

and interests of the teachers, providing for intellectual stimulation and challenges,

raising teacher’ expectations and motivation to devote and investing extra efforts,

appeared to encourage teachers to view their occupation as more rewarding and central

to their lives and increase their work commitment. When examining leadership in

schools, Gross and Shapiro (2015) found that a democratic style of leadership typical

of transformational and collaborative leadership practices resulted in higher teacher

commitment than autocratic or the traditional transactional style of leadership.

Transformational leadership practices helped create a deeper attachment to the


organisation for the workers, made them feel more invested and thus increased their

workplace commitment.

What the research suggests is that the stage of a teacher’s career may influence what

leadership practices a principal needs to display to enhance that particular teacher’s

work commitment. While early career teachers appeared satisfied with a more direct

transactional approach to leadership where they are clearly communicated what is

required, mid-career teachers appeared to need a more consultative and

transformational approach to leadership in which they have greater input and

participation in the entire decision making process. The cultural background of

teachers and their age, was also seen to be an influencing factor in determining

preferred leadership styles (Brezicha, Bergmark, & Mitra, 2015; Yu & Miller, 2005).

2.6.3 Distributed leadership

While distributive leadership is not a framework formally referenced within Education

Queensland for school principals to employ, the practices and philosophy of

distributed leadership have certainly permeated their way into Queensland state

schools. Distributed leadership emerged chiefly from the experience of school

improvement in the education system in the United States. Distributed leadership was

regarded as having a strong practice framework relevant to the school context and

culture. In this context, distributed leadership was regarded as primarily concerned

with the co-performance of leadership and the reciprocal interdependencies that shape

leadership practice (Jones, 2014). Distributed leadership placed an emphasis on

leadership in the school, rather than leadership of the school (Singh & Glasswell,


2016). Leadership was shared through the school to collectively and collaboratively

address complex social and educational issues.

Distributed leadership implied a fundamental re-conceptualisation of leadership as

practice challenged conventional wisdom about the relationship between formal

leadership and organisational performance. Distributed leadership implied actively

brokering, facilitating and supporting the leadership of others (Harris, 2013). It does

not mean that everyone leads or that everyone is a leader. This is to fall back on the

notion of leadership as a role and responsibility where leadership is somehow divided

up and handed out to others. Distributed leadership implied a different view of

organisational development, one where school principals are only part of the

leadership practice in any school as there are inevitably many other sources of

influence and direction (Harris, 2013).

The practices associated with distributive leadership engaged others within the

organisation to lead and be so empowered. The practices recognised that while the

school principal holds the apex title within the school, the power of leadership

emanates from many within the organisation and is not driven from the top down solely

by the principal. Distributive leadership is one model in which mid-career teachers

might be able to be involved and have their work commitment enhanced.

2.6.4 Instructional leadership

The concept of Instructional Leadership, which is sometimes referred to as Educational

Leadership (Goddard, Goddard, Sook Kim, & Miller, 2015; Horng & Loeb, 2010;

Robinson, 2010; Ylimaki & Jacobson, 2013), emerged from the changing agenda of


school leadership which had its origins in the end of the twentieth century (Horng &

Loeb, 2010; Masters, 2009; Robinson, 2010). Current literature about instructional

leadership falls into two general spheres; the first sphere is a narrow variant which

restricts its focus to teacher behaviours which enhance student learning (Horng &

Loeb, 2010; Robinson, 2010). The second is a broader sphere which focuses

additionally on other organisational variables which may also impact on student

outcomes (Horng & Loeb, 2010; Robinson, 2010).

Currently within Education Queensland the variant of instructional leadership adopted

is in line with the narrower sphere espousing a role shift for leaders which has moved

the focus of school principals towards instructional leadership addressing issues that

will impact on classroom instruction and student achievement (Masters, 2009).

Beyond this description there are no clear definitions or guidelines to what this may

look like in Queensland schools, or which leadership practices this form of leadership

entails.

Instructional leadership in schools, narrowly defined, focuses on leadership function

as directly related to teaching and learning, (Horng & Loeb, 2010; Robinson, 2010).

Some of these elements identified included: promoting a vision, creating alignment of

curriculum, instruction, assessment and standards, focusing on data and maintaining a

culture of continuous learning. Within this new paradigm, school principals must

combine the traditional school leadership duties – budgets, timetables, schedules,

maintenance, facilities, behaviour management and teacher supervision – with a

deeper involvement with specific aspects of teaching and learning. Instructional

leadership is about leadership practices which focus intensely on curricular and


instructional issues that directly affect student achievement (Horng & Loeb, 2010;

Robinson, 2010). This instructional view of leadership resonates with a return to a

behaviourist view of learning and transactional leadership practices.

In the context of student achievement, the actual impact instructional leadership

practices can have on raising the educational outcomes of students is the cause of much

debate. Researchers such as Robinson (2010) believe that it can raise student outcomes

and noted that principals in productive schools – that is, schools where the quality of

teaching and learning were strong – demonstrated instructional leadership both directly

and indirectly. Robinson (2012) concluded that if the student results are used as the

measure then instructional leadership behaviours in a principal are seen as beneficial.

Leithwood and Sun (2012) refuted this claim believing that there is little empirical

evidence of the effects of instructional leadership on student achievement.

Additionally Leithwood and Sun (2012) did not see instructional leadership as an

independent leadership practice, instead included it under the banner of

transformational leadership.

In the context of teacher professionalism, research from the 80’s and 90’s regarded

models of instructional leadership as paternalistic, archaic and dependent on docile

followers (Poplin, 1992; Sheppard, 1996 – cited in Segiovanni, 1996). Sergiovanni

(1996) summarised the essence of instructional leadership by stating, if teachers are

committed and competent, traditional forms of instructional leadership are not

appropriate. These studies are somewhat dated; however latter research still portrays

instructional leadership as reflective of transactional or a more traditional style of


leadership (Bush, 2015; Shatzer, et al., 2014) which could inhibit teacher autonomy

and independence.

In the context of school implementation, studies have raised concerns with

instructional leadership in its narrow sense as a way to get teachers to teach differently

to raise student educational standards (Neumerski, 2013; Rigby, 2014). These

researchers argued that in this form, instructional leadership became a form of

transactional leadership which required teachers to just follow directions. The

hierarchical orientation of instructional leadership conflicted with the democratic and

participative organisation of today’s schools. The direct instruction by principals to

teachers could detrimental to student achievement as teachers possessed critical

information about their students and how they learn; therefore teachers need

discretionary authority to make their own curricular and instructional decisions

(Neumerski, 2013). The latitude to make decisions within the classroom improved

both teachers’ work life and student achievement. Teachers need to be a part of the

decision making process to have the best impact on student learning and teacher

commitment. Instructional leadership has the most positive impact on teachers when

used in conjunction with transformational leadership.

Instructional leadership has evolved over time in response to changing needs of

schools in the context of global education reform (Bush, 2015; Neumerski, 2013;

Rigby, 2014; Shatzner, et al., 2014). What once was purely a process of giving

directions around student instruction and school programs, has evolved to embrace the

different contexts of different schools. More recent moves of instructional leadership

in Australia highlight a data driven agenda. Leaders are expected to closely manage


teacher performance and student achievements. This reflects a recent and

comprehensive environment driven by data and national standards for both teachers

and leaders. Instructional leadership is also associated with increased surveillance of

principals in high poverty or complex schools. Where once instructional leadership

was seen as being imposed on teachers, with the associated negative impact on their

work commitment; it is recently beginning to be seen as a positive way of supporting

teachers to do their job well through principals’ leadership practices (Harris, Jones,

Cheah, & Adams, 2017; Ng, Wong, & Choy, 2016).

Recent research with principals in Queensland schools (Bloxham, Ehrich, & Iyer,

2015) looked into the changing school principal’s role in light of the creation of the

positions of Assistant Regional Directors, School Performance in 2010. Their study

identified that there was an increasing expectation on school principals to resolve

issues of performance for their school within a larger system and that principals were

seen to be responsible for teacher performance. There was also a perception that

Queensland state school principals’ performance is evaluated through the School

Performance Profile (Bloxham, et al., 2015). The importance placed on school

improvement, and on the principal to deliver this, is reflected in the fact that the School

Improvement Profile has been accompanied by the phrase; “improvement is the given,

it’s just the rate of improvement that’s negotiable” (Bloxham, et al., 2015, p. 12).

Bloxham, et al., (2015) described the School Performance Profile as the primary data

set and point of reference employed by supervisors when monitoring Queensland

public schools. They explained, principals must answer questions about what has

happened within their area of responsibility (their school) and provide an account of


practice; what has happened (or not) and why it has (or has not) happened. Within

Education Queensland the answers are evaluated by the principal’s supervisor against

an expectation of improvement or performance achievement established at higher

levels of the education system (Bloxham, et al., 2015).

It is through such processes that principals are being held to account and concepts such

as professionalism and leadership are becoming datafied and this datafication is

influencing principal leadership practices (Thompson & Mockler, 2016). Where once

principals were driven by democratic or social justice goals, they are now increasingly

induced to speak to, and of, data sets, both internally and in the public domain, as

presented by NAPLAN and the MySchool website (Thompson & Mockler, 2016).

The School Performance Profile has a strong focus on school outcomes and student

learning. Teachers and principals efforts are concentrated on raising student outcomes

in relation to national test scores (Bloxham, et al., 2015). The School Performance

Profile measures many aspects of learning and data and influences school learning

practices. Current school principals are described as the ‘accountability generation’

where the improvement of school data is now seen to be a critical measure of

leadership success (Heffernen, 2017). These school results in addition to the

satisfaction and commitment of staff and satisfaction of parents and students are

measured and reported publicly, each year, as part of systemic reviews (Masters,

2009). Teacher attrition is not yet one of the headline indicators reported on.

In summarising research regarding instructional leadership, to be truly effective

instructional leaders should avoid restrictive and intimidating approaches to teachers,


as well as approaches that encourage compliance for compliance sake based on a

narrow definition of teaching. Furthermore, the preparation and continuing

development of instructional leaders should de-emphasis principals’ direct micro

management (or transactional instruction) of teachers where the principal visits every

classroom to lead the instructional process. Programs should teach practising and

aspiring principals how to develop relational aspects of leadership such as professional

relationships, dialogue and collegiality among staff to build a culture where embedded

and real change can occur. Principals alone cannot fulfil all of a school’s needs for

instructional leadership (Neumerski, 2013), which leaves room for mid-career teachers

to take on leadership roles and for principal leadership practices to facilitate this.

As noted previously, this literature review acknowledges other forms of leadership

models such as distributed and collaborative leadership, but has focussed on the three

most common leadership practices advocated by Education Queensland within the last

30 years. From a traditional transactional model of leadership, Queensland schools

were led through the Focus on Schools (Education Queensland, 1990) and Leading

Schools (Education Queensland, 1997) documents into a more autonomous

transformational model where schools at local level could direct change independent

of the greater system. The Master’s Report (2009) redirected schools to have a primary

focus on measurable literacy and numeracy outcomes and recommended an

instructional leadership approach be taken by school principals.

A comparison of the leadership practices of each of these three leadership styles as

described in the literature is provided in Table 2.1 to show how the shifting policy has

emphasised some leadership practices over others, while some remained constant. The


leadership practices identified in this table have been drawn from the literature and

represent key practices authors described and identified as relating to each leadership

theory.

Table 2.1 Leadership practices - comparison of the three common leadership models

Leadership Practices that may influence mid-career teacher commitment

Relevant leadership theories

Transactional (Burns, 1978)

Transformational (Burns, 1978)

Instructional (Murphy, 1988)

Promoting a vision and inspiring √ √

Reinforcing hierarchical structures √ √ √

Practices delivered within traditional leadership framework

√

Mutual benefits √ √ √

Extrinsically motivated √

Separate purposes for individuals √

United goals √

Intrinsically motivated √

Short term objectives √

Long term objectives √ √

Concerned with the individual and personalised

√ √

Inspiring √

Capacity building √

Narrow scope √ √

Outcome focussed √ √


Embedded change √

While it can be seen that there has been distinct changes in leadership practices over

time, Watson (2005) stated that leadership “models are not mutually exclusive and can

operate concurrently” (p.53). The vast majority of research into principal leadership

practices looked at an existing model of leadership and tested how this model impacted

on teacher satisfaction and commitment. There is an absence of research from the

participants’ perspective with most research taking an ‘outsider’s’ perspective when

undertaking the study. This study aims to address the gap in research and obtain an

‘insider’s’ view by questioning mid-career teachers to seek what practices they wish

their principals to display.

There are areas of practice that may not be prioritised in a leadership theory or

framework, yet mid-career teachers may identify as a concern. For example, across

Australia, classroom misbehaviour of students is an area many teachers want support

from their school principal. If not supported adequately by the school leader it is an

issue that can lead to teacher work commitment declining. A 2017 survey conducted

with teachers across Australia (n = 960), found that the most important needs for

change within schools to improve teachers’ well-being according to teachers were

smaller class sizes and improved measures for student behaviour management

(Garrick, Mak, Cathcart, Winwood, Bakker, & Lushington, 2017). These results

provide an insight to principals in regard to areas to consider for organisational change

that teachers are reporting as most important for their own well-being and work

commitment.


The student suspension figures in Queensland state schools 2006 - 2013 illustrate the

Queensland story over time suggesting student misbehaviour is increasing in line with

studies done in other jurisdictions. There was an upward trend in the rate of short and

long suspensions in Queensland state schools over the period 2006 to 2010. The rate

of exclusions and enrolment cancellations more than doubled between 2006 and 2013,

from 0.6 to 1.3 per 1000 students per term (Education Queensland, 2014). Furthermore

when examining latest figures from Education Queensland’s Annual Reporting for the

years after the ones already referenced, they indicate that the rate of suspensions and

exclusions has continued to increase. The intensification of these issues will have a

significant impact on teacher work commitment and are issues a school principal is in

a position to influence through leadership practices.

2.7 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK EDUCATION QUEENSLAND SCHOOL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES

Historically the leadership practices of Queensland school principals were not

centrally directed. It was left to the individual principals to determine what was best

for them and their school. The ‘success’ of this leadership, it could be argued, was as

diverse as the models and adaptations employed. The 1990’s saw significant changes

to Queensland state school leadership with the move to school-based management

(Cranston, 2002) although no clearer direction for leadership was provided. The Focus

on Schools (1990) policy document provided state schools with increased

responsibility for decision making through initiating a decentralised management

system. This was further refined in in 1997 with the Leading Schools policy. The start

of the 21st century marked increased societal changes which demanded that school

leaders become more accountable (Cranston, 2002). Greater scrutiny on student


outcomes was expected in an environment of increased litigious claims and public

accountability and transparency.

While changes in school accountability and leadership policy were obvious, individual

school principals were still required to interpret what these policies meant for each

school within the new framework of increased autonomy. There was no guiding policy

on what effective school leadership practices looked like. The Masters Report (2009)

changed this ad hoc approach to school leadership and presented a style of leadership

– instructional - to be implemented across all Queensland school sites. The existing

leadership framework of Education Queensland was amended in 2010 in direct

response to the Masters Report (2009) to ensure Queensland state school principals

had an “unrelenting focus on instructional leadership”.

The Masters Report (2009) was commissioned by the Queensland government as a

political response to Queensland students’ results in the national testing processes

(NAPLAN – National Assessment Process, Literacy and Numeracy) which were

introduced throughout Australian education jurisdictions in 2007. The results of these

first truly comparative tests to be implemented in Australian schools showed

Queensland to consistently be place sixth out of the eight jurisdictions amongst all year

levels tested – years 3, 5, 7 and 9 – in each different strand of literacy and numeracy.

In his report, Masters (2009) gave many recommendations for Education Queensland

to undertake to help raise student performance. He particularly gave emphasis to the

importance of high quality teaching and school leadership practices for this

improvement to occur.


Two responses to Masters’ recommendations about school leadership by Education

Queensland and the Queensland State Government were to firstly establish the

Queensland Educational Leaders Institute (QELI) to help develop school leaders and

secondly, direct the focus of school leaders to be in classrooms working with teachers

as collegial guides and offer direct instruction and feedback to teachers’ pedagogy.

This model of leadership with principals’ in classrooms is seen as a key way of raising

student results and saw Education Queensland promoting this model of instructional

leadership as an effective and required practice in Queensland schools (Masters, 2009).

Prior to the Masters Report (2009), transactional and transformational frameworks for

leadership also held some prominence within Education Queensland giving guidance

to school principal’s leadership to lead school direction in line with the greater

system’s articulated policy.

It was this shift in leadership focus which gave rise to the current Leadership Matters

(Education Queensland, 2010) policy framework. This framework reflects

contemporary thinking of school leadership and isolates key skills and knowledge a

school principal is expected to possess and preferred practices to demonstrate. This

notion that the school leadership role can be broken into skills and practices was not

isolated to Queensland. Within Australia, the Australian Institute for Teaching and

School Leadership (AITSL) created a nation-wide framework for school leaders - the

Australian Professional Standard for Principals (AITSL, 2015) - based on standards of

practice with the intention of establishing consistent role description and expectations

across all promotional panels and a clear framework for school leadership

development. While the AITSL framework is implemented within Queensland state


schools and serves as a guide for school leadership development principals, Education

Queensland’s Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) was used as the

underpinning framework for this study as it is still the basis for Queensland principal

selection and promotion.

Beneath the Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) framework sits

additionally resources which identify and describe the leadership capabilities,

behaviours and practices for educators across the different levels of leadership in

Queensland schools. The Principals’ Capability and Leadership Resource for Large

Schools (Education Queensland, 2011) was most relevant to this study as it outlined

the leadership practices of school principals in large schools of a size where this

research was conducted. The leadership capabilities framework of Education

Queensland is linked to the Australian Professional Standard for Principals (AITSL,

2014) and as such was determined the best tool to analyse mid-career teachers’

perceptions of the impact of principal leadership practices on their work commitment.

2.8 LEADERSHIP MATTERS FRAMEWORK (EDUCATION QUEENSLAND, 2010)

The Leadership Matters framework (Education Queensland, 2010) classifies principal

leadership into five leadership domains. Each domain pertains to an area of school

leadership which is seen as an essential part of the principal’s repertoire of skills,

knowledge and practices. In summary, these leadership domains encompass;

Relational leadership – the way in which a principal interacts with all relevant

school stakeholders


Personal leadership – the way in which a principal conducts themselves and

demonstrates their core beliefs

Educational leadership – the way a principal understands and leads the

curriculum and learning on a school site

Organisational leadership – the way a principal can lead the facilities,

resources, staff, policies and programs to maximise student learning

Intellectual leadership – the way a principal is able to conceptualise the

school direction, overcome problems and create new solutions to deliver the

school vision.

While the specific leadership practices under each domain are not explicitly outlined,

the description of each domain allows for the easy classification of enacted practices

to the appropriate domain. Many of these leadership practices are discussed in the

literature and can influence teacher commitment. Some of the significant practices

and their implication to teacher commitment are discussed below.

2.8.1 Strategic vision

This idea of creating and articulating a vision to staff resonates with Depree (1989)

who states that, “the only kind of leadership worth following is based on vision” (p

131). By sharing the vision staff can gain an understanding of the why behind the

practice and also of where the organisation is going and how it is going to get there.

Hoyle’s (1995) concurs with this view of visionary leadership by stating that co-

workers of visionary leaders are loyal. An earlier study by Conger (1989) into leaders

who create a clear vision found workers involved in collaborative vision creating to be

trusting of their colleagues and leaders, like their jobs, work longer hours without


complaint and be more committed to their work than staff working with non-visionary

leaders.

While these earlier studies had a clear focus on vision, without linking it to power,

later studies into policy enactment and power relationships in schools (Spillane,

Diamond, Burch, Hallett, Jita, & Zoltners, 2002; Braun, Ball, Maguire, & Hoskins,

2011) saw sharing a vision and enacting practices to deliver this vision, particularly in

terms of system policy enactment, as a key aspect of distributive power and shared

leadership.

The leadership practices of creating a vision also encompass the communitive and

relational practices which accompany the vision intent to ensure the vision is shared

and supported. The recent research around creating a common, shared vision affirms

the earlier work of Conger (1989).

2.8.2 Feedback

Behnke and Steins (2016) and Kelley and Dikkers (2016) identified school principals

being open and acting on feedback as a crucial component of effective school

leadership. The research of Behnke and Steins (2016) was a study on the impact of

feedback to principals from school inspectors in Germany, while Kelley and Dikkers

(2016) undertook a quantitative study of middle and high school principals and staff

in a Chicago school district. This research noted two distinct and equally important

types of feedback which are essential to effective school leadership.


The first form of feedback is organisational feedback where the staff give opinions

around the systems in the school including school programs and school operations.

This form of feedback is more concerned with the organisational domain of leadership

as it is focussed on policies and the school, not the leader. This kind of feedback is

common in schools. The second form of feedback is the personal feedback which is

concerned with the individual school principal and their demonstrated leadership

practices. This feedback has much deeper ramifications for school change and teacher

commitment as it does not just change surface policies and school organisation, but

can instil deeper permanent change in the principal’s leadership practices.

2.8.3 Interpersonal practices

The relational practices of the school principal are pivotal in forming the culture of a

school (Boyd, et al., 2011). How the principal interacts with members of the school

community sets the framework for other interactions within the school. In their studies

Price (2012) and Pas, Bradshaw and Hershfeldt (2012) found that the relational tone

of a school can have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on teacher work

commitment. If the principal sets a positive tone with their interactions, this tone can

cascade through the other members of the organisation. Positive relationships

generally mean an increase in teacher satisfaction and a positive impact on their work

commitment.

Conversely, neutral or negative work relationships resulted in declining satisfaction

and work commitment. Additionally, if the principal demonstrated negative relational

practices, these are often adopted by others within the organisation. While the

relational practices of all employees can impact on a school community; it is the impact


of school leaders and their leadership practices which ultimately can influence whether

a teacher remains in the profession (Boyd, et al., 2011).

While each teacher as an individual may need different specific leadership practices to

experience a positive culture, a constant conclusion from current research into school

culture and relationships (such as Boyd, et al., 2011; Goddard & Goddard, 2006;

Goddard & O’Brien, 2003), positions the school principal as the person at a school

who can influence this most significantly. Researchers such as Price (2012) and Pas,

et al., (2012) have clearly linked the tone of the school to teacher work commitment.

Pas, et al., (2012) concluded that establishing a supportive relationship culture within

a school has a positive impact on teacher work commitment. A negative work

relationship culture generally results in declining work commitment. The school

principal is the pivotal person in forming a relational culture within a school because

how they act and interact with other staff has the greatest impact on teacher work

commitment than any other person on a school site (Boyd, et al., 2011).

2.8.4 Coaching and mentoring

The leadership practices of coaching and mentoring can be effective processes which

can impact positively on mid-career teacher work commitment when done effectively

(Amoroso, 2002; Carpenter, 2004; Hudson, 2103). Buckley, et al., (2004) identified

the importance of having the right resources and support to ensure a positive culture

to peer coaching and mentoring. Their study found that a lack of effective teacher

mentoring was an identified reason for a decline in work commitment. At this point it

is salient to note the clear difference between mentoring and coaching. Within the

Queensland educational context mentoring is usually associated with beginning


teachers. Since 2015 all beginning teachers in Queensland have been assigned an

experienced, trained teacher as their mentor (Education Queensland, 2014a).

Mentoring in this sense is a program being expanded and invested in by Education

Queensland.

Coaching, in contrast, is defined as being relevant to all teachers not just for teachers

beginning their career (Knight, 2009). A coach has a specific area of expertise and will

use their expertise to improve the skills of all staff. Many primary schools in

Queensland were assigned, Reading, Literacy or Maths coaches to work with all

teachers, regardless of their career stage, to help improve outcomes for their students.

Coaching is seen as a partnership arrangement as opposed to the more hierarchical

arrangement of mentoring.

Coaching and mentoring practices are important to teachers’ work commitment on two

levels as they can impact positively on both the teacher being mentored/coached and

the mentor/coach themselves (Hudson, 2013). Lovely (2012) however, cautioned that

the beginning teachers, often have a different view to work and life than mid-career

teacher and beginning teachers can become disenchanted by mentors who are negative,

lacked content knowledge and failed to offer new ideas. On the other hand, by working

with beginning teachers, the mid-career teacher can be re-enthused, and thus re-

committed to their work, by the beginning teachers through working closely and

sharing their passion as well as learning new skills particularly in the area of

technology (Lovely, 2012). Clearly any coaching or mentoring must be implemented

effectively to have a positive impact on all involved and to do this requires the correct


organisational support of the school through the leadership practices of the school

principal.

It is clear in the research (Buckley, et al., 2004; Hudson, 2013; Lovely, 2012) that if

mid-career teachers are undertaking mentoring or coaching roles, it is important that

they are supported and perhaps mentored themselves. These teachers need to be

supported with the extra responsibilities to ensure that the additional load does not

negatively impact on their work commitment. This support could be ensuring time-off

face to face teaching for the mentoring teacher which is something built in to the

current Education Queensland mentoring for beginning teacher program.

2.8.5 Inspirational

Inspiration is a key practice of transformational leadership identified in contemporary

literature as a necessity for motivation and sharing of a common vision. When

implemented effectively leadership practices which inspire teachers can increase their

work commitment. Ogbonnaya and Nielsen (2016) identified four dimensions of

transformational leadership one of which is described as ‘inspirational motivation.’ An

inspirational motivation leader can formulate a vision, communicate this vision in a

precise and consistent manner and set realistic expectations for followers to achieve

the vision (Ogbonnaya & Nielsen, 2016). They help lift staff performance and harness

everyone in the same direction. This is particularly necessary when working in an

industry such as education which sees frequent changes in policy and direction and

requires quick adaption to change. School leaders need to be change agents and

transmit a sense of mission and endeavour to inspire teachers (Leithwood & Sleegers,

2006; Ogbonnaya & Nielsen, 2016).


2.8.6 Integrity

The importance of the personal leadership practices of integrity and trust to a

committed workplace, were highlighted by Covey (2006) and reinforced more recently

by Starr (2016) and Ciulla (2016). These researchers concluded that if workers do not

believe in the integrity of the leader, or have trust that the leaders will make ethical

decisions, workers’ commitment will decline. Star (2016) and Ciulla (2016) found that

people are reluctant to work for or undertake interactions with a person they do not

have trust in, highlighting the significance of the personal leadership domain. While a

leader can employ other people to undertake many of the operational factors – and in

schools these factors might include facilities management, budgeting and curriculum

aspects of school leadership – it is critical that a leader build trust throughout their staff

via leadership practices of inspiration, integrity and honesty. These practices are of

great importance to a work place, and are the sole responsibility of the leader. While

Covey’s (2006) and Ciulla’s (2016) work was based on general leadership in a variety

of industries and work settings, Starr’s (2016) research had an educational context

developing core value statements in public schools in Maryland. All three studies had

a similar context in that they share similar pressures of rapid change and performance

expectations. Due to these similarities, the conclusions of all three researchers resonate

strongly with school leadership and have implications for both educational systems

and individual school leaders.

2.8.7 Managing change and workload

Riley (2014) noted the increasing work load and tension in which school principals

operate trying to implement the broad systemic requirements while also attending to


the local needs and wellbeing of staff. Today’s school principal must manage constant

multi-directional change and deliver the required benchmark outcomes while

maintaining a consistent strategic direction for their staff (Mills & McGregor, 2016).

Principals need to deliver the systemic requirements in tandem to supporting the

diverse needs of their school staff. This tension is a key point in the research of

Spillane, Diamond, Burch, Hallett, Jita and Zoltners (2002) and later in the research of

Riley (2014a) and Gallant and Riley (2013). This research concluded that school

principals face numerous dilemmas particularly around policy enactment and engaging

teachers. Principals need to meet the demands of a policy system while building

teacher support as the eventual enactors of the policy. At the same time, many teachers

have grown frustrated with the fads that have plagued education systems and want

more incremental and less immediate change. Principals who do this well can

positively impact on teacher work commitment; conversely if the teachers’ perception

is that the principal is not coping, the work commitment of staff decreases.

In this era of school change and accountability, teachers too are feeling the strain as

workloads and demands across the school increase. It is therefore important that

principals are aware of what they are asking of mid-career teachers particularly when

wanting to harness their knowledge and expertise for the benefit of other teachers in

the school. Terry (1997) identified additional workload and responsibilities as a

catalyst for reduced work commitment in teachers, therefore recognition of teachers

through extra tasks must be viewed with caution. Later studies (Eberhard, et al., 2000)

identified alternative forms of teacher recognition such as acknowledgement, and/or

affirmation from school principals as leading to greater commitment in mid-career

teachers.


The ability to implement appropriate and effective change is of critical importance to

school leaders (Maxwell & Riley, 2016; Morrison, 2017). The Gonski (2011) review

into Federal Government funding of Australian State and Territory school systems has

seen unprecedented monies being allocated to schools above traditional school funds.

In Queensland these funds have been given directly to individual schools that have the

independence to decide the best form of investment for their community. The school

principal is responsible for allocating this money, reporting on the success of each

initiative to the community at the end of each year and has to instigate and manage

change.

Increasingly the school principal has become a change agent entrusted to implement

changing educational agenda from political, policy level to a school practical level

(Riley, 2014). These changes have increased in frequency over the past decade placing

greater importance on individual principal change management leadership practices.

Effective change management requires a clear and defined vision which all staff can

understand and align with. Results from Morrison’s (2017) mixed methods case study

in an international school found that the principal leadership characteristics most

frequently linked to effective change included: (i) being visionary; (ii) being

committed to school/staff; and (iii) creating a collegial/supportive work environment.

Additional research such as Szeto and Cheng (2017) and Day, Townsend, Knight and

Richardson (2016) also highlighted the importance of a school principal’s ability to

create and sharing a clear school vision as a key practice in formulating a culture which

impacts positively on teachers.


2.8.8 Individualised leadership

Recognising individual differences and developing shared school leadership, can be

ways to positively influence teacher work commitment. This view of leadership has

been reinforced again in later research into transformational leadership and the

changing agendas and expectations of leadership (Hewlett, Sherbin & Sumberg, 2009;

Leithwood & Sleegers, 2006).

Leading from the middle via a transformational leadership model was seen as the best

way to drive school improvement in the early part of this century. Much literature

focussed on school leadership and the influence it can have on student achievement.

The concept of leading from the middle assumed a hierarchical construct to

conceptualise the leadership structure within a school. While the school principal is

located at the top of the hierarchy, the middle level of leadership is an important level

between the principal and teachers which plays a pivotal role in transformational and

distributive leadership models (Grootenboer, Rönnerman & Edwards-Groves, 2017).

Middle leaders are those who have an acknowledged leadership position, but are also

involved in teaching in the classroom. The emphasis on middle leadership took the

focus off the principal as being the sole position of influence within the school and

entrusted department heads and senior teacher leaders to be equally responsible for

leading the school and transforming the school culture and workplace practises

(Grootenboer, et al., 2017).

2.9 CONCLUSION

Teacher work commitment and attrition is one of the more serious issues facing

educational systems today. Much research has been done focusing on early stage


teachers and reasons for their attrition, however, mid-career stage teachers have not

been the subject of the same rigorous studies. The disengagement of these mid-career

stage teachers is a growing concern and understanding the dynamics of this group will

help to retain teachers who have expressed a desire to remain in the profession long

term.

Research indicates that mid-career teachers will make decisions about leaving the

profession based on many factors but the underlying reason is their dissatisfaction and

waning commitment to the role. While factors influencing teacher attrition can be both

intrinsic and extrinsic, one of the most influential factors on mid-career teacher work

commitment is the leadership practices of the school principal. The principal can set

the tone for the school setting and this tone and culture has a significant impact on

teacher satisfaction. What the existing research into school leadership acknowledges

and proves is that being a school principal is a complex and multifaceted role. School

principals display a range of leadership practices which have an impact on the work

commitment of teachers. Different researchers and theorists have espoused the certain

strengths of one leadership framework or other while acknowledging that school

leadership exists in a context which may greatly differ from school to school.

While the research discussed has looked at categories of principals’ leadership

practices in isolation and then also looked at groups of practices which have been

formed into contemporary leadership models, no research has originated at the base of

the organisational structure asking mid-career teachers to define what leadership

practices they wish their principals to display without the question being attached to


an overriding leadership filter aimed at finding the strengths and weaknesses of a

defined leadership style.

Most research into principal leadership practices have usually been done with a

specific leadership framework in mind and then test the effects this has on teacher

satisfaction and work commitment. Studies have looked at the effects transactional,

transformational and instructional leaders have on teachers, or have searched for

teacher reaction to the effects of different leadership models on targeted principal

practices in isolation. Studies have also looked at what principal practices may

improve student outcomes and school results with no regard for what these may mean

for teachers if teachers view these as desired principal leadership practice. Studies have

also looked at what practices can influence teacher satisfaction and commitment as a

cause and effect study relating to outcomes of the practices principals choose.

No leadership practice research appears to have occurred in Queensland schools from

the mid-career teachers’ perspective of what they may need from a principal without

the constraints of a specific leadership framework. Specifically there is an absence of

any research addressing through a qualitative study, teachers’ views of principal

leadership practices. Existing studies seem to imply a top down structure where the

principal’s practices are imposed onto teachers and the outcomes are then looked at to

assess the effectiveness of that leadership behaviour.

This study aimed to further the existing research by asking what principal leadership

practices mid-career teachers want their principals to demonstrate to help maintain

their work commitment and ultimately retain them in the profession. While research


and studies have examined school leadership behaviours in depth from many

perspectives, the following question have yet to be researched in schools:



teachers?






work commitment?

The limitations of previous research in schools around the new paradigms of leadership

have been that they have been examined with an emphasis on the impacts of each

leadership style and exploring what impact each type of style may have on teachers at

a school. Leadership needs to be responsive to the needs and opinions of teachers. This

study in Queensland state schools has focussed on the teachers and asked what

leadership practices they would like to see from their principals to help improve their

work commitment.


Chapter 3: Research Design

3.1 CHAPTER PREVIEW

This chapter discusses the research design and methods used to investigate mid-career

teachers’ views of school principals’ leadership practices and uncover which specific

practices affect mid-career teacher job commitment. First, an introduction and

overview of the study (Section 3.2) and the focus research questions are identified

(Section 3.3). Next, the conceptual framework is described and contextualised (Section

3.4) and the design of this research is described (Section 3.5). The data analysis is

explained in Section 3.6 followed by the validity and reliability of the research design

and data (Section 3.7). Ethical issues related to this research are then outlined (Section

3.8), before a final chapter summary is provided (Section 3.9).

3.2 INTRODUCTION

This study investigated mid-career teachers’ perceptions of school principals’

leadership practices in relation to teacher work commitment. The literature has shown

that principals can have an impact on mid-career teacher work commitment through


direct and indirect means (Aydin, Sarier, & Uysal, 2013; John, 2017; Ling & Ling,

2016; Pillay, Goddard, & Wilss, 2005). Yet further research is required to understand

specifically how school principals influence mid-career teacher work commitment

through specific principal leadership practices.

It is important to gain an insight into mid-career teachers’ perceptions on school

leadership practices as these practices can shape a teacher’s work commitment and

subsequent decision to leave or remain in the teaching role. This study addressed the

following research questions related to school principals’ leadership practices and the

impact these may have on mid-career teacher commitment from the teachers’

perspective.

3.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The three central research questions which directed the research design were:



teachers?






work commitment?


Question one aimed to gain an understanding of mid-career teachers’ perceptions

about school principal leadership practices in schools in which they have worked. The

teachers were asked to give their perspectives of how principals’ leadership practices

affected their work commitment. The research question aimed to focus the

participants’ responses to the principal leadership practices that impacted their work

commitment rather than external factors over which a school principal has little or no

control. The terms ‘leadership practices’ and ‘work commitment’ were clearly defined

to the participants by the researcher through direct questions in the interviews and the

oral instructions associated with the survey. In this way participants were guided to

talk about the leadership practices which impacted on their commitment to the teaching

profession as a whole and not just their commitment to a school or principal.

Question two focussed on the possible implications for current policy and practice.

The mid-career teachers’ responses were analysed in relation to the leadership

practices outlined in the current leadership framework Leadership Matters policy

document of Education Queensland (Education Queensland, 2010). The purpose of

this analysis was to determine the degree to which the findings from the mid-career

teachers’ views of effective leadership, in regards to their work commitment, aligned

with the sought after leadership practices of Education Queensland.

Question three was used to determine if there was a difference in perception between

what mid-career teachers sought from principal leadership in relation to their work

commitment and what principals believed mid-career teachers needed. This

comparison was deemed an important aspect of this research in two ways. Firstly the

school principal is the person who determines what leadership practices are used to


implement policy and procedures on each school site. Therefore, it is critically

important the leadership practices they impart to teachers align with the needs of these

teachers to maximise their work commitment. Secondly research has shown that there

is often a difference in perception between what the school leader believes is the

impact of their leadership practices on teachers and the beliefs of the actual teachers

(Branson, 2007).

As stated previously, for this research, the term ‘work commitment’ was defined by

the researcher for participants to ensure it was interpreted as the act of leaving the

teaching profession not just leaving a school or school role. There was an underpinning

belief that if teachers became uncommitted to the profession they would leave and look

for other work outside of teaching – the essence of the definition of attrition adopted

by this research. It was also assumed that mid-career teachers with substantial

experience would be able to accurately reflect on different leadership practices of their

school principals and rate how these have impacted on their own work commitment.

Similarly, it was believed that experienced principals such as those interviewed, would

be well positioned to discuss the impact of their own leadership practices on mid-

career teacher work commitment.

To gain understanding of each group’s perceptions, a group of former mid-career

teachers and a group of current principals were interviewed to ascertain their views

through a semi-structured, interview methodology. Additionally, 142 current mid-

career teachers were asked to respond to a survey around principals’ leadership

practices and how these practices impacted on their work commitment.


3.4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

School leadership is one of the more multi-facetted subjects of social science research.

Numerous studies outline the importance of effective school leadership and many

contemporary educational researchers believe effective leadership by school principals

is essential to improve student and school performance. Paradoxically, researchers are

not so clear in articulating which school principal leadership practices secure the

desired results. While most of the current research into school leadership is based on

observations of what school leaders do and what results they achieve (Spillane,

Halverson, & Diamond, 2004), this current study focussed on the leadership practices

from the perspectives of mid-career teachers. It is a situated, social and cultural

perspective of school leadership.

Leaders’ actions in and on the world are mediated by a range of artefacts,

organisational structures and social interactions (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014; Scott &

Palincsar, 2013). Schools are historic formations constructed to meet society’s needs

for labour and people’s need for learning and development (Vennebo & Ottesen,

2011). Leadership practices within a school are contingent to resources and local

needs. School leadership involves the identification, acquisition, allocation,

coordination, and use of social, material and cultural resources necessary to establish

the conditions for the possibility of teaching and learning (Spillane, Halverson, &

Diamond, 2001). A school principal may make decisions or set an agenda, however

even though positions are regulated through formal roles, the outcomes may only be

achieved through the principal’s interactions with staff (Vennebo & Ottesen, 2011).

School principals cannot just rely on their formal position of authority; it is the


outcomes of interactions and leadership practices that determine the success of a led

endeavour.

This research acknowledges the current challenges of principalship, including the

increased accountability for system initiatives and processes. At the same time, this

research acknowledges that mid-career teachers may not be aware of the growing

complexities of school leadership and may continue to hold a narrow view and

understanding of the current pressures on leaders. This research aimed to explore the

practices that are valued by the broader system as well as mid-career practitioners.

An outline of desired principal knowledge, skills and practices to deliver these

requirements effectively, in the view of Education Queensland, has been developed in

the form of the Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) framework. This

framework was adopted to analyse the data in this research as currently it informs the

selection of school principals by Education Queensland. The five leadership domains

of Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) and associated practices are

outlined below in Figure 3.1.


EQ Leadership Matters leadership domains Organisational Concerned with a leader’s ability to manage people, finance, facilities, policies and systems. Examples include: Maintaining facilities and budgets Developing, implementing and monitoring planning management and reporting systems Applying policies and legislative requirements at local level Partnerships and networks Personal Concerned with how an individual leader conducts them self and sets their moral compass. These are the leadership practices that define who they are as a person and how they act in all situations. Examples include: Honesty and integrity Inspiring respect, trust and support Resilient Remaining composed in challenging and complex situations Emotionally mature

Educational Concerned with a leader’s ability to understand latest educational research. Develop and deliver curriculum at the school level and monitor and adapt these to improve student outcomes. Examples include Curriculum, pedagogy and assessment knowledge Learning models and philosophy Inclusive practices and differentiating

Relational Concerned with how a leader acts and interacts with people particularly staff. These are the interpersonal skills which build the relations between others. Examples include: Valuing individuals Honest and genuine interactions Manners, courtesy and respect Developing shared leadership and collective responsibility Professional interactions

Intellectual Concerned with how a leader can use analysis and problem solving to overcome problems and deliver innovative solutions. It is also concerned with positioning the school in the right direction. Examples include Being futures orientated Managing priorities


Creating a culture committed to learning Generating solutions and implement strategies

Figure 3.1 Descriptions of leadership practices under each of the five domains outlined in Leadership

Matters (Education Queensland, 2010)

This framework offered a theoretical grounding for studying school principals’

leadership practices, enabling investigations of practice to go beyond observing and

recording what a school leader does or teachers’ feedback on a prescribed and

determined leadership style. It framed inquiry into school principal leadership practice

using mid-career teachers’ views on effective leadership practices in relation to work

commitment to develop more thorough understandings of school leadership practices.

By using this framework which underpins the day to day leadership practices of state

school principals in Queensland, this study hoped that school principals and

educational jurisdictions around the world would be able to use this research as a

reflection tool to interpret and think about their own leadership practices and inform

future activity.

3.5 RESEARCH DESIGN

The research questions were investigated using a two phase mixed-method approach

(i.e. combining quantitative and qualitative methods). The mixed method design was

selected as it utilises the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research and

allows more insight into understanding the research questions than either form in

isolation (Bryman, 2017; Creswell, 2012). These two forms of data are separate but

connected with the initial qualitative results informing the second quantitative data

collection (Creswell, 2012). This multiphase mixed-method design employed a

“combination of concurrent and sequential designs” that “builds upon basic

convergent, explanatory, exploratory and embedded designs” (Creswell, 2012, p.547).


In this study, the multiphase design was used to explore qualitative data first, then

through an explanatory sequential design, used a quantitative data collection method

design.

For this study, a qualitative data collection was used as the initial collection instrument

in an exploratory nature to inform the quantitative phase of the study. This qualitative

aspect involved semi-structured interviews to establish parameters and determine other

aspects of this research that may not have been included in the literature and initial

draft of the survey instrument (Appendix A), which were explored further in the

multiphase design. The initial qualitative data collection involved two participant

groups:

a) mid-career teachers no longer in the teaching profession, and

b) current primary school principals

Participants from both groups were interviewed individually to ascertain their

perceptions on leadership practices and mid-career teacher work commitment. The

leadership practices identified in these interviews were used to inform the data

collection instrument for the subsequent quantitative stage of the study.

The quantitative part of this study utilised a survey (Appendix B), constructed through

the literature, as a key source of data collection (Lewis, 2015; Maxwell, 2012). The

survey design provided a qualitative and numeric description of trends, attitudes and

opinions of a population by studying a sample group from that population. From the

sample results, generalisations and claims can be made about the greater population

(Lewis, 2015; Maxwell, 2012). Creswell (2012) highlighted the straight forward nature

of this design as a main strength and believes that it is easy to implement because the


steps fall into clear and separate stages. The research design is presented below in

Figure 3.2 and the research time line in Table 3.1.

Phase 1 Phase 2

Figure 3.2 Research design to investigate mid-career teachers’ views on principals’ leadership

practices

Table 3.1 Timeline of research implementation

Research Timeline

Phase 1 Prepared the interview format Sept. 2013 – Jun. 2014 Invited participants (n = 2 x 5) Conducted the interviews Analysed content

Interviews of mid-career teachers who have left the teaching profession. (n = 5)

Test survey instrument on trial teacher group (n = 20)

Questionnaire/Survey Sample group of mid- career teachers in Qld state primary schools. (n =142)

Interviews of current Education Queensland primary school principals. (n = 5)


Phase 2 Survey construction Aug 2014 – June 2016 Tested survey through pilot sample Identified participants (n = 142) Administered Survey Analysed data

3.5.1 Participant overview

This research took place within state government primary schools governed by

Education Queensland. Education Queensland operates approximately 920 primary

schools throughout Queensland and employs around 16 000 primary school teachers.

Of this total number of primary schools, approximately one hundred and forty band 8,

9 or 10 schools (500 students or more) are located within the South East Region. It is

from these schools that mid-career teachers were specifically located to align with the

aims of this study. It is widely acknowledged that education is an aging profession

(O’Brien, Goddard, & Keeffe, 2007) so a significant number of primary teachers from

the selected schools would fall into the mid-career classification i.e. teaching longer

than five years. Exact numbers for this cohort could not be located from Education

Queensland.

The sample size for both the interview groups and the number of surveys (Appendix

B) undertaken in this study was determined by deferring to past research, the relevant

literature and experts in the field to ensure the participant numbers were adequate.

Inappropriate, inadequate or excessive sample sizes can influence the quality and

accuracy of research (Bartlett, Kotrlik, & Higgins, 2001; Bryman, 2017). Using an

adequate sample size, along with high quality data collection methods, produces more

reliable, valid and generalisable results (Bartlett, et al., 2001). An advantage of


quantitative methods is the ability to use smaller groups of people to make inferences

about larger groups that would be prohibitively expensive to study (Creswell, 2012).

The same can be true for qualitative sample groups (Lewis, 2015; Maxwell, 2012).

In determining the sample size for qualitative interviews with former teachers and

current principals in phase one of this study, it was important to assess the total

population available in each group to ensure the participation group was both

representative of this population and large enough to establish valid data.

Group 1: Mid-career teaches who had recently left the teaching profession to pursue

another career n = 5. This group proved difficult to determine in size due to an absence

of systemic tracking and identification of this cohort. Previously, money was offered

for Queensland state school teachers to leave the teaching profession and pursue a

different career in an effort to renew the teaching workforce in Queensland (Keogh &

Garrick, 2011). This program existed for several years and the statistics of these

specific teachers were recorded. This program has not been offered since 2013 and

apart from the cohort of teachers who took the payout (and numbers were restricted)

no other data on mid-career teacher attrition appears to be centrally and systemically

recorded in Queensland.

Group 2: The school principal participants n = 5 were principals from the South East

Region appointed to large state primary schools (band 8, 9 and 10) with student

populations of greater than 500. The total number of schools of this size, within the

South East Region, was listed as approximately 140 in Education Queensland’s 2015

Annual Report (Education Queensland, 2015). Each school has one principal


appointed meaning that the total population of principals which the sample group was

chosen from was 140.

The sample size for the quantitative survey used in phase two was based on Kline

(2005) who asserts that in quantitative data collection, the sample size is determined

by multiplying the number of items on the instrument with the number of response

options. In this case the survey instrument had five Likert scale options and 30 items

meaning the sample group should be around 150 participants. From the 150 participant

surveys returned, eight were removed as counted invalid due to anomalies in their

response data. These anomalies included; more than one response option indicated for

a survey item, personal details indicating the person was not suited to the research i.e.

not a mid-career teacher, and blank or incomplete surveys. Through this elimination

process the final sample size for the surveys was n = 142 and this number was deemed

to be representative (Kline, 2005).

3.5.2 Teacher interview participants

Five Education Queensland primary school mid-career teachers who had left the

teaching profession were located and agreed to be interviewed for the purpose of this

study (Table 3.2). The mid-career teachers (n = 5) were located through professional

teacher networks, school cluster groups and through social media. From this approach,

eight initial participants contacted the researcher willing to take part in the interviews.

These eight teachers were then screened to ensure they were suitable for the research

project (Bryman, 2017; Nardi, 2018).


Three of the candidates were eliminated through this screening process as being

unsuitable (Bryman, 2017; Nardi, 2018). One former teacher had left teaching more

than twelve years ago and it was felt that this timeframe was too long for them to

accurately recount if the leadership practices of the principal played any role in the

decision to leave. It was also felt that education had changed greatly within this twelve

year period and principal selection and leadership expectations had also changed

therefore this ex-teacher may not be reflective of contemporary practices. Only

teachers who had left the profession within three years of the interviews, and had

secured employment in another field were considered as suitable for this current

research.

A second candidate was eliminated based on their feedback that they were having a

break from teaching, had not engaged in any other employment and may return to

teaching in the future. This context did not fit the definition of attrition described by

the current research, so this candidate was removed from the list of potential

participants. A final candidate was eliminated based on the fact that they had served at

the same school as another participant, at the same time under the same principal. To

ensure a broader return of data and a broader view of teacher perspectives it was

determined to select participants from different school sites who had experienced

different school leaders. Through this initial screening, five ex mid-career teachers

were selected as suitable participants for the interviews.

Once identified as a suitable participant for this research (Bryman, 2017; Lewis, 2015;

Maxwell, 2012), contact was made with the former teachers and the parameters and

extent of the research explained. Each participant was then offered an invitation to


participate in the interviews (Appendix I). Interview participation was strictly

voluntary and interviews were conducted at a convenient time and location suggested

by each participant. No school sites were used for these teacher interviews. The option

of a phone interview was given to the former teachers as a convenient option, however

all participants elected to be interviewed in person. Two of the participants elected to

meet at a local coffee shop, two more at their new place of work and one agreed to

meet the researcher at the university as it was deemed a central location by the

participant.

The digitally-recorded information gathered through the interviews was transcribed by

the researcher and sent to each participant to confirm their accuracy and confirm their

permission to use the data. Data from the five interviews was then interpreted and

coded and used to identify leadership practices to inform the categories of practices

for the survey instrument used in the second phase of this study.

The five former teachers who participated in the interviews had all made a decision to

leave their teaching career before reaching retirement age. This study was concerned

with the reasons which influenced each of these teachers to leave the teaching

profession early before retirement, and if any of these reasons were related to

principals’ leadership practices. While Queensland teachers have no official retirement

age (Queensland Teachers’ Union, 2016), teachers cannot access their superannuation

as a lump sum – an act closely associated with retirement – until they reach 60 years

of age. The Webster dictionary (2017) defines retirement as “the withdrawal from the

action of working life.” This action of leaving the workforce is generally associated

with accessing one’s superannuation to provide funds for the non-working years of


life, linking retirement closely to the 60 year age threshold. As each of the teachers in

this study were below the age of 60 and have also engaged in alternative work careers

since leaving teaching, it was concluded that they were not at the stage of retirement

and had left teaching for other reasons.

The five participants had an average teaching career of 15.2 years in various state

schools and regions in Queensland and consisted of two males and three females

(Table 3.2). All teacher participants had left the teaching profession within three years

of the interview date.

Table 3.2 Mid-career teacher gender and professional context.

Participants Gender Experience

Teacher Years as a teacher

1 F 17

2 M 20

3 M 12

4 F 8

5 F 19

An underlying assumption held by the researcher was that teachers of this experience

and seniority, having worked at several school sites under several principals

throughout their careers would be well placed to comment on different leadership

practices they had experienced (Lassig, Doherty, & Moore, 2015). They would also be

well placed to discuss the impact these leadership practices may have had on their

work commitment (Jacobsen & Andersen, 2015). It was also assumed that these

teachers would be able isolate and identify the key reason(s) which led to their decision

to leave the teaching profession (Jacobsen & Andersen, 2015).


The participants’ words were taken at face value and their own articulated beliefs were

used to help form conclusions from their interviews (Creswell, 2012; Maxwell, 2012).

The assumption described above, underpinned the phrasing of one of the initial

interview question to the participants: “What reasons can you share for making your

decision to leave the teaching profession?” This initial question sought to identify if

principal leadership practices had any influence on the teachers’ decision to leave

teaching. The interviews were semi-structured and the initial question schedule can be

found in Appendix E.

A second key assumption made by the researcher was that the participants would be

able to recognise if principal leadership practices played a role in their decision making

process to leave teaching. Hence the research question was framed with an expectation

that the participants would be able to give clear reasons for choosing to leave teaching

and link these reasons to principal leadership practices if they felt warranted. A final

assumption by the researcher was that if the participants attributed principal leadership

practices as their key reason for leaving the teaching profession, their answers in the

interview, recounting their principal’s school leadership practices, would be framed

from a negative perspective.

All five participants expressed a willingness to share their stories and experiences of

school principal leadership practices which they had experienced under different

school principals. The participants were also able to articulate their key reason(s) for

leaving the teaching profession. Throughout all interviews, there appeared no outward

evidence of reluctance or difficulty amongst the interviewees in sharing their thoughts.

Each of the participants openly shared their experiences, recollections, dissatisfactions


and ultimately their reasons for leaving teaching. Their reasons for leaving were quite

clear for each participant and each one could not only articulate this reason but also

identify the critical factors which they believed contributed to their reasons.

These interviews were approached with great sensitivity as it was acknowledged that

the participants may be distressed by their change of career and surrounding

circumstances (Lewis, 2015; Maxwell, 2012). To help support the participants, the

topic questions were eased into the interview after a period of setting the scene and

putting the participant at ease. It was reinforced to the participant that they could cease

the interview at any time or not respond to any question that may be too distressing.

The researcher had also planned to discontinue an interview at any stage if the

participant became obviously too distressed or emotional and continuing on would

impact negatively on their well-being. The anonymity of the participant was stressed

before the interview, along with the fact that the interviews were not about a specific

principal (even though it might be for them) but rather about the leadership practices

in general (Appendix E). The purpose of the interview; to uncover former mid-career

teacher views about the impact principal leadership behaviours had on their work

commitment, was clearly stated at the beginning of the interview (Appendix E). To

ensure that participants felt at ease, they were invited to bring a support person to the

interview if they wished, however none took up this offer.

The interviews were based on Creswell’s (2012) design and included the following

central question:

What reasons can you share for making your decision to leave the teaching

profession?


The interview structure was centred on principal leadership practices and used probing,

sub questions to ensure that the interview stayed within parameters required and that

the teachers’ responses were clear (Creswell, 2012; Lewis, 2015; Maxwell, 2012).

However, the participants were able to lead the direction of the discussion and talked

about issues of their choice. Principals’ practices were the focus of discussion, not the

principals themselves, and for this reason the participant was asked not to identify the

principal by name or the associated school(s). Any inadvertent references to the

principal or school were deleted in the transcript data from the interviews.

3.5.3 Principal interview participants

Part two of this first phase of research design was interviews with current school

principals. These second series of interviews sought to uncover five current school

principals’ beliefs about mid-career teachers’ work commitment and the perceived

impact of principals’ leadership practices on teacher commitment. The interviews

explored the link between principal leadership practices and mid-career teachers’ job

commitment by asking the principals what they had done to enhance the work

commitment of mid-career teachers and to comment on the effectiveness of their

response in that situation. The interviews with the principals (n = 5) were semi-

structured in design focusing on the key mid-career teacher issues (Creswell, 2012;

Lewis, 2015; Maxwell, 2012). The semi-structured format allowed the participants to

lead the direction whilst remaining within the intended parameters of the research

intent (Appendix F).

The principals’ views were seen as significant within the context of the wider study to

address the key research questions and explore the potential alignment and tensions


between the mid-career teachers and principals’ views. These principals’ perspectives

were also used to identify the impact of specific leadership practices on mid-career

teacher work commitment and informed the survey instrument for phase two of this

research.

Five Education Queensland primary school principals were located and interviewed to

ascertain their perspectives on the relationship between leadership practices and

teacher work commitment. The principals were selected through invitation email

through their professional work account asking for participants. Additional requests

were sent through principal professional networks. Information was given outlining

the research aims asking for volunteers and explaining the conditions of principal

participation, such as size of school and time served as a school principal. Ten initial

responses were received however, five of these were deemed unsuitable. One response

was from a high school principal which was not accepted as high schools have very

different leadership structures to primary schools as explained in Chapter 1. For

consistency of context only primary school principals were interviewed.

Two other respondents were eliminated due to the fact that they were only newly acting

in the principal role for less than six months. To ensure depth of leadership knowledge

and experience to give richer data, short term acting principals were not accepted for

interview. Similarly, a fourth respondent was also deemed unsuitable as they had only

just been promoted into their first principal position the previous term. It was felt that

with only ten weeks experience as a principal they may not be in a position to comment

knowledgeably about the practices they implement to impact on mid-career teacher

work commitment. A final respondent was ruled out due to the school they led being


small and located in regional Queensland. For consistency of data return and to ensure

the school would have a large proportion of mid-career teachers on staff, only

principals of larger Metropolitan schools were interviewed.

The final five applicants were a mix of gender and deemed a suitable sample for the

interviews (Lewis, 2015). The group consisted of three females and two males who

were given an invitation to participate in the interviews (Appendix I). The size of the

current schools led by these principals varied between 500 (Band 8) and 1000 plus

students (Band 10) and were located in metropolitan areas in the south east corner of

Queensland, Australia. The five principals had an average experience of 7.8 years as

school principals and all had been school leaders at more than one school site (Table

3.3).

Table 3.3 Principal gender and professional context.

Participants Gender Experience Current School Size

Principal Years as a Principal

1 M 12 (Band 9*)

2 F 6 (Band 9)

3 M 9 (Band 10)

4 F 4 (Band 8)

5 F 8 (Band 9) *School band is determined by number of students enrolled in the school, the larger the band the larger the school. Approx sizes of schools - Band 8 > 500 students, Band 9 > 700 students, Band 10 > 900 students.

An underlying assumption of the researcher was that principals of this experience and

seniority, leading schools of such size, would have a history of leading mid-career

teachers (Heffernan, 2017). As such, the researcher also assumed these principals

would be aware of the impact of their own leadership practices can have on the


commitment of mid-career teachers. This understanding underpinned the phrasing of

the opening interview question to the principals (Appendix F), ‘What leadership

practices, as a principal, have you implemented to enhance the work commitment of

mid-career teachers and encourage them to remain in teaching?’ This initial question

sought to identify the leadership practices that had a positive impact on mid-career

teacher commitment. A second key assumption made by the researcher was that the

principals’ leadership practices would be aimed at enhancing teacher commitment

rather than decreasing it. Hence the research question was framed with an expectation

that the principals would have enacted practices which increased mid-career teacher

commitment leading to the principals’ answers being framed from a positive

perspective.

The questions followed the design suggested by qualitative researchers such as

Creswell (2012), Lewis (2015) and Maxwell (2012) and focused on two central

questions which convey an open and emerging design by beginning with the word

“what”, as suggested by Creswell (2012). The central questions were based around the

principals’ own leadership practices as school leaders and were followed up with no

more than five sub questions. The two central questions for the school principal

participants were:

What leadership practices, as a principal, have you implemented to enhance

the work commitment of mid-career teachers and encourage them to remain in

teaching?

What has been the effectiveness of some of those practices you may have used?


Sub-questions were used to narrow the focus of the study and ensure the interview

remained on task. They were also used to clarify the principal’s responses to ensure

the answers were clear and unambiguous.

The participants were able to self-direct answers within the parameters of the

interviews and research intent, and were given much scope as to the particular details

involving mid-career teachers they wished to discuss. The semi-structured nature of

the interview ensured that the choice of discussion was based upon the sphere of

influence principals have within a school and not on external factors (such as salary

and transfer procedures) over which the principal has little control.

For the convenience of the participants and to encourage maximum participation, the

interviews were held at the current school site of the principal being interviewed if this

was agreeable, or at an alternative suitable site suggested by the participant (e.g.,

university setting). The five principals interviewed elected to be interviewed at their

school site. The principals were all working within the South East educational region

of Queensland at the time of interview and permission was gained from Education

Queensland to conduct the research within this region (Appendix G).

The interviews were digitally recorded to allow a more natural style for the interviewer

and insure an accurate representation of participant responses (Creswell, 2012; Lewis,

2015; Maxwell, 2012). To further ensure the accuracy of the interviews, the

subsequent transcriptions of the interviews were sent to each participant for

endorsement and confirmation of content. Upon confirmation of data, the transcripts

were analysed and the leadership practices used by the principals examined and used


to inform the survey instrument which formed phase two of this study concerned with

quantitative data collection.

3.5.4 Phase two – Quantitative survey instrument: Developing, testing, refining and implementing the survey instrument.

Phase two was the second and numerically largest component of this study. It involved

the creating and testing of a 30 item survey instrument (Appendix B) which was

administered to a cross-section of 142 currently serving, mid-career teachers to

measure their views of principals’ leadership practices and the impact on their teaching

commitment. The survey items were informed by an expert in survey design, current

literature and by the data from the phase one interviews of both former teachers and

principals, and tested through a pilot group process which is outlined in detail below

(Appendix C).

This survey instrument (Appendix B) developed to collect the quantitative data from

mid-career teachers was a one-time survey, which illuminated any concerns around

attrition experienced in longitudinal or repeated study designs. A cross-sectional

survey method was selected as the preferred method for this study as it provides a

snapshot of the greater, targeted population (Bryman, 2017; Cresswell, 2012; Nardi,

2018). This method has been used in a number of other valid and reliable studies giving

credibility to the design. The cross-sectional approach ensured that a complete set of

data was available after administration of the survey, and there was no need to wait for

growth data to accumulate. Additionally, it was relatively easy to administer and score

and, was conducted cost effectively in a short span of time (Bryman, 2017; Cresswell,

2012; Nardi, 2018). The ease of gathering data was also conducive to gaining

respondent participation (Bragg, 2003). Finally, by adopting a cross sectional survey


approach the issue of sample mortality which faces many researchers who adopt a

longitudinal methodology was not a problem. Sample mortality is the loss of

respondents over time which can mean that respondents who remain in the study are

unlikely to be representative of the population as the sample that was originally drawn

(Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2017).

The survey instrument was developed in conjunction with an expert in the field from

Queensland University of Technology. The initial survey was based on the existing

leadership literature and the descriptions of leadership practices outlined in Leadership

Matters (Education Queensland, 2010). From these sources a first draft of the survey

was constructed. This survey was then given to a survey expert from Queensland

University of Technology who provided feedback and guidance to refine the survey

instrument. This feedback included changing the wording of some survey items so that

they all aligned in tone and description. A second change was also recommended

which was to ensure that each statement was constructed to avoid any double concept

issues by isolating only one concept at a time and compound statements were

separated. From this feedback an initial survey of 27 items was completed (Appendix

A).

Before the survey was finalised the data from the phase one qualitative interviews with

mid-career teachers and school principals were analysed and the coded themes were

cross checked against the survey items. From this checking, three emerging themes

appeared which could not easily be classified under the existing survey items. These

themes were about teachers feeling supported in their classroom work, feeling support

for their family/personal needs and having their views valued. These themes were


translated into three additional survey items meaning the updated survey which was

administered to mid-career teachers contained 30 survey items (Appendix B).

This updated survey was then administered as a pilot (Appendix C) to a test sample of

teachers (n = 20). The survey was used with this pilot group of twenty teachers to

undergo an iterative process to establish the content validity of the instrument and to

assess the questions and format (Creswell, 2012; Nardi, 2018). The pilot group was

also used to gain feedback on the ease of administration, time it took to undertake and

to ensure that the teachers’ interpretation of survey items matched the item intent. The

pilot group of teachers were volunteers drawn from one school (the researcher’s own)

who did not take any further participation in this study. This ensured no teacher in the

pilot group was selected to undertake the formal survey and have prior knowledge or

participation with the survey content. The pilot group were not asked to respond to the

instrument statements directly, but instead respond to their understanding of the

statements and the ease in which they feel they could respond (Appendix C).

The pilot group confirmed that the survey was user friendly and easy for participants

to understand. Completing the survey took approximately 20 minutes and participants

did not feel that they were identifying or isolating specific schools or school leaders.

While they did not suggest changes to the survey items or structure, it was suggested

that terms such as ‘work commitment’ could be interpreted in different ways and they

needed clarification. Hence the researcher ensured that this term was clearly explained

to participants in the introductory talk preceding each survey group before the survey

was administered, as explained in the earlier chapters of this research.


The survey instrument construction followed Creswell’s (2012) design incorporating

the following features of quantitative research instruments. The variables in each

statement were able to be measured separately and reinforced the cause and effect logic

of quantitative research. The variables were assessed in relation to their impact on an

independent variable and the instrument tested a research question not a hypothesis.

Each statement was constructed to avoid any double concept issues by isolating only

one concept at a time.

The final survey design (Appendix B) consisted of three components. The first

component was a short open-ended response question to garner the initial and first

thoughts of mid-career teachers without the prompts or guides from subsequent survey

questions. The second component of the survey instrument comprised a questionnaire

five-part Likert scale, which asked teachers (n =142) to rate how important each

leadership practice statement is to them in regards to their work commitment. The final

component of the survey asked the teacher participants to identify their top five survey

items from the 30 listed, which they felt had the greatest impact on their work

commitment. Additionally the final survey design also collected demographic

information regarding the participants to help organise and classify the results

(Appendix B).

Survey administration was through schools of specific size, as described previously,

in the South East Region of Education Queensland. This region has a high proportion

of mid-career teachers due to (a) the geographic spread of students in Queensland the

fact that the vast majority of state schools and teachers are located in the south east

corner of Queensland, and (b) many teachers who have undertaken their remote of


rural service early in their career elect to return to the south east corner meaning a good

percentage of staff are passed their five year mark in these schools and would be

described as mid-career teachers under the definition used in this study.

Schools in Education Queensland are given a band size (5 to 11) dependent on their

student numbers. Primary schools of band size 8, 9 or 10 (student populations between

approx. 550 and 1000) within these regions were targeted for the survey administration

as their specific characteristics usually mean there is a significantly high proportion of

mid-career teachers, who are the target group for this survey, employed within them.

Band 8 to 10 schools within the nominated region are all located in urban locations

and have a more than 30 staff. Generally the majority of the staff would have served

in other locations as part of the state wide transfer system and are thus past the early-

career five year mark.

Additionally, by selecting primary schools within this geographical area and school

size ensured a similar cultural context within each school, specifically in the leadership

structure as described previously. Primary schools of these specific sizes have a

principal and one or two deputy principals as part of the administrative team. Using

similar sized schools, across similar sites with similar leadership structures ensured a

similar cultural context which shaped this research as a macro look at Education

Queensland urban primary school leadership.

To conduct the survey, permission was sought firstly from Education Queensland

(Appendix G), secondly from each identified school principal to address staff at a staff

meeting and inform them of proposed survey, and thirdly from each individual


participant (Appendix J). All participation was voluntary and anonymous and this

research adopted an active ‘opt in’ process from each participant to be involved. This

ethical structure has been used in other research such as Grady, Eckstein, Berkman,

Brock, Cook-Deegan, Fullerton, Greely, Hansson, Hull, Kim and Lo (2015), Houghton

(2015), and Townsend and Wallace, (2016). By using this ‘opt in’ methodology it was

rightfully assumed that permission was being given by each participant, through their

actions and activity, negating the need for a formal permission document. Assurances

were given to the principal and the teachers that the survey was not about the current

(or any) individual school principal but rather an instrument to determine views on

principals’ leadership practices in general. At no time was a principal or school listed

or identified.

To assist in engaging teachers to participate in the study and ensure a higher response

rate, a personal approach was taken by having the researcher attend school staff

meetings as an education colleague who was undertaking research. The researcher

clearly explained the research aims and process and administered the survey only with

teachers who actively agreed to be a part of the process and fulfilled the required

criteria. The researcher attempted to collect all surveys on the day of administration

but also left a secured and enclosed collection box at the school to encourage maximum

participation. Multiple schools were approached to conduct the survey to ensure the

quota of teachers required (142) was reached and to ensure a multitude of school

leadership practices were encompassed in the research. The target group demographic

of mid-career teachers usually respond better to the described direct personal approach,

rather than an email or online survey and this face to face methodology garnered very

high participation rates at each school site.


3.6 DATA ANALYSIS

This research was of mixed method design and used both qualitative and quantitative

data (Bryman, 2017; Creswell, 2012). Qualitative data (interviews) and quantitative

data (survey) were used to investigate different phases of this study. The initial

qualitative data was analysed and used in an exploratory way to further inform the

quantitative instrument (survey). The survey was then administered to 142

participants. The quantitative data was then coded and analysed to determine the data

influence.

Qualitative data from the interviews was analysed using Creswell’s (2012) eight steps

model (Figure 3.3) that engage a researcher in a systematic process of analysis. This

analysis assists the researcher in identifying themes or perspectives and to report on

them. While Creswell’s (2012) model suggests a linear or hierarchical approach, he

highlights that the model should be seen as interactive and interrelated and not always

applied in the order presented.

Interpreting the meaning of themes/descriptions

Interrelating themes/descriptions

Themes Descriptions


↑

↑

↑

↑

↑

↑

Figure 3.3 Data analysis in qualitative research (Creswell, 2009)

3.6.1 Interview data analysis

A content analysis of the interview data was undertaken from the interview transcripts

(Saldaña, 2015; Bernard, Wutich, & Ryan, 2016). Content themes were isolated and

then coded and referenced against the Leadership Matters (Education Queensland,

2010) leadership domains. This is a common analytic approach used in mixed-methods

studies (Fakis, Hilliam, Stoneley, & Townsend, 2014). Each specific theme raised by

the interview participants was coded as a significant factor as they were used by the

participants to explain how their work commitment was impacted on from their

perspective (Saldaña, 2015; Bernard, et al., 2016).

By this process, 43 distinct codes were identified from the teacher interviews (see

Table 4.2) and 38 codes for the principal interviews (see Table 5.2). These codes were

then aligned with the descriptive statements of the five leadership domains as outlined

in Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010). Examples of this coding process

are explained further in Chapter 4 and are illustrated in brief below:

Principal didn’t know my name -> social skills -> relational leadership domain

Principal did not want our feedback -> self-reflection -> personal leadership domain

Coding the data

Reading through all data

Organising and preparing data for analysis

Raw data


I gave them curriculum programs to lead -> curriculum -> educational leadership

domain

The alignment of the coded statements to the Leadership Matters (Education

Queensland, 2010) domains proved very straight forward as each of the leadership

domains has explicit practices outlined which align with the broader domain

description (Figure 3.1). This made it very simple to align the coded themes to the

correct leadership domain with minimal need for personal interpretation (Saldaña,

2015; Bernard, et al., 2016). When a coded theme initially appeared to fit under more

than one of the leadership domains, the context of the answers, phrasing and choice of

language was used to help interpret and determine the most suitable leadership domain

(Saldaña, 2015; Bernard, et al., 2016); this occurred on several occasions. If a coded

theme could not be split between two domains, it would have been placed in both

domains, however using the analysis process outlined above there was no need to

utilise this option. Every coded theme was confidently placed within a single most

appropriate leadership domain.

The frequency of coding for each leadership domain was then used to determine the

impact the leadership practices of the five domains had on mid-career work

commitment from both the teachers’ and principals’ perspectives (Figures 4.1 and 5.1

respectively). This does not mean the other domains are of lessor importance to school

leadership, but only that from the perspective of the interview participants, some

domains were more frequently referred to, implying that these had a greater impact on

mid-career teacher work commitment. The findings from the teacher qualitative

interviews are described in Chapter 4 and the findings from the principal interviews

are described in Chapter 5.


3.6.2 Survey data analysis

The quantitative survey data was analysed in three separate ways reflecting the three

different components of the survey.

Component 1 - The initial short answer questions were analysed and coded for themes

using an identical process to the qualitative interviews described above (Saldaña, 2015;

Bernard, et al., 2016). The extracted coded themes were then mapped against the five

leadership domains of Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) outlined in

Figure 3.1, in the same fashion as the interview data, to gauge the impact of each

domain on the teachers’ work commitment, using descriptive statistics.

Component 2 - The second five-part Likert scale 30 item survey component was

analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software package.

The Likert scale has been used in many statistical studies similar to this one, and is an

effective way to collect and sort data (Joshi, Kale, Chandel, & Pal, 2015). Data from

the five-point Likert scale was entered into the Statistical Package for Social Science

(SPSS) software package to generate percentages, mean scores and standard

deviations. From the five-point scale (very important = VI, important = I, neither

important nor unimportant = N, unimportant = U, very unimportant = VU) important

and very important percentages were grouped together as part of the statistical analysis

of the 142 mid-career teachers’ responses. This grouping of responses made it easy to

determine the percentage of mid-career teachers who rated an item as important to

their work commitment. Mean scores showed where the responses are averaged, and

standard deviation (SD) illustrated the spread of responses around this mean score.


Each of the 30 survey statements were mapped in accordance to the five leadership

domains of Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) i.e., organisational,

personal, educational, relational and intellectual (Appendix D), and as such, each

construct of the instrument was analysed using Cronbach Alpha scores to ascertain the

internal consistency (see Section 3.7.2). In this way it was possible to identify each

statement with a leadership domain and subsequently measure the impact of each

domain on the teachers’ work commitment from the teachers’ perspectives. Cronbach's

alpha is one of the most widely used measures of reliability in the social

and organisational sciences (Bonett & Wright, 2015) and aligned well with the study

into teacher work commitment.

Component 3 - The final top five component of the survey asked the teacher

participants to identify their top five survey items from the 30 listed, which they felt

had the greatest impact on their work commitment. As described above, the survey

items were mapped against the five leadership domains of Leadership Matters

(Education Queensland, 2010) (Appendix D) so it was then possible to code the

frequency of each of the leadership domains to help gain an insight into the impact of

each domain in relation to mid-career work commitment. The findings from the

teacher quantitative surveys are described in Chapter 6.

3.7 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

The validity of this research design has been documented by outlining the steps and

processes undertaken; however in this section, the accuracy and credibility of the study


is formally addressed. Design validity is a checking of the accuracy of the findings by

employing research procedures (Gibbs, 2007).

3.7.1 Qualitative validity

According to Creswell and Miller (2000), validity can be a strength of qualitative

research with this method lending itself to accuracy, authenticity, trustworthiness and

credibility. To ensure the validity of research Creswell (2012) suggests employing one

or more of the eight primary strategies available to check the accuracy of the findings.

Three of these strategies were employed to test the qualitative validity of this study,

namely: Triangulation using different data sources to justify themes, member checking

taking conclusions or themes back to participants to determine whether they are

accurate, and an external auditor to review the entire project (Creswell, 2012).

3.7.2 Quantitative validity

The survey instrument used was designed specifically for this research study. The

survey items were constructed from the literature and assessed by an expert in the field

for content and construct validity. Through the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS) program, a factor analysis provided an indication of the eigenvalues,

percentage of variances and Cronbach alpha scores associated with the five leadership

domains identified by Education Queensland in Leadership Matters (2010) (i.e.,

relational, educational, intellectual, organisational and personal). Eigenvalues greater

than 1 were extracted for each domain with percentage of variance ranging from 43.3%

to 60.7%. All domains had acceptable Cronbach alpha scores (i.e., >.70; see Creswell,

2012). These results inferred that the survey had internal consistency and reliability

for further analysis and are displayed in Table 3.4.


Table 3.4 Results of Factor Analysis for Each of the Five Instructional Leadership Domains

Factor Eigenvalue % of variance Cronbach alphaRelational 3.031 43.3 0.77 Educational 3.036 60.7 0.84 Intellectual 2.287 57.2 0.74 Organisational 3.122 44.6 0.78 Personal 2.773 46.2 0.76

This study’s validity was enhanced by using a Likert scale and descriptive statistics to

report on the findings. The number of participants engaged was derived from the

literature and may be considered representative of the population. These numbers are

also considered acceptable for making generalisations relevant to the specific context.

In line with Creswell (2012), the step-by-step procedures followed by this study are

outlined, and the data collection methods are accurate and explanatory. All interviews

were conducted in the strictest of confidence and with full permission of each

participant for recorded answers to be transcribed for research purposes. An expert in

the field was engaged to review the final data and conclusions to reduce the impact of

any researcher bias (Saldaña, 2015; Bernard, et al., 2016).

3.7.3 Reliability

Reliability is concerned with whether a research approach is consistent and reliable

(Gibbs, 2007). Yin (2003) suggests that qualitative researchers should document

procedures and steps to determine if the approach is reliable and use a detailed protocol

and data base. To ensure reliability of this study two of Gibb’s (2007) reliability

procedures were employed. Checking of transcripts with each participant ensured that

they did not contain obvious mistakes made during transcription. Additionally,

consistent coding was employed by constant comparing data with the codes so that

there was no drift in the definition of meaning or interpretations during coding.


Increased consistency in coding was also achieved by using a third party to cross check

the codes used in relation to the transcriptions (Saldaña, 2015; Bernard, et al., 2016).

3.8 ETHICAL ISSUES

Although some issues on ethics have been discussed or incidentally mentioned earlier

in this chapter, it is salient to mention specific ethical practices as an independent

section of this research. The importance of ethical research is paramount in the

literature including guides of how to undertake ethical research by O’Leary (2004) and

Thomas (2017). This current study was undertaken within, and strictly adhered to, the

ethical standards of research outlined by both the Queensland University of

Technology and Education Queensland.

The researcher sought and received permission and ethics approval from Education

Queensland (Appendix G) and the Queensland University of Technology (Appendix

H) to undertake this research (Queensland University of Technology, Ethics

Committee - ethics approval number 1300000364). Participants in the interviews were

provided with informed consent forms based on the Queensland University of

Technology template (Appendix 1). This ensured a transparent and ethical approach

to the interviews and subsequent data analysis (O’Leary, 2004; Thomas, 2017). The

survey participants were provided with the university’s Research Information Form

(Appendix J). This form explained the details and parameters of the research and also

stated that the return of the completed survey was accepted as an indication of each

individual’s consent to participate in this project. This method of achieving consent is

viewed as valid and ethical by many studies concerning quantitative research and is

explained in research methodology guides such as O’Leary (2004) and Thomas (2017).


To further enhance the transparency and ethical approaches underpinning this

research, every step of data collection operated under an ‘opt in’ framework for all

participants. This meant each participant had to actively initiate actions to participate

in this research and these actions helped determine their consent to take part. Once

consent to be a part of this research was given; all participants were assured of privacy,

anonymity and confidentiality as an inbuilt aspect of conducting ethical research

(O’Leary, 2004; Thomas, 2017). With respect to the surveys and interviews,

anonymity ensured that schools and individuals were not impacted upon in a negative

way or disadvantaged by the publication of this research as per the permission

parameters outlined by Education Queensland (Appendix G).

In addition to gaining consent from all participants described above, the permission of

the principals of the schools where the mid-career teachers participating in the study

were located, even where the principal was not directly involved in the study

themselves, was also sought. As previously outlined, due to the fact that the

researcher, was employed as a state primary school principal in an Education

Queensland school, and to avoid any conflict of interest or contamination of data, no

staff from the researcher’s school (or staff who had worked with the researcher as their

school principal at other schools) took part in this study - except to test the survey

instrument without directly responding to it. The hierarchical power structure that

exists between staff and the school principal could taint responses of staff members or

place them in an uncomfortable professional position if they had been asked to take

part in this study; hence no staff members with any history with the researcher as their

school principal were asked to participate in this research.


All data collected was stored electronically on a secure site, with only the researcher

having access to the raw, original transcripts and surveys. The transcripts of each

interview were sent to each participant immediately after the interview, for them to

confirm the accuracy of the transcript before it was used in the data analysis stage.

Participants were able to edit the transcripts to ensure accuracy of intent and ensure

they were satisfied with their representations. Once transcripts were transcribed and

confirmed, the original recordings were deleted making it impossible for anyone to

trace and attribute specific responses to any one person.

Finally, to ensure that this study was conducted in an ethical manner, an annual ethics

report was submitted to the Queensland University of Technology during the duration

of this research to ensure ongoing ethics approval. It was determined that this study

was classed as ‘low risk’ and would not operate in any area of sensitivity or

controversy for the university or Education Queensland. This classification was

primarily determined because this study did not involve any students and the

anticipated results were determined to be of benefit to all parties involved and not be

seen as critical or adversarial.

3.9 CHAPTER SUMMARY

Chapter 3 provided an overview of the research aims and design, in conjunction with

the stages and timeframes for the implementation of each phase of this research. The

data collection and analysis processes, both qualitative and quantitative, were

described outlining the sequential and informing nature of the data gathering

throughout the two phases. Phase 1 was concerned with gathering data from


interviews, in conjunction with the literature, to inform the development of an

instrument that measures mid-career teachers’ views of school principal leadership

practices in regards to the teachers’ work commitment. Phase 2 involved administering

the survey instrument to explore mid-career teachers’ views of principals’ leadership

practices that may affect their work commitment.

The methods in which the data from each phase were discussed and the data collection

methods reviewed and supported by the university’s Ethics Committee and Education

Queensland ensured the validity of this research and that the research was conducted

in the appropriate ethical manner. Additionally two experts in the field of research

design and analysis, including an associate professor in educational research provided

advice and suggestions for conducting this research ensuring the intended research

design delivered accurate and valid findings. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 present the findings

of the data collected from the two groups of interviews and the survey instrument.

Chapter 4: Data findings – Qualitative interviews: Mid-career teachers


who have chosen to leave the teaching profession.

4.1 CHAPTER PREVIEW

This chapter presents the findings from part one of the qualitative interviews, the

former mid-career teachers, which formed the first phase of the multiphase, mixed-

methods, explanatory design (Creswell, 2012). These interviews explored the

perceptions of former state primary school, mid-career teachers (n = 5) who had made

the decision to leave the teaching profession and seek other employment. The

interviews sought to explore if principals’ leadership practices had any impact on the

teachers’ decision to leave teaching. Section 4.2 gives an overview of the themes

which emerged from the interviews.

The interviews are then divided into two sections based on the participants’ stated

reasons for leaving teaching; Section 4.3 pertains to participants who identified that

they left the teaching profession for personal reasons, while Section 4.4 describes the

participants who left teaching for reasons related to school principal leadership

practices. Section 4.4 also provides the interview findings of these participants, in

relation to the five identified leadership domains of Education Queensland’s leadership

framework Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) and evaluates the

significance of each domain in relation to the interview data. This data was analysed

inductively to identify major themes within principal leadership practices and the

impact these were perceived to have on mid-career teacher work commitment (Price,

2012). A summary and conclusion of the participants’ interviews are given in Section

4.5.


4.2 OVERVIEW OF INTERVIEW THEMES

A content analysis of the interview data as described in Chapter 3 was undertaken from

the interview transcripts. Content themes were isolated and then coded and referenced

against the Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) leadership domains.

This is a common analytic approach used in mixed-methods studies (Fakis, Hilliam,

Stoneley, & Townsend, 2014). Each specific theme raised by the interview participants

was coded as a significant factor as they were used by the participants to explain their

perspective of how their work commitment was impacted (Saldaña, 2015; Bernard,

Wutich, & Ryan, 2016).

These codes were then mapped against the description of leadership practices under

each of the five leadership domains in Leadership Matters (Education Queensland,

2010). If, for example, the theme raised by the participant was about the principal’s

interactions with staff it was classified under the relational domain. If it was about how

the principal led the teaching and learning programs, it was classified under

educational leadership and so on. Examples of how the coded themes emerged from

the data include:

Teacher 1 - Even knowing your name would be nice – interpersonal skills ->

relational leadership

Teacher 4 - Not being able to say good morning or how was your weekend –

staff relationships -> relational leadership

Teacher 4 - We were either manipulated or ignored while told we had a say –

respect -> personal leadership


Teacher 5 - For example one principal after working with him for over 10

years couldn’t even make eye contact and say hello – interpersonal skills –


The coding protocol for the ex-teacher interviews is outlined below in Table 4.1.


Table 4.1 Identified leadership practices from former mid-career teacher interviews coded under the

Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) leadership domains.

Specific Leadership Codes from Teachers’ Interview

Content Theme Leadership Domain Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010)

Building relationships between staff Creating a positive culture Applying departmental policies Managing resources

Team culture Policy enactment Resources

Organisational

Showing respect for staff x 4 Trustworthy Ethical Being ethical Be able to take feedback Emotionally ready for feedback Emotionally mature Inspiring to staff Inspiring towards staff

Respect Ethical Feedback Position readiness Inspiring

Personal

Leading curriculum requirements Curriculum Educational Feeling devalued x 2 Valuing individual staff Feeling of value Valuing staff Building relationships with staff No relationship with staff Building relationships Being approachable x 2 Approachable Approachable to staff Developing shared leadership x 3 Having interpersonal skills x 2 Knowing your name Having consistent interactions with all staff members Consistent interactions with staff

Valuing staff Staff relationships Approachable Shared leadership Interpersonal skills Consistent interactions

Relational

Creating a shared vision Sharing a vision with staff collaboratively Sharing a vision Managing priorities x 2 Generating solutions to problems

Vision Managing priorities Solutions focussed

Intellectual


As described previously, Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) was used

as the analytical tool for the interview data as it was the current leadership framework

used by Education Queensland, the jurisdiction where this research was undertaken

and under which the school principals of the interview participants would be operating.

The frequency of coding was used to determine the impact each of the five leadership

domains had on mid-career work commitment from the perspective of the teacher

participants.

From the teachers’ perspectives the relational domain of leadership was the domain

which had the greatest impact on their work commitment. Almost half of all the coded

statements from the teachers were classified within the principal’s relational leadership

domain. The second most frequently commented domain was the personal domain

highlighting the importance both relational and personal leadership practices have on

teacher’s work commitment from teachers’ own perspectives. The frequency of coded

practices from the interview data is displayed below in Figure 4.1.


Figure 4.1 Comparative frequency of coded leadership practices as identified from former mid-career

teacher interviews.

The five teacher participants approached for this study each had an individual set of

experiences and stories to share about their reasons for leaving the teaching profession.

As anticipated, the participants had firm views of what contributed to their decision to

leave teaching, which they clearly outlined in the interviews. While there were some

positively phrased themes, or comparisons made between what participants had

experienced under different school leaders, the majority of the responses focused on

what they needed from a principal but did not receive, and the perceived short comings

of that principals’ leadership practices.

While each participant’s recount differed from the others, outlining five different

contexts and experiences, the participants could be placed into two distinct groups.

Two of the five participants (Group 1) did not identify principal leadership practices

Relational 47%

Organisational 9%

Educational2%

Personal28%

Intellectual14%

Percentage


to be influential on their decision to leave the teaching profession, but rather cited other

reasons. The remaining three participants interviewed (Group 2) made direct

references to principal leadership practices and their waning commitment which

contributed to their decision to leave teaching and change professions. Although these

two groups can be placed apart in terms of their reasons for leaving teaching, it should

be noted that inferences about the principal’s role were made by both groups

illustrating a commonly held belief about the influence that principals’ leadership

practices exert on teacher commitment. The interview data are described below in the

following sections illustrating how the research findings were determined.

4.3 GROUP 1 – ALTERNATE REASONS FOR LEAVING TEACHING WITH INFERENCES FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES

Participants 2 and 3 both indicated that the decision to leave teaching was a personal

one reached by them alone in relation to where they were in their teaching career.

Participant 2 stated, “The main reason I left 18 months ago was to look for extra

challenges in my work life. I didn’t dislike teaching; I felt I had reached the end of a

career path.” Participant 3 said, “An opportunity arose in the sports management area

to take on a job and I accepted that position.” While reaching this decision may have

been influenced by many factors, neither participant directly attributed principal

leadership practices as the key contributor, but rather stated they made the decision to

look for new career challenges. These two teachers are represented in the research of

such as Becton, Walker and Jones-Farmer (2014), and Donald, Baruch and Ashleigh

(2017) as the percentage of mid-career teachers who just wish for a change of career

and do not see teaching as a lifelong profession.


Participant 2 was quite explicit in saying, “The school principal’s leadership did not

impact on my decision to leave, and the decision was solely mine.” Similarly

Participant 3 stated, “…there wasn’t really anything from the school I was at that

pushed me to leave or encouraged me to leave.” It appeared that both participants had

experienced a marked decrease in commitment to teaching, but neither participant

attributed this to the principal’s leadership as noted in previous research (Becton, et

al., 2014; Donald, et al., 2017).

Participants 2 and 3 appeared to be examples of people who sought a career change

when they believed the time was right (Hall, 1976). In their own words, the leadership

practices of their principals were not attributed in influencing this decision and in fact,

if anything, the positive way in which they describe their experiences of their last

school and principal may have actually kept them in the profession a little bit longer

than if they had had negative experiences with their leadership as was the case with

the other teachers interviewed. Participant 3 stated, “I was very happy where I was at

and the transition (to leave teaching) was made more difficult because of that.” While

Participant 2 said, “My last school was a great school, great clientele, good

administration staff very supportive of what I did and a good principal.” Both of these

participants articulated that the decision to leave teaching after a number of years, was

their decision alone, motivated by an individual need for a career change as described

by Hall (1976), Becton, et al., (2014), Donald, et al., (2017) and other researchers, and

was not influenced, in their opinion, by their principals’ leadership practices.

Participant 2 had been a teacher for 20 years with Education Queensland before

choosing to leave “to look for extra challenges in my work life.” They felt a sense of


reaching “the end of a career path and there wasn’t anywhere else for me to try and

advance my career.” Participant 2 stated, “I didn’t dislike teaching, it was more of a

boredom factor for me as those challenges of a day to day teacher were just not there

for me anymore.” Participant 2 relayed some specific relational and personal

leadership practices of the school principal around trust, honesty, principal

approachability and their work autonomy, which positively enhanced their

commitment towards teaching. Examples included: “I felt pretty supported in

everything I did”, and “I know I had the trust of the admin staff.” In fact despite leaving

the teaching profession, all recollections of school leadership practices expressed by

Participant 2 were framed in a positive way.

Similar to Participant 2, Participant 3 gave personal reasons for leaving the teaching

profession, not reasons linked to school principal leadership practices. Participant 3

had taught for 12 years as a classroom teacher before leaving to undertake a new

position away from teaching. When asked to summarise their reason for leaving the

teaching profession, Participant 3 stated:

I felt that I was at a position in my life that I was going to go down a couple of lines.

One was going to go down the administrative side of the school and stick with

education, or find something else outside of school. I decided, an opportunity arose in

the sports management area to take on a job and I accepted that position.

This statement resonates closely with the interview content of Participant 2 and

highlights a personal reason for seeking a career change.

When probed further to ascertain the reasons for feeling they had reached a career

juncture, Participant 3 stated: “I didn’t feel my teaching practices were as good as

other teachers and I felt that my interests lay more in sports administration as opposed


to teaching.” This statement revealed a level of self-reflection and a belief that students

and schools deserve the highest levels of teacher practices and teachers not up to this

standard should consider leaving the profession. At no time did Participant 3 allude to

any school leader helping them reach this decision, or of any school leader assessing

them as inferior to their teaching peers but instead referred to their own personal

beliefs: “I’ve certainly believed in the idea that, if you are not committed to teaching

then do something about it.”

Participant 3 spoke of the impact a non-committed or less competent teacher has on

students and the school leadership team: “the only people who suffer are obviously the

students so therefore I thought that I could assist (my school principal) by leaving (and

letting others who were more committed do the job).” They summarised their view

stating that “the reasons why I opted out of teaching were simply because I felt that

other people were more deserving of doing this (role).” Participant 3 went on to clearly

state that the decision to leave teaching had, “nothing really to do with the system at

all, nothing to do with the school, nothing to do with the school leadership….. I (just)

wanted to branch out and do something different.”

Participant 3 is an example of the distinction between being happy at work and being

committed to work (Triwahyuni & Ekowati, 2017). While they were happy with the

leadership practices and the culture of work, declining levels of intrinsic motivations

led to a loss of commitment to the teaching role. Participant 3 recalled how the

mismatch of being content but not committed added a tension to their decision to leave

teaching: “In actual fact, I was very happy where I was at and the transition was made


more difficult because of that.” As Participant 3 described, being happy and supportive

of the leadership practices just made the decision to leave the profession more difficult.

These two participants demonstrated a protean or individual approach to their career

paths. From their perspectives, principal leadership practices did not play a part in their

decision to leave teaching. Predominantly individual factors underpinned their stated

reasons for a career change, although it could be argued that some school and

leadership factors were implied in their responses. The remaining three participants,

however, identified principal leadership practices in their interviews as the key reasons

for leaving the teaching profession.

4.4 GROUP 2 – REASONS FOR LEAVING TEACHING RELATED TO SCHOOL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES

Participants 1, 4 and 5 clearly articulated in their interviews principal leadership

practices as the key reason for leaving teaching. Participant 1 stated, “I left because I

felt devalued by the school principal.” Participant 4 said, “I left because of the

principal’s leadership.” And Participant 5 relayed, “I was becoming very negative

because of the principals I worked for and how they were treating me.”

These statements align with previous studies (such as Dajani, 2014; Hudson, 2009;

Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008; Rice, 2014), which identified direct links

between the work commitment of mid-career teachers and the leadership practices of

the school principal. Most significantly and relevant to this current study is the link

between declining work commitment and mid-career teacher attrition.


These three participants spoke from a deficit perspective outlining the shortcomings

of leadership practices and the absence of the leadership practices they felt they needed

to maintain their work commitment. Examples of such statements included from

Participant 4, “…his relational leadership was non-existent.”, and from Participant 5,

“He couldn’t even make eye contact and say hello.” There were some positively

phrased statements such as:

“I like the boss to know if a family member is sick and care how I am feeling,

or know that my child is graduating school.” (Participant 4), and,

‘…a principal who can at least say hello to you.”(Participant 5)

Yet even though these statements were phrased positively, they described beliefs of

how the participants believed a principal should have acted, not recollections of what

they actually experienced from their principals.

The participants also made comparisons between what they had experienced under

different school leaders which highlighted some additional positive practices such as

feeling valued, working collaboratively and being recognised for their individual areas

of expertise. Participant 1 said, “I had a principal like this once and they made me feel

enthusiastic and connected to school and wanting to work, however my experience is

that these principals are rare.” However, despite some positive recollections, this

group primarily discussed their decisions to leave teaching as directly influenced by

poor leadership approaches. This is clearly illustrated by comments made by

Participant 4:

(His) whole dismissive and condescending attitude made me seethe. It was a good

school with good staff, doing a wonderful job, but this principal’s way of doing

business was counter-productive to the school and really declined my commitment to

the point I wanted to leave.


It is evident from these interviews that leadership actions were a determining factor in

these three participants’ choice to leave the teaching profession, and this reinforces

previous research findings (see Dajani, 2014; Hudson, 2009; Leithwood, et al., 2008;

Rice, 2014). What the previous research doesn’t explore to any depth was which

specific leadership practices of a principal had the most influence on a mid-career

teachers’ work commitment. To help determine this influence, this current study used

the five domains of leadership identified by Education Queensland in their framework

Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) to help organise the interview data

and indicate the potential impact of each domain and the associated leadership

practices.

The interview data are presented below under the five identified leadership domains

of Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010). Based on the frequency of

responses from within the interview data (Table 4.3), the five domains of leadership

were placed in order of significance in relation to mid-career teacher work

commitment from the perspective of these teachers. This order was: relational,

personal, intellectual, organisational and educational. The domains and associated data

are discussed in this order of response frequency in the following sections.

4.4.1 Relational leadership practices

Relational leadership practices were the most frequent leadership domain referred to

by the participants. This was of little surprise as many researchers such as Leithwood

and Sleegers (2006) and Ogbonnaya and Nielsen (2016) have highlighted the

importance of relational leadership in building work commitment. The relational


leadership domain accounted for 47% of the total coded statements in the teacher

interviews undertaken for this study. Leadership Matters (Education Queensland,

2010) outlines specific practices such as being able to work with others and

interpersonal skills as significant aspects of this domain. From the interview data it can

be concluded that a principal’s relational leadership is clearly influential and

significant to the commitment level of mid-career teachers. Participant 4 commented,

“We were working in a people industry, yet his relational leadership was non-

existent.” The interviewed teachers mentioned practices concerned with the principal

displaying: interpersonal skills, valuing others, being approachable, being consistent,

recognising individual differences of staff, devolving leadership and being open to

feedback.

The theme of relational leadership came through strongly in the interview data from

Participants 1, 4 and 5 with three specific areas common to all three participants; a

need to feel valued, establishment of collaborative leadership practices which included

mid-career teachers in decision making, and basic interpersonal skills. These relational

leadership practices are referred to in the transformational leadership research

(Leithwood & Sleegers, 2006; Ogbonnaya, Daniels, Connolly, van Veldhoven, &

Nielsen, 2016; Ogbonnaya & Nielsen, 2016) which stated the importance of leaders

treating each employee as an individual, valuing their input and including them in the

decision-making process. Where teachers felt devalued and had no say in the decision

making at their school, their commitment to teaching declined. The findings of these

studies were reinforced within these current interviews as the participants stated that

it was an absence of such practices that led to their decisions to leave teaching.


A feeling of being devalued was articulated by all three participants and given as a

reason for their declining work commitment. They stated that the relational leadership

practices of their principals decreased their sense of value as a staff member which in

turn led to a declining work commitment. This need to feel valued has been linked to

work commitment in other studies into teacher career change. Howes and Goodman-

Delahunty (2014) interviewed former teachers (n = 15) from around Australia about

their careers and career decision making. The transcribed interview responses were

analyzed using contextualizing and categorizing methods similar to this study. Howes

and Goodman-Delahunty (2014) found the theme of feeling undervalued common

among participants as a reason for why they changed careers. Participants felt valued

in subsequent careers when prior skills were recognized and opportunities existed to

acquire and apply new skills. Howes and Goodman-Delahunty’s (2014) study stressed

the importance of a work place which values individual members and their

contributions as key to workplace commitment a theme echoed in this current study.

It was clear for their statements that Participants 1, 4 and 5 did not feel valued in their

workplace. Participant 1: “…things we were passionate about were completely

devalued, the staff felt devalued.” Participant 4 said something similar: “When I feel

respected and valued I am energised to do so much more and commit to the school.

These practises (of my principal) made me feel the opposite.” While Participant 5

stated, “I believe, what he was really thinking was – what you are telling me is not

important and I really am not interested.” Further examples of specific leadership

practices which led to feelings of being de-valued, raised by these two participants in

their interviews included; the principal emailing an issue instead of discussing it in

person, the principal entering a classroom without knocking or acknowledging the


teacher, and a principal who would not acknowledge you first before ploughing into a

work conversation.

Participant 5 recounted two past principals whose leadership practices contributed to

their declining work commitment. One principal “didn’t seem to care that I didn’t

know about him and his values and what he thinks and I certainly never felt he wanted

to know about me.” While the other principal according to Participant 5, “was even

worse, he made out like he cared but you knew he didn’t.” This first comment describes

a principal whose leadership style privileges the power of the role rather than

distributed leadership (Hulpia, Devos, & Van Keer, 2009). This principal saw

themselves as separate to their staff, disconnected and didn’t see the importance of

staff opinions. The second comment describes a principal who was perceived as

disingenuous and of having a false facade masking their true intentions of actions and

values (Sparrowe, 2005).

Participant 5 wanted a principal who was, “easy to talk to, who is approachable and

open to listening to other people’s views without dismissing them.” Instead Participant

5 felt that their principal did not value staff opinions, experiences or expert knowledge.

Participant 5 explained that the principal had a phrase they commonly used to

acknowledge and then close down the conversation. This phrase was, ‘Thank you for

that information’. This phrase was often used by the principal to respond to staff

comments and Participant 5 felt was the principal’s way of ignoring teacher opinion:

“You knew he would never take your opinion seriously.” It was a strategy which not

only left Participant 5 feeling devalued, but also, from their perspective, created a

culture of distrust throughout the staff.


Participant 5 described this phrase in very negative terms and linked this feeling of

negativity, and the associated impact on their work commitment, directly to their

principal.

It was a condescending phrase which was used to shut you up and say that your

opinion was of no worth. All of us on staff knew it and in fact staff members started

using it amongst themselves when they wished to tell someone that they were not

interested in their opinion or that their opinion didn’t count. Which was exactly how

the principal made you feel with this phrase and, I believe, what he was really thinking

was – what you are telling me is not important and I really am not interested. F**k

you! That’s how this phrase made me feel

Participant 5’s comments reveal a deep resentment for this practice and illustrated how

important a sense of being valued was to this particular teacher. The absence of this,

and an autocratic leadership style, impacted negatively on their work commitment.

A final theme associated with the domain of relational leadership raised by the

participants in their interview was the interpersonal skills of their principal. To

Participant 4 this was a key issue which was lacking in their recollection:

The principal sets the tone for the school and our tone at XXXXX was not good. The

principal had no time for the interpersonals, or that may be unfair, he may have had

no training in interpersonals. Whatever the reason we were working in a people

industry yet his relational leadership was non-existent.

In his book, Thompson (2015) highlighted the importance of interpersonal skills for

workplace leaders to promote positive and productive work cultures. Thompson

(2015) concluded that managers who had excellent technical skills, but lacked people

skills, were likely to be highly ineffective in their role.


Other relational leadership practices that were mentioned by the interview participants

as lacking from their school principals included from Participant 1: “Knowing your

name.”, from Participant 4: “Saying good morning.”, “Knowing a bit about my

family.”, “Talking in person instead of through emails.”, and from Participant 5:

“Acknowledging me when walking past.”, “Making eye contact and saying hello.”

Participants reported that the absence of these practices were pivotal in creating a

negative tone within the school. The participants believed this negative tone not only

reduced their individual work commitment but had a marked effect on the overall

running of the school. This point resonates with both De Nobile (2016), and Deal and

Peterson (2016) who highlighted that principal relational leadership practices can have

a significant effect on teacher attitudes and work commitment.

Participant 5 clearly believes that the principal’s relational leadership practices are

pivotal to school tone, stating, “That’s where it all starts. The principal sets the tone

for the school and our tone was not good.” Reynolds and Teddlie (2000) described the

school principal’s role as the most influential site leader and as such playing a pivotal

role in impacting on teacher commitment. This view of the importance of the school

principal in respect to the school tone or culture has been reinforced by later studies

such as De Nobile (2016), and Deal and Peterson (2016) and by the comments in these

current interviews.

Participant 4 summed up the importance of a principal’s relational leadership practices

and made a good distinction between the professional relationships related to the


school tone and culture as opposed to a principal who is just friendly or wishes to

socialise with staff. Participant 4 stated:

I didn’t need a social club where we sat around drinking coffee and gossip, but I do feel

having a boss who acknowledges you before getting down to business is important. This

may sound trivial but it sets a tone of respect and care.

From the perspective of these three teachers through their interview transcripts, the

relational leadership practices of their school principals, and in their cases the lack of

these, led to a significant decrease in their work commitment and contributed very

clearly to their decision to leave the teaching profession.

4.4.2 Personal leadership practices

Personal leadership practices were the second most mentioned domain based on the

frequency of answers from the participants’ interviews. This domain accounted for

28% of the total coded statements. According to Leadership Matters (Education

Queensland, 2010), the domain of personal leadership encompasses how a school

leader conducts their school business and acts as a role model or inspiration to others.

Personal leadership includes a leader’s integrity and moral compass and is called upon

when making ethical decisions. Some of these personal leadership practices are

implied through (and can be closely linked to) the relational domain; however there

are specific practices which align under the personal domain described in Leadership

Matters (Education Queensland, 2010). These particular practices include; acting in

an ethical manner, showing respect, being inspiring, being trustworthy and being

emotionally ready for leadership, being able to accept personal feedback and showing

respect for staff.


The importance of ethical leadership has been established through empirical research

such as Chughtai, Byrne and Flood (2015) and has significant implications for

organisations. Chughtai, et al., (2015) found that practising ethical leadership can

prove positive for employees, improving work commitment and work culture. These

same conclusions were heard in the interview transcripts of this current study as the

participants described the personal leadership practices of their past principals.

Participant 4 stated, “I think (he) would get more respect by being honest than playing

us for fools.” While Participant 5 said, “To make him look good we were important,

yet every other day we were of no importance. Is that leadership?” While the

participants made many mentions of personal leadership practices in respect to their

work commitment, the above statements demonstrated that they were primarily from

a deficit perspective, described as leadership practices absent from their principals,

which led to a decline in their work commitment.

Participant 5’s responses aligned strongly to the findings of recent research (Ciulla,

2016; Starr, 2016) which summarised the importance of having a leader who is

inspirational and genuine in their interactions. In their summary of what they believed

were the shortcomings of their principal. Participant 5 stated their principal was:

Great with making buildings and grounds look good and maintenance was very

well addressed, but that is just managing and technical is not what I needed

from a leader. (The principal) had no charisma, no personality, so was unable

to share a vision or inspire me.

The lack of personal leadership from their school leaders led to a declined work

commitment for both Participants 1 and 5.


Participant 1 stated that they, “didn’t feel respected by the school principal” even

though they felt their experience and service at the school positioned them well to give

informed opinions. This perceived lack of respect led to a declining work commitment

with Participant 1 stated, “The more I felt disrespected, the more I thought about

leaving teaching”. Participant 4 also highlighted the importance of respect from their

principal: “When I feel respected and valued I am energised to do so much more and

commit to the school.” Participant 4, however, felt their principal, “made me feel the

opposite.”

The participants interviewed also expressed a need to have a school leader whose

personal leadership practices made them open to feedback from staff. Kelley and

Dikkers (2016) stressed the importance of a principal accepting feedback from staff

and receiving the feedback in a professional manner, as opposed to a personal or

emotional way. Professionally received feedback is seen as constructive and used to

develop and refine organisationally systems whereas personally received feedback is

viewed as targeting the person and is much harder to be viewed objectively (Kelley &

Dikkers, 2016). Participant 4 particularly stressed the importance of a leader accepting

feedback about them: “A good leader listens to staff. My principal refused to listen and

saw any feedback as negative.”

When principals appear closed to feedback or discussion, it often has a negative impact

on teachers’ work commitment. The research of Behnke and Steins (2016) and Kelley

and Dikkers (2016) identified two different forms of feedback in schools which

enhance effective school leadership. The first form of feedback is organisational

feedback where the staff gives opinions around the systems in the school including


school programs and school operations. The second form of feedback is the personal

feedback which is concerned with the individual school principal and their

demonstrated leadership practices.

The participants in this current research commented on both forms of feedback

described above; however the majority of their comments would fall within the latter

description of feedback within the principal’s personal leadership domain (Behnke &

Steins, 2016; Kelley & Dikkers, 2016). Participant 4 stated their principal: “Could not

accept feedback about any of his decisions and had a dismissive and condescending

attitude (towards it).” Participant 4 also believed that not only did their principal not

like the personal feedback; the principal saw feedback as a fault of the teacher. As

Participant 4 stated,

When I addressed the principal (about a concern) in what I thought was a professional

way, it was dismissed as my issue. In fact I remember being told that I need to learn

to be adaptable and professional. I was quite insulted.

The perceived inability of their school principal to accept feedback led to some

negative outcomes within the school which were recognised and described by

Participant 4: “More and more of the staffroom talk was negative, morale was down

and people were just unhappy and sick leave increased.” The whole school appeared

to suffer from the enacted personal leadership practices of the school principal.

In addition to their principal being unable to accept professional feedback, the

interviewed participants also stated that they felt their principals were unable to inspire

them. The ability of a leader to inspire others can be linked to transformational

leadership characteristics (Avolio & Yammarino, 2013; Hartog, Muijen, & Koopman,

2011). By inspiring teachers, school leaders can enhance their staff’s commitment


however, in its absence; work commitment can decline as appears to be the case of the

teachers in this current study. Participant 4 stated, “Instead of inspiring me, valuing

me and supporting me I was treated with no respect or common courtesy, manipulated

and belittled.” Kotter (2008) identified this as a problem in many work places

undergoing change, if the leader cannot inspire their staff, then staff start to disconnect

with the workplace. He argued that effective change management relies on the

personal leadership traits of the workplace leader (Kotter, 2008). These conclusions

were reflected in other comments from Participant 4 describing their waning work

commitment, “You can only work like this for so long. It was draining and I was losing

my commitment for teaching.”

Another theme of personal leadership which was identified from the participants’

interviews was centred on the trust, honesty and genuineness of principal interactions

with staff. According to Participant 5 it is not enough to pretend to care, it is important

to their work commitment that the principal demonstrates genuine care. The theme of

authentic interactions was raised further by Participant 5 as they recalled how a

principal only appeared to be friendly and genuine when it mattered to him. Participant

5 stated:

When someone important came to visit he made out like he was everyone’s best buddy.

He would come into class and share a joke with the guest which was just insulting. To

make him look good we were important yet every other day we were of no importance.

Is that leadership?

Consistency of interactions and a genuineness of interactions build trust between staff

and their principal. Without this trust, positive and productive relationship cannot

occur and work commitment will decline (Meyer, Le Fevre, & Robinson, 2017;

Seifert, Brockner, Bianchi, & Moon, 2016).


Recent studies have shown the significance of trust on a school climate and

relationships between the school principal and staff (Meyer, et al., 2017; Seifert, et al.,

2016). Where trust between the principal and staff is positive a manifestation of this

connection is more open and honest relationships which lead to a more positive school

climate and greater teacher commitment. A key finding of this present study was the

importance of a principal’s personal leadership traits, such as trust, in relation to mid-

career teacher work commitment. In the eyes of mid-career teachers, these personal

leadership traits illustrate who the principal is as a leader, are vital to work commitment

and cannot be contracted out to anyone else on the school site.

Finally, collaborative leadership practices and shared leadership within the school

were other themes raised by the interviewed participants. Participants noted that when

these leadership practices were lacking there was a resultant decline in their perceived

work commitment. When Participant 1 was asked what leadership practices could have

improved their work commitment, they responded, “A principal who worked more

collaboratively.” When asked to give specific examples of what collaborative

leadership practices may look like, Participant 1 suggested a principal who would, “sit

down with staff and say this is what we need to do, and why we need to do it and here

is a draft solution.” Participant 1 would have liked the principal to ask the teachers if

they could see any problems and help propose solutions so that we could all “work

together to solve problems for everybody and not create problems for somebody else.”

Participant 1 believed that the lack of consultation and collaborative leadership at their

school often led to a cycle of constantly emerging issues that could have been averted.


They felt this was frustrating and counterproductive and could have been avoided with

better communication and including all stakeholders in initial discussion.

Participant 4 described a principal who claimed to be collaborative, “however it was

obvious that the decisions or outcomes were already decided way before the

discussion.” Participant 4 felt their principal wanted to appear to be consultative,

however their actions demonstrated otherwise. They felt they “were either

manipulated or ignored” by their principal and this was “insulting.” Participant 4 felt

staff shouldn’t be told they can have a say when in reality issues were already decided.

Participant 4 stated, “If it isn’t open to discussion, be up front and honest and say that.

I think you would get more respect for being honest than playing us for fools.”

Participant 5 described similar experiences in regards to the tensions between the

rhetoric and practices of collaborative leadership. Participant 5 stated, “In all my time

at that school I don’t believe staff influenced one decision yet the principal would

constantly say how collaborative he was. It was his way or the highway.”

4.4.3 Intellectual leadership practices

Statements from the interviewed participants classified in the domain of intellectual

leadership practices accounted for 14% of the total codes. This made the intellectual

leadership domain the third most significant in regard to mid-career teacher work

commitment, from the perspective of the interviewed participants. Leadership Matters

(Education Queensland, 2010) defines intellectual leadership practices within this

domain as: the ability to solve problems, creating innovative ways to implement


policy, and analysing and interpreting situations to find solutions and the ability to

create a vision.

Primarily, leadership practices in the intellectual domain allow a principal to create

and develop processes to deliver the educational agenda at school taking into account

each individual school’s context. Two main themes raised by the teachers relating to

intellectual leadership were the school principal’s ability to manage changing priorities

and establish clear priorities for a clear school direction. These abilities are not

mutually exclusive and are often linked in change management literature by change

management writers such as Morrison (2017). According to Participant 5, “There was

no (school) vision.” This theme was repeated by Participant 4 stating their principal

had, “No consistent or strategic direction. There was no vision.” Participant 4 did not

feel they knew where the school was headed or how each new decision from the

principal aligned with an overall strategic view. Participant 4 felt, “We were jumping

to initiatives with no consistent or strategic direction…and staff found out different

information at different times.” This comment is reflective of the fact that in

Queensland, schools have experienced a plethora of change over the past 15 years and

the education agenda has become increasingly more politicised which has resulted in

significant policy change with every change of government (Halse, 2004).

Participant 4 acknowledged that a key tension of today’s school principals is balancing

the top down agendas with supporting and maintaining staff commitment, a point

noted clearly in the work of Riley (2014a). A principal’s intellectual leadership

practices act as the filter for the competing agendas and helps to determine the

importance of each agenda item, where it fits in the larger school vision and how best


to support its implementation. Participant 4 did not feel this support stating, “My

principal…never filtered info, so often (the result was) the next week we were doing

something totally different to the week before.”

The absence of these intellectual leadership practices impacted negatively on

Participant 4 and, from their perspective, led to a decline in their work commitment.

Managing priorities and instilling a vision were two key intellectual leadership

practices which impacted on the work commitment of these two participants.

4.4.4 Organisational leadership practices

Organisational leadership is defined by Leadership Matters (Education Queensland,

2010) as being concerned with the culture of a school and how school systems are

organised. Specific practices under this leadership domain include: managing

resources, building relationships between staff, managing corporate demands,

applying policies and creating a positive learning culture within the school. This theme

was fourth in frequency accounting for only 9% of the themes coded from the

participant interviews.

The phrasing of the comments once again suggested that these participants felt these

practices were lacking in their school principal at their individual schools, for example

Participant 4 said, “Maybe for the future EQ (Education Queensland) should develop

and promote leaders not just people who can manage to implement their tasks with no

regard for the tone at schools.” Participant 5 felt the principal was putting energy into

the wrong things: “The boss was great with making buildings and grounds look good

and maintenance was very well addressed, but that is just managing and technical not


what I needed from a leader.” This point illustrates that for Participant 5’s work

commitment; general school organisation has very little impact and much less than the

principal’s relational and personal leadership.

While the interview participants did mention leadership practices in the organisational

domain, it can be concluded from the frequency of responses and the depth of

discussion that this domain was not as significant as the previous three in regards to

their work commitment. It should also be noted that some of the organisational

practices which were mentioned positively by the participants such as; support for

mandatory policies and curriculum, planning time and professional development to do

their job effectively, are systems driven, part of a state wide approach to rolling out

initiatives and independent of principal decision making. The linking of these by the

participants and the association with school principals serves to show the relationship

between the school principal’s performance and the system’s expectations. These two

factors cannot be easily separated and have a mutually reinforcing aspect. Many

practices implemented by school principals are initiated by the greater system, how

they are implemented is primarily determined by the individual leadership practices of

each principal (Riley, 2014a).

4.4.5 Educational leadership practices

The leadership domain of educational leadership practices was the least mentioned

theme in the participants’ interviews accounting for 2% of responses. The domain of

educational leadership in respect to the Leadership Matters (Education Queensland,

2010) framework primarily is concerned with leading the curriculum and pedagogy of

a school site. It takes into account knowledge of curriculum frameworks, learning


theories, developing systems to lead curriculum requirements and also in developing

curriculum leadership among teachers. Educational leadership requires the school

leader to possess contemporary knowledge around these particular areas and use this

knowledge to deliver curriculum and learning leadership within a school.

From the participants’ perspectives and frequency of response, the leadership domain

of educational was of least importance in relation to their work commitment. Only one

direct comment was made in respect to this domain and that was directed around a

principal’s ability to lead curriculum requirements but was tempered with a

qualification around how they delivered these requirements. Participant 4 said of their

principal, “Their curriculum knowledge was great… but when you deal with the people

the ‘how’ is much more important than the ‘what’.” Overall in comparison to the depth

and frequency of responses related to other domains, it was apparent that the

educational domain was of least significance to the teacher work commitment from

their perspective of these participants.

4.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY

The interviews in this chapter set out to determine through qualitative methodology,

the impact principal leadership practices, organised under the leadership domains of

Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) had on mid-career teachers’ work

commitment from the teachers’ own perspective. The interviews sought to uncover if

there was a measurable difference between the leadership domains from the teachers’

perspective. Transcripts of the interviews gave an insight into the five participants’

stories and the reasons they recalled for leaving the teaching profession. Two of these

participants believed they left teaching for purely personal reasons unconnected to the

school leadership, while the other three participants clearly felt that their principal’s


leadership practices played a role in their declining work commitment which led to

their decision to leave teaching.

Two interview participants also commented on the changing nature of education and

how the school focus had changed over time, in their opinion, to data and numbers and

not students. Participant 1 said they, “Felt like teaching was becoming more about data

or the school look than it was about the kids we were teaching.” Participant felt

something similar:

School was becoming a business of production lines and outcomes driven which is

fine if it is acknowledged that we all have a different start line. I felt this was never

referred to yet it seemed we all had the same finish line making it a very unfair and

uneven model.

While the impact of systems reasons on teacher commitment was outside of the scope

of this study, it is acknowledged that educational systems are asking greater

accountability of teachers which may also impact on work commitment (Ingersoll,

Merrill, & May, 2016). What this study also acknowledges is the role the principal

plays in delivering the system expectations at individual school sites (Riley 2014a).

The way these expectations are interpreted and enacted in schools through principal

leadership practices, is directly related to this current study.

The participants who linked their decision to leave teaching to their principal’s

leadership practices recounted these practices predominantly from a distinctly deficit

perspective. Participant 1, “I left because I felt devalued by the school principal.”

Participant 4, “I left because of the principal’s leadership.” Participant 5, “I was

becoming very negative because of the principals I worked for and how they were

treating me.” The interviews illustrated that the leadership practices these three


participants experienced, did not meet their expectations and left them feeling less

committed towards their work. So much so, that even though they had left teaching

several years ago, their initial recollections and responses to why they left teaching

were immediately linked to their school principal.

As the interviews progressed, the content became more differentiated and

individualised as each participant expanded on their own understandings and beliefs.

Each participant had a different context to their story, but spoke of common leadership

practices, primarily relational and personal practices, they believed impacted on their

work commitment. It was also clear from their responses that each participant had high

expectations of their school principal and strong beliefs about what leadership

practices their principal should display. Participant 1 wanted a principal who, “would

listen and value the opinion and experience of long serving teachers, who took time to

understand a school before making changes and got out around the school meeting

the staff, leading people not leading a facility.” Participant 4 described their feeling

of not having school principals who met their expectations as:

It is frightening that people can rise to such high and influential positions in schools

yet have no idea of how to lead diverse people. I am not sure if EQ promotes people

who are leaders with leadership practices or just people who do all the compliance

tasks.

While Participant 5 articulated their experience of school leadership, as “There are

schools filled with principals who have strengths in one narrow area that makes for a

great gimmick or shallow story, however when put under the pump they have no

respect from staff or strong leadership practices.”


The coded themes from the participants’ interviews were used to establish how each

of the leadership domains defined in Leadership Matters (Education Queensland,

2010) impacted on the mid-career teachers’ work commitment from the participants’

perspectives. While the comments in the participant’ interviews covered all five of the

leadership domains, closer analysis of the interview data showed that each domain was

not commented on equally. While the frequency of coded data informed the

significance of each leadership domain, there is caution in using this simple

methodology to emphasise absolute ranking of the domains, or to claim certain

leadership practices have little impact or are less important, just because of the

frequency of such data. The different frequency of the codes may be due to other

factors, such as a certain domain is simpler by nature, so requires less discussion.

While some could argue that it may be risky to claim that the frequency of codes

proportionally represents the level of importance of each domain, this research

believes that frequency is a valid measure of impact between the domains. Researchers

such as Glaser and Strauss (2017) and Zhang and Wildemuth (2016) advocate that in

qualitative research, frequency coding is a valid way to determine trends and

extrapolate information. In these current semi-structured interviews, participants were

free to discuss the practices which had the greatest impact on their work commitment

from their perspective. The participants talked about what was important to them. By

coding the responses to determine the frequency of certain practices it is quite

legitimate and valid to draw conclusions for the interview cohort, from their

perspectives, about the impact different practices had on the teachers’ work

commitment (Glaser & Strauss, 2017; Zhang & Wildemuth, 2016).


Through this frequency of responses methodology it was concluded that the principals’

relational leadership practices had the greatest impact on mid-career teacher work

commitment closely followed by the personal leadership domain. Of note from the

interviews is that the connection between relational leadership practices and teachers’

work commitment was presented as a positive correlational, that is, as relational

leadership practices decreased or increased, so too did mid-career teacher work

commitment. The participants presented their interviews from a deficit perspective

relating either; practices which were missing from their principal or recounting

practices which had a negative impact on their work commitment. The data indicated

that the two leadership domains of educational and organisational were of the least

importance in regard to the work commitment of mid-career teachers. These two

domains did not feature prominently in the interview data.

Significantly, the data from the interviews in this chapter, based on the perspectives of

former mid-career teacher, outlined the perceived absence of leadership practices in

their school principals. Three of the five participants stated that they felt their school

principal was lacking the leadership practices needed to enhance their work

commitment. The position of these teacher participants raised questions about whether

the school principals were aware of their leadership practices and how these practices

impacted on the commitment of mid-career teachers.

The teachers interviewed were experienced teachers who had served past the five year

mark of their careers and had viewed teaching as a long term career. In their words, it

was the leadership practices of their school principals which impacted on their work


commitment and caused them to reassess their profession. Participant 4 stated this fact

very clearly:

I had always seen teaching as a lifelong job and I enjoyed the day to day contact with

children, however at this school so much happened that sucked the enjoyment out of

teaching and made my job less enjoyable and much of this can be attribute to the

principal. He set the tone, he set the processes and I believe that these were wrong.

Instead of inspiring me, valuing me and supporting me I was treated with no respect

or common courtesy, manipulated and belittled.

The impact of principals’ leadership practices, particularly within the relational and

personal domains, proved pivotal to teachers’ work commitment from the perspective

of these three interview teachers. When delivered well the leadership practices can

enhance a teacher’s work commitment, conversely when absent or delivered

ineffective they can contribute to teacher declining work commitment and ultimately

work place attrition. As Participant 5 stated, “My two principals never got the best out

of me, in fact they made me negative, angry and lose commitment. So it came down to

put up with it and be quiet or leave and I chose to leave.”

By developing a better understanding the link between specific principal leadership

practices and mid-career teacher work commitment, it is hoped that teacher attrition

may be stemmed. Through this understanding school principals can better develop

their leadership practise to add to a teacher’s work commitment rather than erode it.

From a teacher’s perspective it is clear that to do this principals need to enhance their

relational and personal leadership practices and make these a focus of their genuine

daily actions.


Chapter 5 examines mid-career teacher work commitment from the perspective of five

school principals to ascertain the perspectives of school principals in relation to their

leadership practices and teacher commitment. This principal interview data is then

compared with the teacher interview data discussed in this chapter to look for

alignment or differences in perspectives.


Chapter 5: Data findings – Qualitative Interviews: Principals

5.1 CHAPTER PREVIEW

This chapter presents part two of the findings from the first phase of the multiphase,

mixed-methods, explanatory design research (Creswell, 2012). Part two involved

interviews with current primary school principals (n = 5) which explored principals’

perceptions leadership practices in relation to mid-career teacher work commitment.

Section 5.2 gives an overview of the themes which emerged from the principals’

interviews. Section 5.3 provides the principal interview findings in relation to the five

identified leadership domains of Education Queensland’s leadership framework

Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) and evaluates the significance of

each domain in relation to the interview data from the principals’ perspectives. This

data was analysed inductively to identify major themes within principal leadership

practices and the perceived impact these have on teacher work commitment (Price,

2011). The results were used to refine the survey instrument and inform the overall

conclusions. A summary and conclusion of the principal interviews is given in Section

5.4 before a comparison of the two qualitative interview groups, teachers and

principals, is given in Section 5.5. A final chapter summary is provided in section 5.6.

5.2 OVERVIEW OF INTERVIEW THEMES

Similar to the ex-teacher interviews and as described in Chapter 3, the principal

interviews were transcribed and a content analysis undertaken (Fakis, Hilliam,

Stoneley, & Townsend, 2014). From this analysis, content themes were isolated,

coded and then mapped against the description of leadership practices of the five


leadership domains outlined in Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010). As

per the teacher interviews, each specific theme raised by the principals was considered

as a significant factor as to what principals believed mid-career teachers need to remain

committed to the teaching profession and was coded in this way. If, for example, the

theme raised by the principal was concerned with leading curriculum programs, the

practice was classified under the educational domain. If the practice was about

involved in developing systems and procedures within the school it was classified as

an organisational leadership practice and so on. Examples of how the coded themes

emerged from the data included:

Principal 1 - Looking at how we structure roles within the school in terms of

leadership so that teachers have an opportunity – shared leadership ->


Principal 2 - Foster strong relationships between a teacher and their

colleagues, certainly with their learning teams, their teaching team – peer

support networks –> organisational leadership

Principal 4 - Finding a way to engage and enthuse them – inspiring ->

personal leadership

As with the previous interviews, the significance of each domain on the work

commitment of mid-career teachers, this time from the perspective of school

principals, was determined through a combination of frequency data and the

interpretation of statements against the Leadership Matters (Education Queensland,

2010) framework.

While coding the interview data it became apparent that some themes mentioned by

the principals, such as teachers leading programs, could be classified under more than


one category. On these occasions, identical to the teacher interviews, the context the

leadership practice was described in, and/or further explanation from the principal’s

transcript was used to determine the implementation of the leadership practices and

the appropriate leadership domain. For example if the leadership example was based

on a curriculum perspective for improving curriculum knowledge, the practice would

be listed under the educational leadership domain as it referred to leading improvement

in educational programs. Conversely, if the practice was about broadening school

leadership through asking mid-career teachers to take on a general leadership role, the

practice was listed under the organisational leadership domain as it was benefiting the

school in a more general organisational purpose.

If a coded theme could not be accurately assigned to one specific domain, it was

planned to place it in more than one. However, this contingency did not arise and all

coded themes were able to be assigned comfortably to one of the leadership domains

with no need for a double allocation, or could not be placed within the framework at

all. Themes which did not fit under the existing leadership domains were classed as

emerging themes. Practices such as reciprocal trust and a feedback culture are not

explicitly noted in the Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) framework

but were mentioned in the principals’ interviews. These practices were not used in the

analysis process as the intent of this research was to evaluate and compare the impact

of the existing five leadership domains and not construct new categories or redesign

the framework. Using the existing leadership framework was not seen as restrictive;

rather it was seen as very appropriate to the aim of this study which was comparing

the impact of each domain on work commitment.


The significance of aligning the mentioned leadership practices was not to see if they

aligned to the Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) framework – it was

assumed that they would. This alignment was used to see if the five described

leadership domains impacted equally on teacher work commitment from the

perspective of the principals interviewed or whether some domains had greater

importance. Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) was not designed as a

hierarchical framework, instead all five leadership domains were approached and

presented equally with none highlighted as more important than the others. It was

therefore important to use the frequency data to check if the interview participants felt

all five domains were equal or whether some played greater importance in relation to

work commitment. The coding protocol of themes from the principal interviews is

outlined below in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Identified leadership practices from principal interviews coded under the Leadership Matters

(2010) leadership domains.

Specific Leadership Codes from Principals’ Interview

Content Theme Leadership Domain


(Leadership Matters, Education Queensland, 2010)

Creating a culture committed to learning x2 Creating the right culture Creating a positive school culture Creating a learning culture Managing resources effectively Building relationships between staff Managing and filtering the conflicting agendas Applying mandatory policies

Culture Resources Peer support networks Implementing Policy

Organisational

Inspiring towards staff x 2 Showing respect for staff Acting ethically Being trustworthy

Inspiring Respect Trust and Ethical

Personal

Leading curriculum requirements x 3 Having curriculum knowledge x 2 Having Pedagogical knowledge Having Curriculum credibility Articulating a school curriculum plan

Curriculum Leadership Curriculum Expertise

Educational

Valuing individual staff members and their input x 5 Developing shared leadership with staff x 2 Building relationships with staff x 2 Being approachable x 3 Having good interpersonal skills Interpersonal skills – getting on with people Being consistent with staff

Valuing staff Shared Leadership Relationships Approachable Interpersonal Skills Consistent interactions

Relational

Creating a program and sharing a the vision Vision Intellectual

After analysing and classifying the principal interview data, 38 codes were identified

and the impact of each of the five leadership domains on mid-career teacher work

commitment, from the principals’ perspectives, could be determined using the

frequency of response in relation to each leadership domain. The three leadership

domains identified from Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) by the

principals as being most influential to mid-career teacher work commitment were:


relational, organisational and educational. The frequency of principal responses in

relation to the five leadership domains is displayed below in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 Comparative frequency of coded leadership practices as identified from principal

interviews.

5.3 PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW FINDINGS IN RELATION TO THE FIVE LEADERSHIP DOMAINS

The data findings from these principal interviews are presented below, under the five

leadership domains outlined in Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010).

Each domain has associated practices which are considered demonstrative of this

particular area which have been identified and articulated as part of the Leadership

Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) document. Based on the frequency of

responses the five domains of leadership were placed in order of significance in

relation to mid-career teacher work commitment (Figure 5.1). The domains and

Relational 45%

Organisational 21%

Educational18%

Personal13%

Intellectual3%

Percentage


associated data are discussed in this order of response frequency in the following

sections.

5.3.1 Relational leadership practices

Relational leadership practices were the most frequent leadership domain identified

from interview data accounting for 45% of the total coded statements. According to

Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) the relational leadership domain

includes a wide range of practices encompassing how a school principal interacts with

their staff and other people within the school community. From the interview data, the

principals identified several leadership practices within the relational domain which,

from their perspectives, were of great significance when looking at mid-career teacher

work commitment. Examples of these practices include: the leader’s interpersonal

skills, the leader valuing staff, the leader being approachable, having consistency in

their personal interactions with staff, recognising individual differences of staff,

devolving leadership and being open to feedback.

Within this theme of relational leadership, the interviewed principals isolated a variety

of specific leadership practices which they believe impacted on mid-career teacher

work commitment. Three of the principals (Principals 1, 2 and 5) identified the

importance of recognition for mid-career teachers, specifically recognising and

acknowledging their areas of expertise. This recognition can be done in many ways

with the research of Firestone (2014) identifying two main forms; external recognition

using economic and extrinsic incentives, and internal recognition using psychology

and intrinsic incentives. Terry (1997) states principals need to be aware that additional


workloads or tasks maybe counterproductive to teacher recognition and can be viewed

as burdens not rewards.

The principals in these current interviews talked about using teacher expertise and

harnessing this knowledge. Principal 1 stated, “…use their expertise to support others

with their knowledge.” Principal 2 said, “I recognise staff strengths and provide

opportunities for them to influence others along with opportunities to lead other staff

teams.” While Principal 5 commented, “I try to identify and recognise their areas of

expertise.” The principals did not mention giving official leadership roles or additional

workloads to mid-career teachers. Instead it was about repositioning the teachers to

use their existing areas of expertise to help train other staff as they undertake their

regular job, not necessarily being taken out of the classroom to do this.

The principals in this study described their practices of teacher recognition aligned

with the findings from by Eberhard, Reinhardt-Mondragon and Stottlemyer (2000)

which focussed on teacher acknowledgement and accolades rather than delegation of

additional work tasks as Terry (1997) cautions. This distinction of teacher recognition

is evident from statements such as Principal 1 who stated, “I like to acknowledge them

(mid-career teachers) and recognise them in the greater school community by publicly

noting their talents or achievements.” and Principal 2, “I tell them what I see as their

strengths and acknowledge their experience and what they do well.” These two

principals did not mention assigning these teachers any extra tasks.

Creating a level of leadership for all teachers is mentioned in the research of Tubin

(2017) as a way of involving teachers in the decision making processes of schools and


using their individual expertise to help school improvement. Tubin (2017) suggested

empowering teachers and allowing them to lead their schools to success. Principals 1,

2 and 5 spoke of leadership roles in the form of mentoring or supervising less

experienced teachers as a way of enhancing the mid-career teachers’ work

commitment. They believed that when mid-career teachers were given these roles of

supporting beginner teachers their commitment to the school and profession was

enhanced. This positive impact on commitment is based on more than just feeling

appreciated. Principal 2 said it is, “About them reinvigorating that same process that

got them in (to teaching) and hooked (so) that they can also hook into and help other

people. I think it is that whole notion of success.” In addition to feeling successful with

an increased work commitment, the mid-career teachers would also be positioned to

positively influence other staff members within the school.

Providing opportunities for shared school leadership practices, as opposed to purely

curriculum leadership described in the educational domain section, was seen by

Principals 1, 2 and 3 as important to enhancing mid-career work commitment.

Principal 1 stated, “The majority of teachers I am talking about …don’t want to leave

the classroom and they don’t want to work in an administrative capacity but still want

to be leaders within the school.” This point has been recognised by Education

Queensland which has initiated a process of creating classroom based leadership

positions from 2019, notably Lead Teachers and Highly Accomplished Teachers, as

described by AITSL’s National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011b)

to give mid-career teachers leadership recognition and opportunities while still

primarily undertaking the classroom teacher role. The Queensland Teachers’ Union

reinforced the classroom based nature of these roles stating both Highly Accomplished


and Lead Teacher roles are about classroom teachers remaining in the classroom

(QTU, 2016).

Additional leadership practices described in the principals’ interviews to increase

teacher commitment included: supporting aspiring leaders, giving experienced

teachers a key stake in setting the strategic direction of a school and deferring to the

experience and expertise of mid-career teachers when making school wide decisions.

Principal 1 summed up this last point in their interview stating, “We structure roles

within the school in terms of leadership so that teachers have an opportunity that may

not be a paid leadership role but certainly use their expertise and have a say in how

the school is operating.” Similarly, Principal 5 stated, “We try and share the leadership

responsibilities and roles. What we are trying to do with that is say; you are part of

the leadership team.” This notion of shared leadership is reflected in the theory of

collaborative or distributed approach to school leadership (Bush & Glover, 2014).

In describing shared leadership amongst mid-career teachers, the principals recounted

many leadership models. This is may reflect the many models of leadership which

have existed in Education Queensland during these principals’ service (Focus on

Schools, 1990; Leading Schools, 1997; Masters Report, 2009). Initially the principals

recounted leadership practices that reflected a transactional perspective; a belief that

time in the role means some expected returns (Burns, 1978; Hartog, Muijen, &

Koopman, 2011; Wahyuni, Christiananta, & Eliyana, 2014). The principals’

comments reflected the notion that the teachers had achieved a place in the school

based on time in the job and were now expected to undertake other roles due to this

seniority. Principal 5 stated, “We talk about them being senior staff and looking for


additional roles they can play within the school.” and Principal 1, “They are at a stage

in their career where they can give back to the school and undertake more in line with

their seniority.”

However as the interviews progressed, the principals began to refer to more

transformational leadership practices (Baylor, 1990; Burns, 1978; Murray & Feitler,

1989) that included mentoring, shared decision making, developing of leadership roles

based in the classrooms and individualising career support for each teacher. Comments

supporting this shift of philosophy included Principal 1 reflecting and stating, “I find

that having them involved in the decision making makes a big difference.” Principal 3

stated, “Different teachers have different triggers for commitment and expectations.”

Principal 2 agreed with a differentiated approach and explained, “It’s not that one

model fits every person, it is about a variety of models.” The articulation of different

leadership styles and practices highlighted one of the key challenges for school

leadership identified by Gonzales and Lambert (2014) which was; different teachers

respond to different leadership approaches.

One principal, Principal 3, described this concept of differentiation for mid-career

teachers explicitly. Principal 3 articulated knowledge of providing different

opportunities, in different ways to different staff to enhance their work commitment.

Principal 3 stated:

Teaching is a people based profession, to get the best out of people you need to know

how to get on with them. Different teachers have different triggers for commitment –

some like recognition through artefacts, certificates and others like words of praise

some public in the community others private and more personal. Others like extra time

off, no playground duty, others just want to get on with the job and be told what to do


while some need to feel every decision is made collaboratively. We aren’t in an

industry where all our ‘units’ are equal and different personalities and people require

different approaches. As a principal I need to know who likes public praise, which

prefers a word on the side. Find out their strengths and utilise them to make them

valued contributors to your school.

While not as explicit as Principal 3, the other principals demonstrated that they too

have an inherent understanding that in respect to school leadership practices and

teacher work commitment, one size does not fit all.

Differentiation and valuing the unique skills of individual teachers was a theme which

underpinned many of the leadership practices stated by the principals. This theme has

been reinforced by other research such as Rhodes, Nevill and Allan (2004) who found

that an individual or differentiated approach worked best when trying to enhance

teacher satisfaction. It was apparent that in the minds of the principals interviewed, the

‘one size fits all model’ was counter-productive to enhancing work place commitment.

Principal 1 commented, “I certainly have looked at things like using the developing

performance framework models, to identify teachers’ strengths and weaknesses.”

Recognising teachers’ strengths was also important to Principal 2 who said, “It is

important that as Principal I recognise staff strengths and provide opportunities for

them.” Principal 3 also agreed and stated, “Find out their (teachers’) strengths and

utilise them.” Finding the strengths and weaknesses of each individual and

differentiating their leadership practices to individuals, was a way these principals

believed could impact positively a mid-career teacher’s work commitment and

according to Gonzales and Lambert (2014) an effective strategy for increasing teacher

commitment.


Even though there was a common belief amongst these three principals about different

teachers requiring different leadership practices to enhance their work commitment,

there was a marked difference in how the principals enacted their leadership practices.

The leadership practices the principals described of themselves gave an insight into

each principal’s beliefs of leadership and power (Priest & Seemiller, 2018). This is

particularly true for practices which describe who decide what is best for the teachers.

Principal 1 stated, “Teachers are at different places at any particular time (they)

identify what they see as their expertise and how they would like to enhance that.” This

principal recognises that strengths can vary amongst staff but most significantly

articulates that staff can identify their own areas strength which demonstrated a strong

belief in teacher agency. Principal 1 appeared to adopt a more teacher centred view

underpinned by shared or distributed power as described by Diamond and Spillane,

(2016) in their study into school leadership. Principal 1’s leadership style attempted

to empower staff evident through phrases such as, “I think by identifying their interest

with them…teachers can then work out what they want to do and their capacity and

how they can enhance that.”

Principals 2 and 4 came from a much different perspective. Principals 2 and 4 viewed

the principal as the person of power on the school site evident through their statements.

Principal 2 said, “I think as principal it behoves me to ensure that I give them… the

full complement of strategies and we have those very regular professional

conversations that allows them to have that full bag of tricks.” Principal 4 believed

that, “As principal I need to change their opinion and take charge of how they feel.”

Principals 2 and 4 portrayed a much more transactional or instructional approach to


leadership in which the principal decides what is best for each staff member. Principals

2 and 4 highlighted their leadership as ‘doing to’ others with a top down approach

contrasting to the ‘doing with’ side by side approach of Principal 1.

Leadership styles of principals can be influenced by many things such as training and

role models or even past experiences. Lasswell (2017) believed that the personality of

a person and their beliefs of power translate into their leadership style. Mittal and Elias

(2016) also identified personality as foundational to leadership enactment but looked

at this from a cultural perspective determining different leadership practices based on

the leader’s ethnicity or culture.

Another key relational leadership practice raised by two of the principals (Principals 2

and 3) was the principal’s ability to build relationships with staff through strong

interpersonal skills. Principal 3 stated, “Teaching is a people based profession and to

get the best out of people you need to know how to get on with them.” This ability to

relate to people from varying backgrounds and personalities was seen as a key point

in relation to mid-career staff commitment. Principal 3 said, “First and foremost being

a leader is relational….the one (aspect of leadership) you can’t miss, or get an expert

in to do for you, is the relational.” All schools have a range of staff in terms of

experience and beliefs, and according to the responses of these two principals,

interpersonal practices such as being respectful, being polite, knowing people’s names

and stories, allows a school principal to work effectively with them all.

It was also clear that the principals felt that interpersonal skills need to be strongly

underpinned with feelings of trust between staff and the principal and a sense for


teachers of being valued. Principal 3 showed a deep understanding of this concept

identifying a professional context to the relationships and not just friendships or

popularity and stated; “It is not about socialising and friendships but it is about

professional connectedness (and) trust.” This is a point supported by the research of

Handford and Leithwood (2013) and Scott and Halkias (2016) who highlighted the

importance of trust within a school culture and also identified interpersonal leadership

practices of the school principal as a reason for teachers trusting their school leaders.

Maintaining professional interactions help leaders to achieve the balance of connecting

and understanding staff while still maintaining a position to influence and challenge

staff in a contemporary leadership paradigm (Hewlett, Sherbin, & Sumberg, 2009;

Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999).

State school principals in Queensland, as part of their role, are expected to have

knowledge of current policy context around school leadership and enact these

standards as a part of their position. What is apparent from the principal interview data

is that different principals enact and interpret policy in divergent ways. This is not

surprising as Riley (2014) outlined, individual school principals are the practical

enactors of system theoretical policies. The process of enacting required policies can

be an accurate mechanism for uncovering the leadership philosophy of the enactor.

The views of each principal participant, and their beliefs around leadership practices,

can be seen from their description of their policy enactment.

Principal 2 responded from a conceptual and principal centred perspective where the

school principal holds the power to make decisions. “I recognise the importance that

staff see I value them and that I recognise the importance of relationship.” Principal


2’s statements also illustrate a relationship of power of the principal over the staff.

Principal 3 conveyed a complex understanding of relational leadership in terms of

stories, daily connections, trust and professional distance. Principal 3 commented:

First and foremost being a leader is relational….the one (leadership practice) you

can’t get an expert in to do for you ….you have to get the people skills right. Know the

names of your teachers, know their stories. I believe you have to spend time each day

building the trust and connecting.

Principal 3’s comments reveal a deeper belief in reciprocal trust in that the key

relational leadership practices are not one-way, but to be truly effective the principal

needs to be open to mid-career teacher feedback. The importance of trust noted by

Handford and Leithwood (2013) and Scott and Halkias (2016) and the capacity of

being receptive to feedback (Behnke & Steins, 2016: Kelley & Dikkers, 2016) are

practices not explicit in the Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010)

framework.

Feedback to school leaders is seen as a vital aspect to positive school leadership

(Behnke & Steins, 2016; Kelley & Dikkers, 2016). To be most effective, this feedback

needs to be both internal to the school from teachers and external from a supervisor or

school inspector. Additionally to be effective feedback needs to be acknowledged and

acted upon by the school leader (Behnke & Steins, 2016). The need for feedback was

only spoken about by Principals 3 and 4 in a general sense around the school operations

and as a one way process from the principal to the teacher. Principal 4 mentioned the

importance of “giving teachers feedback about what is going well” as well as “getting

their feedback about what they believe needs to be done.” Principal 3 discussed the

importance of creating a “school culture where questions can be asked and seen as

constructive” but this was so, “teachers will say when they are struggling and feel they


will be helped not judged.” The feedback described was either one-way from the

principal down or about programs in the school which may need addressing.

Significantly neither principal acknowledged the personal component of feedback or

valuing teachers commenting on the principal’s own performance; areas Behnke and

Steins (2016) and Kelley and Dikkers (2016) believe are vitally important to successful

school leadership. Principals 3 and 4 did mention the importance of the principal being

seen as approachable and accepting of the views of the teaching staff, but neither

specifically mentioned seeking feedback form staff, only listening to their views.

According to Principal 3, it is important to, “…create a school culture where questions

can be asked and seen as constructive.” These leadership practices portray the

principal as valuing teacher ideas, and creating a positive culture of mutual trust with

everyone working for the same collective goal, however the interviewed principals do

not acknowledge feedback around their own performance as important to teacher work

commitment or part of their school feedback culture.

The importance of a feedback culture which includes personal feedback to the school

leader and its place in good school leadership practices is raised by researchers such

as Behnke and Steins (2016) and Kelley and Dikkers (2016). These studies concluded

that a critical element of improving school culture and thus teacher commitment is

clear and open feedback between all staff, and of the principal, which is accepted

positively by the school principal. While feedback is seen as a vital part of mid-career

teacher commitment by Principals 3 and 4, both describe feedback (as outlined above)

in an organisational sense with teachers giving feedback about the school and systems

as opposed to feedback about their own performance as school leader.


Additional studies into teacher retention rates (Dajani, 2014; Hudson, 2009; Rice,

2014) support the importance of personal, principal feedback and open, two way

respect and communication as vital to retaining teachers in the profession. For

example, Dajani’s (2014) study identified that teachers wanted; principals to treat them

professionally, include them in decision making, trust them, provide subjective

evaluations and be open to feedback themselves. These leadership practices help create

and maintain a positive work environment for all, but were not specifically articulated

by the interviewed principals in this study.

Effective communication practices and the ability to clearly articulate concepts was a

final theme raised by the interviewed principals within the domain of relational

leadership. Effective communication was not just defined as the surface ability to

communicate and impart information, but rather the deeper ability to engage mid-

career teachers in school based decisions and the ability of the principal to clearly

communicate and assist staff in understanding new processes and agendas.

Significantly, Principal 3 used the term ‘control’ to describe the concept of

collaborative decision making with shared power. Principal 3 stated: “I have found

teachers’ feelings of control significantly impacts on how teachers feel and how

committed they are. And this understanding about control comes from clear

communication and practices which include all staff in information exchanges.” From

the context of the interview transcript, it can be assumed that term ‘control’ means

teachers feeling empowered to have a say in their job expectations and changes which

may impact on them. Principal 3 believes this feeling of control can be created through

a distributive leadership framework with teachers having involvement in the broader


decision processes of a school. By effective two way communication and sharing

decision making, the power of the organisation is diffused and shared amongst the

staff, which Principal 3 believes increases mid-career teacher work commitment.

The frequency of responses (45% of the total coded themes) in the interview transcripts

showed that the relational leadership domain is the most important in regards to mid-

career teacher work commitment from the principals’ perspectives. Significantly, the

principals’ responses demonstrated the range and depth of beliefs around relational

leadership practices of each principal. Principals 1, 4 and 5 while articulating an

understanding and acknowledgement of relational leadership practices, maintained a

formal view in their delivery with a larger system focus. These principals showed

strong alignment to the system policies and used these policies, albeit in differentiated

ways, to underpin their relational leadership practices. They would be described as

compliance driven by Harris (2011) and Nori (2012) in that their focus is on delivering

the systemic policies and being personally accountable for this.

Principal 2 was less reliant on the system procedures and articulated a more personal

understanding of teacher circumstances and leveraged this individual knowledge to

enhance mid-career teacher commitment. Principal 3 demonstrated a more

sophisticated understanding of relational leadership and its impact on teacher

commitment. This included a clearly articulated focus on the well-being of staff and

the need to carefully balance a personal approach with a professional approach, while

still caring for staff and treating each as individuals. Principal 3 showed least concern

for system policies and most concern for the unique needs of each teacher which

underpinned their relational leadership practice.


The importance of this link between the principal’s relational leadership practices and

mid-career teacher work commitment aligns with previous literature concerned with

teacher work commitment and retention (Reynolds & Teddlie, 2000; Dajani, 2014).

Dajani (2014) concluded that numerous principal behaviours impact on teacher job

satisfaction and commitment. Dajani (2014) reported that teachers wanted a school

leader who demonstrates strength within the relational leadership domain. This finding

is reinforced by the beliefs of the interviewed principals in this study. According to

Dajani (2014), when principals are able to demonstrate efficacy in the relational

domain, issues in other areas of school leadership have less impact on teacher work

commitment. In Queensland these other focus areas of school leadership, alluded to

by Dajani (2014), would be the remaining four domains of leadership outlined in

Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010).

In comparing the findings of the teacher interviews, the principals agreed with the

teachers that relational leadership practices had the greatest impact on mid-career

teacher work commitment. While both groups agreed on the importance of the

relational leadership practices they did this from vastly different perspectives. The

teachers described the relational practices from a deficit model identifying inadequate

principal performance in this area resulted in a negative impact on their work

commitment. The principals, however spoke in a very positive tone saying that their

relational leadership practices value added to the mid-career teachers. So, while both

groups agreed in the importance of the relational domain, the effectiveness of the

delivery of these practices is a point of contention. This tension between these views


is discussed further in the comparison of qualitative data section at the end of this

chapter (Section 5.6).

5.3.2 Organisation leadership practices

Organisational leadership practices are concerned with the culture of a school and how

school systems are organised. It can include the chain of command processes and how

information is distributed and shared on a school site along with the other systems and

processes which keep a school organised. Leadership Matters (Education Queensland,

2010) defines leadership practices within this domain to include: managing resources,

building relationships between staff, managing corporate demands, applying policies

and creating a positive learning culture within the school. Leadership practices within

the organisational domain were the second most frequent practices coded from the

principal interviews accounting for 21% of their comments. From the principals’

perspectives, leadership practices in the organisational domain had the second most

important impact on the work commitment of mid-career teachers. Key organisational

practices raised by the principals in their interviews included; managing change within

the school, introducing coaching and mentoring programs for staff, providing

leadership opportunities for mid-career teachers and providing appropriate support to

mid-career teachers when required. The principals did not clarify whether this required

support was determined by the principal or self-identified by the teacher.

Managing change was seen as an important issue at schools which the principals saw

as key practices to their leadership. The significance of change management was noted

by Principal 2 who said, “we’ve had a number of iterations to our curriculum and…when

you change the direction of the curriculum in a very short space of time, it unnerves people.


Some people don’t take to change, and some people take to change very badly.” Principal 4

believed mitigating teachers fear of change was important, “Managing change is one

of the most threatening things to teachers I feel. When change happens you as the

leader have to ensure that your processes support staff through the change and not

support their fears or misgivings.” The educational landscape has changed

significantly in Queensland since the turn of the century with state and federal levels

of government both influencing the education agenda. This politicising of education

has seen more frequent change, and often conflicting reform agendas. Often policies

are ‘rewritten’ as government objectives change or ministers move on (Maguire &

Dillon, 2007; Spillane, 2005). How contemporary school leaders manage change and

interpret shifting agendas while maintaining good-will and commitment with their

staff is critically important (Ball, Maguire, & Braun 2012; Braun, Ball, Maguire, &

Hoskins, 2011; Spillane, Diamond, Burch, Hallett, Jita, & Zoltners, 2002). The

principals in this current study raised the need to effectively manage changing agendas

within the school as important; however they had differing views on how to do this

effectively.

Principal 2 argued that how a principal manages the changing agendas can impact on

the commitment of mid-career teachers: “As principal I need to ensure I filter the

things that we do to ensure alignment to a strategic vision, and that all change is

supported and resourced properly.” This principal stressed that the issue of change

management is of great importance to contemporary school leaders as the role of

educators has changed repeatedly during current teachers work life. Principal 2 noted

that teachers, “Adapt to change differently and for many teachers change is viewed

with a sense of trepidation and negativity”. This participant also believes that the


constant reform agenda “unnerves people. Some people don’t like change!” This

comment reflects research that indicates teachers can become jaded from their

perception of constant change from and making sense of policies where sometimes no

sense is self-evident (Ball, et al., 2012; Spillane, et al., 2002). This is because policies

rarely state exactly what to do and they rarely dictate or determine practice. Policies

cannot simply be implemented, they have to be translated from text to action and put

into practice within each school site (Ball, et al., 2012). The role of interpreting and

managing this change process often falls to the school principal (Riley, 2014a) while

the actual implementation and operationalising of this change often falls to the

teachers, in particular the experienced staff such as mid-career teachers (Maguire,

Braun, & Ball, 2015). Unclear organisational support at schools to support policy

implementation can lead to a decline in teacher commitment (Ball, et al., 2012).

All the participating principals acknowledge the link between ineffectual policy

implementation and declines in teacher work commitment. Their comments indicate

that a common belief that poorly led change processes will have a negative effect on

mid-career teacher work commitment, a point clearly made in school change research.

For example, Principal 3 stated, “When teachers feel nothing will stick and last over

time, the same begins to happen to their commitment.” According to Hargreaves

(2005), managing change is something which takes time to do well and in the words

of Principal 4, is, “One of the most threatening things to teachers.” When

organisational leadership practices are applied well, teachers will feel a sense of

support and direction which can enhance their work commitment (Pillay, Goddard, &

Wilss, 2005). If there is a pattern of ineffective change management, teachers may

experience disillusionment a decline in their work commitment.


Providing leadership opportunities in school is identified as one practice to enhance

work commitment. Lovely’s (2012) study concluded that school leaders should

develop leadership opportunities as early in a teacher’s career as possible. Lovely

(2012) believed this practice serves to motivate and rejuvenate mid-career teachers

work commitment. Principal 3 specifically spoke about the strategy of leveraging the

expertise of mid-career teachers to undertake school based leadership and the resulting

positive impact on their work commitment. This participant believes experienced

teachers often have a lot to offer the school and fellow staff.

Principal 3 outlined, “The leader’s challenge is to keep teachers engaged by…offering

new challenges such as mentoring new teachers.” While teacher mentoring can impact

on experienced teachers’ commitment to their work, another bonus according to

Principal 3 is that the knowledge doesn’t retire with the teacher and is passed on to a

new generation of teachers. Interestingly, this participant’s leadership practice was

very leader centred, with the school leader as the person responsible for keeping

teachers engaged and didn’t state a role the teacher can play in their own commitment

engagement. Additionally this principal placed great importance on the mid-career

teachers’ knowledge and viewed this as a resource to be kept within the system even

if the teacher leaves.

Principal 1 stated that it is vital to ensure mid-career teachers understand any

mentoring role they undertake and are given support for the additional responsibilities

if the role is to have a positive impact on their work commitment. Principal 1 stated,

“If you give a teacher a lead role without a discussion around whether that is what


they want or not, that can certainly be to the disadvantage of the person’s

commitment.” This quote highlights the importance of a collaborative leadership style,

working with teachers towards a common goal as opposed to imposing tasks on

teachers they may not wish to undertake in a transactional way. While Principal 1 did

not outline what type of support they might provide, it was inferred it would be within

the school principal’s sphere of influence such as additional time-off class to plan and

prepare for their mentoring program as a way of valuing the mid-career teachers’ time

and expertise.

In contrast to the ex-teacher interviews, the interviewed principals believed

organisational leadership practices had a significant impact on mid-career teacher

work commitment and through frequency of response rated this domain the second in

importance. Principal 2 highlighted the importance of organisational leadership

practices stating that to enhance teacher commitment, “I filter the things that we do to

ensure alignment to a strategic vision, that all change is supported and resourced

properly, policies and procedures are in place and everything is organised.” While

the teachers collectively rated this organisational domain fourth in importance out of

the five domains in relation to their work commitment, the principals’ believed that

the way they organised their schools and organised their staff was the second most

important domain in regards to impact on teacher work commitment.

5.3.3 Educational leadership practices

Statements from the principal interviews relating to the domain of educational

leadership accounted for 18% of total codes. This made the educational domain the

third most significant in regard to mid-career teacher work commitment, from the


perspective of the principals. Educational leadership practices in respect to the

Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) framework primarily are concerned

with leading the curriculum and pedagogy of a school site. This domain takes into

account principal leadership practices around: knowledge of curriculum frameworks,

learning theories, developing systems to lead curriculum requirements and also in

developing curriculum leadership among teachers. Educational leadership practices

assume that the school principal possesses current curriculum knowledge and has the

capacity to develop leadership around curriculum and learning within a school.

Creating roles to lead school curriculum development (as opposed to the school

leadership roles mentioned in the previous section) was identified by all five principals

as an effective way to enhance the teachers’ work commitment. This echoed the beliefs

of Ahmad and Ghavifekr (2017) who stated that leadership for the 21st century should

be inclusive and distributive, and at the same time, promoting leadership capacity

building. Principal 1 highlighted educational leadership practices as providing

opportunities for, “Mid-career teachers to lead and support the school curriculum.”

Principal 1 also described how mid-career teacher commitment is enhanced by,

“Providing opportunities to influence the educational direction of a school” by giving

mid-career teachers an opportunity to “use their expertise and have a say in how the

school is operating.”

The clear assumption here is that by building collaborative and shared curriculum

leadership the mid-career teachers have buy in and ownership over these decisions

(Bush & Glover, 2014), which in turn increases their work commitment. This reflects

the conclusions of Ahmad and Ghavifekr (2017) who summarised that school


leadership should facilitate learning or leadership for learning not merely student

learning. They argue that it is critical to build an overall school culture that focuses

on the school site as a place for learning for all, albeit not undermining the importance

of the principal in promoting a learning environment.

Principal 2 made similar comments to Principal 1 in regards to leadership of

curriculum and recognising the strengths of mid-career teachers on staff. Principal 2

said, “It is important that as Principal I recognise staff strengths and provide

opportunities for them to influence others, along with opportunities to lead other staff

teams.” While these comments may be seen as delegating responsibility, they are also

about empowering staff by providing the staff ownership of the school direction in

collaboration with the principal.

While Principals 1 and 2 made similar points around the involvement of mid-career

teachers in the curriculum development and direction at their schools, they did this

from quite different perspectives. The choice of language used highlights the different

tones and assumptions emerging between these two principals. Principal 1 ‘used’ mid-

career teacher expertise and stated, "I like to acknowledge them … and use their

expertise.” This suggests that in Principal 1’s leadership construct, teachers are

resources to be utilised and directed in a more traditional, hierarchical form of

leadership (Burns, 1978; Hartog, et al., 2011; Wahyun, et al., 2014). Principal 2

initially outlines a very similar power construct describing how they “allow them those

data cycles” and “allow them to say they are doing alright.” However, later in the

interview, Principal 2 uses the phrase, “provided opportunities” suggesting a more

open and collaborative view of leadership (Bush & Glover, 2014).


Principal 3 and 4 raised the point of making teachers feel valued within curriculum

development and delivery as an important educational leadership practice. Principal 3

stated, “Find out their strengths and utilise them to make them valued contributors to

your school.” Principal 4 felt it was more than just feeling valued, it was about actively

involving teachers and “finding a way to engage them” stating that this may not

necessarily be in a leadership role. Principal 4 recounted the educational leadership

practice of shared decision making around school direction and curriculum decisions

as an important aspect of mid-career teacher work commitment. Principal 4

specifically stated, “I find that having them involved in the decision making makes a

big difference. If they feel like they are involved in decisions around making changes

they are comfortable with it and they support it.” The caution here is to ensure that

the engagement is worthwhile and not just seen as superficial. It is important to not

just get the teachers to feel involved but to be actively engaged and contributing.

In addition to leadership roles, Principal 2 also outlined the educational leadership

practice of professional development as a way of enhancing work commitment.

Principal 2 expressed a belief that the principal must, “enable them to have the

appropriate skill base required for the job to deliver.” Through this comment it is

evident that Principal 2 values learning and growth as part of the role of a teacher.

This ongoing educational support to maintain the mid-career teacher’s commitment is

seen as essential by Principal 2 particularly with the current systemic emphasis on

student outcome data and results (Bloxham, Ehrich, & Iyer, 2015). If class results are

low – which Principal 2 believes can have a demoralising effect on mid-career teachers

– then the school principal should put “in every possible strategy to support the


teacher.” Principal 2 did not specifically outline what specific strategies could be used

to support the teacher, however it could be assumed that this would include

professional development opportunities along with other strategies that might improve

student outcomes such as: reviewing class composition, teacher-aide support during

teaching time, specialist support and teaching resources.

Clearly the principals valued the leadership practices in the educational domain and

consider these as important to mid-career teacher commitment. The principals

identified having the opportunity to lead school based educational programs as having

a positive impact on mid-career teacher work commitment and of greater significance

than their personal leadership as identified by the teachers in their interviews. To the

teachers, the educational domain was the lowest ranked from their perspective ranked

last of the five domains.

5.3.4 Personal leadership practices

The domain of personal leadership practices was the second least mentioned domain

in the principals’ interviews accounting for 13% of coded responses. In contrast, the

ex-teachers in their interviews rated this domain the second most important in regards

to their work commitment. Leadership practices defined within the personal leadership

domain include: acting ethically, showing respect, being inspiring, being trustworthy

and being emotionally ready for leadership. Practices from the personal leadership

domain did not feature prominently in the principals’ responses.

Personal leadership practices were briefly mentioned by all interviewed principals

except Principal 5 but were not discussed at any depth. These comments included


Principal 1 who stated, “I hope to inspire them.” Principal 2 agreed with inspiring

teachers stating, “Leadership is about being inspiring.” Principal 3 mentioned acting

ethically, “You have to spend time each day showing respect. Never deceive the

teachers or play games – act ethically.” While Principal 4 mentioned the importance

of trust and said, “Teachers that do things because they want to do it to help the

principal and (they) trust the principal.”

By these comments the principals identified personal leadership practices, but did not

expand on or justify these brief statements. There appeared a lack of self-reflection

from the principals about their professional conduct and, as mentioned previously, no

apparent drive to seek feedback from staff about their leadership. The principals

appeared to believe that the leadership practices they were implementing were

impacting positively on teacher commitment and there was no evidence of informal or

formal processes of assessing the effectiveness of their leadership practices.

It could be concluded from the interview data that in relation to mid-career work

commitment, these five principals viewed their personal leadership practices did not

having a significant impact on teachers. This is in contrast to the mid-career teacher

interviews described in Chapter 4 which listed the personal domain as the second most

important from their perspective in regards to their work commitment. Even though

personal leadership practices were not mentioned specifically by the principals, some

personal leadership practices could be implied through the elaborations of the

relational leadership practices which were described above and can be closely linked

to personal leadership.


5.3.5 Intellectual leadership practices

The leadership domain of intellectual leadership practices was the least mentioned

theme in the interviews accounting for 3% of principal responses. Leadership Matters

(Education Queensland, 2010) defines intellectual leadership practices within this

domain as a principal’s ability to: solve problems, create innovative ways to implement

policy, analyse and interpret situations to find solutions, and create a vision. Primarily,

leadership practices in the intellectual domain allow a principal to create and develop

processes to deliver the educational agenda at school allowing for each individual

school’s context. Often these processes are original and require the principal to create

systems where none exist to match specific needs of a specific school at a specific

time.

Intellectual leadership practices were only mentioned once in the principals’

interviews and this was in relation to sharing and articulating the principal’s view of

the school vision. Principal 3 stated that a principal needed a “clearly articulated vision

which could be used to guide decisions and directions and inform how we can deliver

this vision.” These practices can be very positive to a school environment and how this

environment impacts on teacher commitment, however from these current interviews

this domain was only raised once and seen as having little impact on mid-career teacher

work commitment from the principals’ perspectives.

5.4 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL INTERVIEWS

Throughout their interviews the school principals drew from their personal experiences

as school leaders to share varying opinions about their leadership practices and mid-

career teachers work commitment. The principals mentioned systemic leadership


expectations and specific leadership practices based on Education Queensland

programs, as influencing their practices. These programs included, supporting

aspiring leaders (Principals 1 and 2) and providing coaching and mentoring for staff

(Principals 3 and 5), as well as Education Queensland’s Developing Performance

Framework (Principal 1).

All five principals responded to the interview questions from a positive perspective.

That is, they all gave examples of practices they employed which they believed

supports mid-career teacher commitment at their schools. None of the principals

interviewed perceived their leadership practices to have had a negative influence on

teacher commitment, or indicated seeking teacher feedback to determine if their

leadership could be improved or finessed to support teacher commitment.

The interviewed principals stated they did many things to support to mid-career teacher

commitment at their school sites. While they portrayed a common confidence in their

self-reported current leadership practices, there was a shared silence around practices

they felt they could be improved or further developed to support their mid-career

teachers’ work commitment. This apparent lack of reflective and reflexive capabilities

in school principals was reported by Ryan and Bourke (2013) in their study. Ryan and

Bourke (2013) concluded that systems are attempting to shape the teaching profession

through behavioural-heavy standards, with little regard for the attitudinal, emotional

and intellectual dimensions. This point appears to be reinforced by the principals’

interviews and their focus on the relational, organisational and educational domains of

Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) which are more behaviour based


and descriptive than the domains of personal and intellectual leadership which are

based more on emotional intelligence and personal attitudes.

To be effective, school leaders need to be reflective of their own actions and reflexive

to the ever changing and competing agendas demanded of the principal role (Evans,

2011). Evans (2011) argues that enacted professionalism requires reflexive mediation

whereby principals balance their own priorities and beliefs with the school and system

needs. To do this effectively school leaders not only have to be reflective and reflexive,

they also must be able to work within and move about various models of leadership

(Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008). In regards to this current research using

Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010), this would be illustrated by

principals working more evenly across all the five domains of leadership and not

demonstrating dominance in a few as reflected in the interviews.

The leadership domains which were prominent in the principal interviews, namely

educational and organisational, could be described as system dominated where the

many policies and procedures are just enacted in the prescribed way. Even the

discussion around relational leadership by the principals was based on engaging

teachers in existing development frameworks as opposed to really engaging at the

personal levels which the teachers expressed they needed. The domains which required

more personal interpretation, analysis, self-reflection and a level of reflexiveness from

the principals to ensure positive delivery i.e. intellectual and personal, were

conspicuously absent from these principal interviews. Yet it is these soft skills (Dixon,

Belnap, Albrecht, & Lee, 2010) that include the ability to communicate, coordinate,


work under pressure, and solve problems, that school leaders need to be truly

successful.

Predominantly the language choices by the principals interviewed for this study

reflected a hierarchical model of school leadership with its top-down power

relationship that is most often associated with a transactional approach to leadership.

Examples of such language included Principal 1 who stated, “I create opportunities

for them.” Principal 4 stated something similar, “I have found that a way to overcome

their levels of declining enthusiasm is finding a way to engage them.” While Principal

5 said, “I try to give them some professional development around (a role so) that they

can become a key person around this role.”

Additionally, the practices articulated by the principals for improving mid-career

teacher commitment were practices enacted on or for teachers, not developed with

teachers, and appeared to be developed based on systemic programs the principals

identified independently from the teachers. Principal 1 said, “I certainly have looked

at things like using the developing performance framework models, to identify

teachers’ strengths and weaknesses.” This transactional leadership approach framed

the principal as the person and position who knows what is best for the mid-career

teachers underpinned with a belief that the system programs should be used as they

will be of benefit to teachers.

By using models like the developing performance framework to analyse performance,

the principals’ language was reflective of transactional leadership which positions the

greater system processes as the blueprint for leadership practices. For example, the


Principal 1 identified a need or strength of the teacher concerned and then decided

what program will support this need. Another example is Principal 5 who determined

that after 5 or 6 years in the profession, a teacher may be jaded and the principal has

to help “reignite the teacher”. In line with this form of leadership, the interviewed

principals outlined their clear support and compliance with their system’s existing

processes and did not appear to want to change what is in existence or develop new

initiatives at their schools – a true reflection of the accountable generation as described

by Cranston (2002), or their compliance nature as described by Harris (2011) and Nori

(2012).

Over my time as a school leader, the principal role has become highly complex and

increasingly impacted on by changing agendas. Principals today are under immense

pressure to implement constant change and increase student outcomes (Riley, 2014a,

2014b). The increasing pressure on school principals is well documented by Riley

(2014b) in his Australian principal occupational health, safety and wellbeing report.

None of the principals interviewed in this research expressed this pressure or the ever

increasing demands of the role.

During times of change, the principal is the person who must steady the ship when

tension and stresses increase on school sites (Day & Leithwood, 2007). The principal

must manage this change often with a level of resistance from staff. Schools more

than ever are feeling the effects of constant educational reforms, and principals more

than ever are under pressure to both enact these reforms and provide evidence of the

positive impact of the reform (Cranston, 2002; Riley, 2014a). While the principals in

this study did not directly articulate the tensions they are navigating between policy


and their staff needs, current research would give testament that this is a constant issue

(Gallant & Riley, 2013; Riley, 2014a).

The silence around this issue by the principals in this current research may be more to

do with the questions which were asked or the focus on mid-career teachers rather than

a focus on the escalating demands of principalship. Alternatively this silence could

have been driven by the forum or context of the research and a concern that these

principals do not wish to be seen questioning their employer’s agendas and

requirements. Even beyond their employer, the principals may have felt reluctant to

question the state and federal political agendas or be seen to critique the direction of

registration bodies, such as the Australian Institute for Teachers and School Leaders

and the national framework for school leadership which it developed. As transactional

leaders, all of the principals reflected compliance to the rules and reinforcement of the

existing hierarchy, both key fundamentals to this traditional style of leadership. Why

this might be the case is further discussed in Chapter 7.

The comments from the school principals may also be an insight into how leadership

is valued and measured by their education system. The principals at no time questioned

their system or articulated any reservations about any systemic processes. Initial

answers to interview questions showed a desire to be ‘doing the right thing’ and of

following department rules. Most systems value, promote and encourage people who

align and conform to way of doing business with little acceptance for people who do

not toe the line. It was of no surprise that this alignment with the existing system

processes emerged early in the principals’ answers and showed conformity to system

requirements (Heffernan, 2017).


As the interviews progressed, later answers deviated more and revealed more personal

insights to their beliefs about leadership and how each principal’s own beliefs and

values help them operationalise the system requirements and interpret system

requirements at their own school site (Gallant & Riley, 2013; Riley, 2014a), yet they

still never openly questioned the system. Principal 2 said, “There is so much happening

that we can fall into the trap of a new agenda every week. As principal I need to ensure

I filter the things that we do.” Principal 2 also mentioned helping teachers who are

struggling saying, “Sometimes they drop their ball and I will move heaven and earth

to support them.” But most importantly Principal 2 stated, “You have to model what

you want the school to be like.” These comments indicated that Principal 2 assumed

responsibility for staff commitment and also saw the principal role as influencing the

wellbeing, development and performance of staff.

Gallant and Riley (2013) described this investment in staff as emotional labour and

saw this as an essential requirement to traverse school politics and deliver system

policy within a school context. Examples from the principals which illustrated this

concept included from Principal 4; “I have found that a way to overcome their levels

of declining enthusiasm is finding a way to engage them.” Principal 5 noted, “I try to

give them some professional development around (their strengths and weaknesses).”

It was not questioned by any of the principals that the activation of department policies

is something a principal needs to understand and implement at their school site. Nor

was there any critique evident of current pace of reforms or direction of change.


As expected in semi-structured interviews, the content of the interviews became more

differentiated and individualised as each of the five principals elaborated on specific

leadership practices they employ at their school site. Each of the principals had a

different perspective of what leadership practices they believed impacted on mid-

career teachers’ commitment and moved beyond a purely transactional approach to

leadership, however their underpinning belief in the power, influence and

responsibility of the principal role remained. The link between the positional power

and different beliefs in what mid-career teachers need for work commitment was

relayed by each principal albeit from different perspectives. It was also clearly evident

that the principals’ perspectives of what mid-career teachers need to enhance their

work commitment, and the actual teachers’ perspectives of what they need, did not

align and had a great deal of discourse in their narratives.

5.5 COMPARISON OF QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS – TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS

The data from the qualitative interviews showed limited alignment in perspectives

between the ex-teachers and the school principals. This noted difference was evident

at two distinct levels, firstly on a purely comparative level and secondly on an

implementation level. At a comparative level, each group referred most often to

leadership practices within the relational domain as the most significant practices in

respect to work commitment. While there was agreement by both groups of the

importance of the relational domain, the two groups had very different views on the

impact of the other leadership domains on teacher work commitment.

The teacher group felt that leadership practices within the personal and intellectual

domains were of next significance with the organisational and educational domains


featuring least frequently in their interviews. Conversely, the principals’ considered

the two leadership domains of personal and intellectual were of the least importance

in regard to the work commitment of mid-career teachers. It is salient to note that the

areas personal and intellectual are also the domains which are less easily measured.

The principals placed greater importance than the teachers on the organisational and

education domains of leadership practices ranking these as the two next in importance

behind the relational domain. The difference in frequency of responses in relation to

each leadership domain from the two sets of interviews at this comparative level is

shown in Table 5.2 and then represented in graph form in Figure 5.2.

Table 5.2 Number of participant responses linked to each leadership domain

Leadership domains Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010)

Principals Ex-teachers

Organisational 8 5 Personal 5 11 Educational 7 1 Relational 17 20 Intellectual 1 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

Organisational Personal Educational Relational Intellectual

Interview Responses

Ex teachers Principals


Figure 5.2 Line graph of interview responses from principals and ex-teachers

At the second implementation level, the interview data highlighted the different

perspectives held by the two participant groups. While both groups agreed at a surface

level that the relational domain had the greatest impact on teacher work commitment,

there was significant differences in the ways the groups discussed the impact of these

practices. From the principal interviews the connection between relational leadership

practices and teachers’ work commitment was presented as a positive correlational,

that is, as one increases the other can increase and vice versa. Additionally, the

principals believed their own on-going leadership practices served to enhance mid-

career teacher commitment. None of the principals mentioned a practice that had

impacted negatively on a teacher’s commitment or needed to be adjusted to ensure

maximum benefit to the teachers.

The former teachers’ perspective aligned with the principals in that the relational

domain had the biggest impact on teacher work commitment. The principals reported

they believed they were performing well as leaders in this area and having a positive

impact. Conversely, the teachers reported that from their experience this domain was

an area of significant concern. Speaking from a deficit perspective, the teachers

identified the leadership practices they considered were missing from their

involvement with school leaders. They focussed primarily on leadership practices they

believed had decreased their own levels of work commitment and contributed to their

decision to leave the teaching profession. While there were some commonalities in

themes between the two groups, the interview data highlights clear tensions between

how leadership practices are perceived and their impact on teacher work commitment.


The contrasting perspectives of the two groups were anticipated by the researcher and

can be explained through the different influencing factors impacting each group. The

interviewed former teachers were individuals who had already left the teaching

profession due to negative experiences or a mismatch between expectations and the

changing realities of the work. Carpenter’s (2015) study into teacher attrition showed

that teachers who left the teaching profession often do so as they feel something was

missing from their ideal of the profession. This absence of ‘something’ led to the

teachers feeling disillusioned and no longer committed to teaching which ultimately

led to them electing to leave teaching (Carpenter, 2015).

The deficit position demonstrated by the teacher group could arguably be attributed to

the fact the interviews were undertaken after the mid-career teachers had already left

teaching. Therefore, the interviews were a retrospective account used to verify the

decisions already made by these individuals. School leaders serve as the mediators

between the requirements of the system and the situated context of the schools where

these policies are lived out. As such, teachers see principals as responsible for

managing the school climate and culture and therefore having a position of power over

work conditions and ultimately the work commitment of teachers (Tschannen-Moran,

2009).

It is reasonable to assume that the participants who attributed their decision to leave

teaching to leadership practices, would position their recount from a deficit

perspective. It would also be logical to conclude that their school principal could be

seen as having a major influence on this decision due to the influence a principal has


on a school site. Therefore, the teachers’ recount of principal leadership practices

would be positioned from a deficit perspective.

In regards to the principals, as school leaders they were reflecting on their own

practices which could be seen as self-evaluation. Branson’s (2007) study into self-

evaluation of school principals in Queensland concluded that often principal self-

evaluation was not authentic and instead was viewed more positively by the principal

than others in the workplace. As evidenced in their interviews the principals reflected

a very positive evaluation of their own leadership practices and believed their methods

were enhancing their teachers’ work commitment.

The principals’ positive framing of responses to the interview question could be argued

to result from a number of factors that emerged from the construction of the research

and the positional frame of the principals. Firstly, the positive phrasing of the initial

interview question, ‘What have you done to enhance the work commitment of mid-

career teachers?’ served to invite a pro-active, positive answer. This question assumed

that the principals would have done something over their career to positively influence

the commitment of mid-career teachers and may have guided the principals to answer

within this context. The wording of the question framed a positive action answer in

response.

On reflection, in any future interviews this opening question would be rephrased to

provide a neutral statement to mitigate the current, leading positive nature of the

present one. For this study, it is acknowledged that the structure of the initial interview


question has strongly influenced the data given by the principals inviting a response

aligned to positive action taken in relation to teacher work commitment.

Secondly, the lens the principals may see their world through is based on the

responsibilities, accountabilities and expectations of the role as well as managing a

school (Gallant & Riley, 2013; Riley, 2014a). These agendas and beliefs can change

the way the principals see the role of teachers and leaders and influence the way they

describe their enacted leadership practices. Thirdly, these principals are of an age

where they were appointed to substantive leadership positions without a system of

leadership development or support. There was little mentoring or developing of

leadership skills in this time, therefore developing critical understanding of themselves

as leaders and what it means to be situated leaders was often left to the individual. This

ad-hoc approach to professional learning has resulted in inconsistent understandings

of leadership theory and practice within the broader cohort of principals. It is

reasonable to assume that some of the interviewed principals were drawing mainly on

their own interpretation of effective leadership rather than a research informed

framework when describing their answers.

A final point to explain the differences between the perspectives of the two interview

groups can be drawn from Gardner, Fischer and Hunt’s (2009) research that identified

that often principals and teachers hold conflicting views about leadership. Later

research (Gallant & Riley, 2013) reinforced this view that principals and teachers come

from very different paradigms. The world of school leadership is vastly different from

the world of teachers and tensions often prevail when these two worlds collide (Gallant

& Riley, 2013). Effective leaders need to distinguish between the points of overlap


and separateness of these two worlds which can be a difficult one to traverse. Each

group, teachers and principals, operate within a multitude of factors unique to their

different roles within the school and the tension between these two cohorts is clearly

evident in these current narratives. The above mentioned points can be used to place

context around the two groups of participants used in this current research.

In summarising the content of their answers, the focus for principals on instructional

leadership, and the practices that sit within these, is reflected in the principals’

comments within the educational and organisational domains. Leadership Matters

(Education Queensland, 2010) describes the practices in these domains as essential to

providing leadership of curriculum and the leading of the resources, facilities, finances

and staff to deliver the curriculum initiatives. For principals in Education Queensland,

influenced by the pursuit of instructional leadership by the greater system (Masters,

2009), it is of no surprise that these leadership practices are at the forefront of their

thinking.

From a teacher’s perspective these are not the domain of Leadership Matters

(Education Queensland, 2010) that a principal needs to focus in to improve teacher

work commitment. Teachers want principals to focus their practice within the

relational and personal domains. These domains describe the internal beliefs and

actions of a principal and encompass how they act under pressure and well and the

daily actions and interactions with all members of the school community but

particularly the staff. Above all else, the teachers outline they want a principal who

was approachable, honest, treated them and respected them as individuals and had the


time and social skills to include daily professional courtesy and interactions amongst

their leadership practices.

Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) was the selected framework used

to map and understand the interview transcripts from both qualitative study groups. It

was chosen as it was the embedded leadership framework used by Education

Queensland when these interviews were undertaken and also was the primary

leadership framework in place when each of the principals interviewed received their

latest promotion. This framework identifies five separate domains of leadership. It

was used as an analytical tool to classify the statements and themes from the interview

data. Additional to this, the frequency data assisted in determining and comparing the

various impacts that each domain had on mid-career teacher work commitment from

the perspectives of the two groups.

A point to note is that during the time this research was undertaken using the

Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) framework, the national AITSL

(Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership) Professional Standards for

Principals was finalised and released. As noted in Chapter 1, this national framework

also breaks down school leadership into five domains which although not identified

using the same terminology as Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) does

have strong alignment with the descriptors and content of practice under these

domains. This alignment of domains between the two frameworks means that the

results of these current qualitative interviews would remain consistent if the AITSL

Professional Standards for Principals was used in place, or in conjunction with

Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010). Therefore the results and


conclusions described in this research are not just limited to the Queensland context,

but can be applied to national and international contexts as well.

5.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY

The findings from the two sets of qualitative interviews described in this chapter and

Chapter 4 were used to help refine and finalise the survey instrument used in the second

phase of this study outlined in Chapter 6. The finalised survey instrument was

administered to current mid-career teachers across several school sites to help

determine a broad view of mid-career teachers’ opinions. Chapter 6 examines the data

concerned with the quantitative survey findings, the findings conclusions which can

be drawn and then compares the survey data with the qualitative data in this chapter

and Chapter 4. This comparison of all data sets ascertained trends of perspective and,

through a comparative analysis, summarised the impact specific principal leadership

practices had on mid-career teacher work commitment.


Chapter 6: Data findings - Quantitative survey: Mid-career teachers

6.1 CHAPTER PREVIEW

This chapter is concerned with the second, quantitative phase of this research into mid-

career teacher work commitment. In describing the quantitative research findings, this

chapter discusses and outlines the results of a survey instrument (Appendix B)

undertaken by current mid-career teachers (n=142). Section 6.2 outlines the

demographics of the survey participants while Section 6.3 describes the survey

instrument. Section 6.4 gives a summary of the initial short answer section of the

survey instrument. Section 6.5 provides the survey results and Section 6.6 gives a

discussion of the survey data in relation to the five identified leadership domains of

Education Queensland’s leadership framework Leadership Matters (Education

Queensland, 2010). Section 6.7 discusses the findings from the selection of the top five

survey items by each respondent. A summary of the quantitative data is provided in

Section 6.8, before a comparative discussion of all data, both quantitative and

qualitative is provided in Section 6.9. A chapter summary is provided in Section 6.10.

6.2 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS

Current serving mid-career teachers were sought to complete the survey to help

determine their perspectives on principal leadership practices and their work

commitment. Mid-career teachers from large size primary schools in metropolitan

Brisbane were approached with an ‘opt in’ invitation to complete the survey (see

Chapter 3). The survey participant group (n = 142) consisted of a large percentage of

female respondents. This gender make-up is consistent with the general population of


primary school teachers in Queensland which is female dominated. Of the 142 survey

participants, 84.5% identified as female and 14.8% identified as male. This ratio is

indicative of state primary schools in Queensland where males make up 16% of the

teaching workforce (Queensland College of Teachers, 2014). One participant did not

disclose gender.

The average teaching career of the survey participants was 16.4 years placing the group

within the mid-career teacher category. The ages of the survey participants varied,

however the majority considered themselves between 35 and 45 years or older. Of the

participants, 3.5% indicated that they were less than 25 years of age, 26.1%

participants indicated an age of 25 to 35 years, 36.6% participants indicated an age of

35 to 45 years, and 33.8% participants indicated that they were older than 45 years.

In relation to their highest education level of the survey participants, 7.7% indicated a

Diploma, 64.1% indicated a Bachelor degree, 16.9% indicated they had completed

post graduate study, 9.2% indicated a Masters degree and 0.7% indicated they had

completed a Doctorate degree. Two participants did not disclose their highest level of

education. The high frequency of respondents with a Bachelor’s degree is again

consistent with the greater population of teachers in Queensland. Since 1991, all

teachers graduating from teaching degrees in Queensland are awarded a Bachelor’s

degree. Any new teachers seeking to be registered by the Queensland College of

Teachers to be eligible to teach in Queensland schools must have a Bachelor’s degree

or higher. Given the average teaching range and length of service, the majority of

current mid-career teachers in Queensland would be Bachelor qualified at the


commencement of their teaching career. The demographics of the survey participant

group are displayed below in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Demographics of survey participants

Number of participants = 142

Gender Av years teaching

Age Qualifications

Female

Male

Non-disclosed

120

21

1

16.4 years < 25yrs

25 –35yrs

35 – 45yrs

>45yrs

5

37

52

48

Diploma

Bachelor

Post Grad

Masters

Doctorate

Non-disclosed

11

91

24

13

1

2

6.3 SURVEY INSTRUMENT

The survey (Appendix B) was constructed so that all the survey items could be viewed

by the participants as being of importance to their work commitment. This prediction

resulted in a high percentage of positive returns to the surveys with uniform agreeance

to the importance of each statement, making it harder to clearly separate statements

from each other. To overcome the anticipated positive responses, two additional steps

were included in the survey to gain a deeper understanding of mid-career teachers

thinking into which specific leadership practices impact most on their work

commitment.

The first step was an initial short answer section with an open ended question which

asked participants to list the leadership practices a principal could enact to improve

their work commitment. By doing this the respondents could list their initial thoughts

about leadership practices and their work commitment without being constraint to the

practices listed on the survey instrument. Once the survey was completed, as a second

step to gain additional insights, the participants were asked to identify their top five


statements – even if they thought positively about all statements - from the 30 listed

survey items, highlighting the five they believed impacted most on their job

commitment. In this way the participants isolated the five most important leadership

practices from their perspective and a greater distinction between the survey items was

identified to assist in the analysis process.

6.4 SHORT ANSWER QUESTION RESPONSES

Of the 142 completed surveys (Appendix B), 86 participants completed the initial short

answer question giving their unrestricted view on the leadership practices they felt

impacted most significantly on their work commitment. The question simply stated,

‘What leadership practices could a school principal enact to help improve your work

commitment?’ The question was designed with a positive lead to encourage teachers

to note what a principal could do to improve their work commitment even if these

practices were not evident at their work site. The question was also designed to reflect

school principal leadership in general and not be related to a specific person or existing

school site.

The answers to this open ended question varied from short, one word answers focussed

on one specific area of leadership to paragraph answers which encompassed many

separate ideas. As per the interview data, answers were coded based on the theme of

the response with each individual theme treated as a separate idea (Creswell, 2012).

These themes were then coded under the five domains of leadership identified in the

Leadership Matters framework (Education Queensland, 2010).


From the 86 responses received, 124 codes were assigned, that were then grouped into

the five leadership domains. The groupings of the codes under each leadership domain,

from the short answer responses are recorded below numerically in Table 6.2 and as a

percentage in graph form in Figure 6.1.

Table 6.2 Classification of survey short-answer responses in relation to Leadership Matters (2010)

EQ Leadership Matters leadership domains Response Frequency Organisational 22 Personal 31 Educational 7 Relational 58 Intellectual 6

Figure 6.1 Comparative frequency of coded leadership practices as identified from short answer

responses.

Relational 46%

Organisational 18%

Educational6%

Personal25%

Intellectual5%

Percentage


6.4.1 Emerging theme from short answer responses

Similar to the interview data, the coding of the short answer questions uncovered

themes which could be classified under more than one of the leadership domains, and

other themes that did not fit under any of the existing categories. This is a common

dilemma for qualitative coding when using an existing framework to organise the

coding protocol (Bryman, 2017; Lewis, 2015; Maxwell, 2012). As previously

explained, a theme could be placed under more than one domain if this was deemed

appropriate. If no appropriate domain could be assigned, the theme was listed as

emerging. Again, it is important to note that the intent of this research was not to create

a new leadership framework with additional leadership categories. Therefore, it was

not seen as relevant or necessary to this current research to create new leadership

domains to account for the emerging themes; this could be the work for future studies

into Queensland school leadership.

One theme that emerged from the short answer responses was around student

behaviour management. This theme was identified 16 times in the short answer

responses. It was a theme difficult to classify as the Leadership Matters document

(Education Queensland, 2010) does not make specific reference to student classroom

behaviours. As described above, the final coding for this theme therefore was based

on the context of the respondent’s answer, a process supported in qualitative research

coding by Bryman (2017), Lewis (2015) and Maxwell (2012).

If the statement was situated around school processes and having clear procedures

and plans for student misbehaviour it was coded as an organisational theme. If,

however the answer’s focus was on the principal’s support of the individual teacher


and understanding of their issues it was coded as relational. Finally if the response

centred on the principal’s enactment and following the existing policy, it was coded

under the personal domain. Two responses had no further elaboration and were not

coded as the context could not be determined and were treated as an additional

emerging theme.

The focus on student misbehaviour was not surprising as it is a growing issue faced

by teachers around the world. A study by Losen, Hodson, Keith, Michael, Morrison

and Belway (2015) in American schools in the 2011-12 school year examined data

on out of school suspension rates in every school district in the country and found

that nearly 3.5 million public school students were suspended from school at least

once. On average more than 10% of all primary school students enrolled were

suspended in the year of this study (Losen, et al., 2015). This study did not take into

account the misbehaviour of students that did not reach the suspension threshold.

What these figures revealed, is the increasing rates of student misbehaviour and the

impact this can have on teacher’s daily work and subsequently their work

commitment.

Aloe, Shisler, Norris, Nickerson and Rinker (2014) conducted a multivariate meta-

analysis to explore the relationship between student misbehaviour and teacher

burnout. A total of 21 independent samples were included in the analysis. The results

indicated that students’ misbehaviour related significantly with the three dimension

of teacher burnout and was a real problem for many teachers. It is not surprising that

student misbehaviour featured so prominently in these current survey items, and even

though student discipline is not explicitly mentioned in the Leadership Matters


(Education Queensland, 2010) framework, it is something principals need to address

through their leadership practices to assist teacher work commitment (Aloe, et al.,

2014),

6.4.2 Impact of leadership practices from the mid-career teacher short answer responses

From the short answer data it was determined through the frequency of responses

that the relational domain of leadership described in Leadership Matters (Education

Queensland, 2010) had the greatest impact on mid-career teacher work commitment

from the teachers’ perspectives. Nearly one half (46%) of all coded themes were

classified in this area. Specific practices within this area included principals

demonstrating personable skills, being approachable, having open, honest and

consistent interactions with all staff, valuing teachers and being a good listener and

communicator.

A principal’s personal leadership practices were rated second most important in the

short answer responses accounting for 25% or coded themes. In particular a

principal’s honesty, trust, emotional maturity, ability to remain composed and to set

high standards and act as a professional role model for staff were mentioned as

practices that would improve a teacher’s work commitment. These responses aligned

well with the research of a leader’s soft skills and the impact they have on fellow

workers (Dixon, Belnap, Albrecht, & Lee, 2010).

Organisational leadership practices were rated third most important on impacting

teacher’s work commitment providing 18% of coded themes. The practices

mentioned not only covered the processes and policies within the school and the


adherence to these in particular in respect to student behaviour management

strategies, but also included receiving feedback from the school principal on work

performance and having a say in which professional development teachers could

attend. The educational and intellectual domains did not feature prominently in the

short answer responses accounting for 6% and 5% of responses respectively.

By coding the frequency of responses from the short answer survey question under

the five identified leadership domains, it was possible to rate the importance of each

domain and make comparisons between them. The mid-career teacher short answer

responses clearly showed that the relational leadership practices of their school

principal had the most impact on their work commitment, followed by the personal.

These results align with the teacher qualitative interview data of phase one which

also identified relational and then personal leadership as the two most significant

domains in relation to mid-career teacher work commitment.

6.5 SURVEY DATA

The survey instrument (Appendix B) tested a correlation between principals’

leadership practices and mid-career teacher work commitment. The survey

(Appendix B) consisted of 30 statements which were answered on a Likert scale of

1-5 corresponding with Very Unimportant to Very Important to determine how

important each teacher rated each statement in comparison to their job commitment.

The results of the survey were grouped under each of the leadership domains, and are

displayed in Tables 6.3 to 6.7. These tables show the number of respondents who felt

the statement was “Important” or “Very Important” in relation to their job

commitment, the average response for each statement and the percentage of teachers


who listed each statement as one of the top five leadership practices that relate to

their work commitment. The 30 statements are shown aligned to the five leadership

domains described in Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) in

Appendix D.

6.6 SURVEY RESPONSES AND THE IMPACT OF THE DOMAINS OF LEADERSHIPS PRACTICE

The relational leadership domain proved statistically to be the domain of most

significance to mid-career work commitment according to the survey data. Of the 30

survey items, seven were coded as being descriptors of relational leadership practices

(Appendix D) within the Leadership Matters framework (Education Queensland,

2010). Table 6.3 shows 94.3% or more of participants considered the survey items

within the relational leadership domain as important or very important with a small

standard deviation range (SD=0.30 – 0.63). Having interpersonal skills and showing

respect for staff were considered leadership practices in the top 5 by 46.8% and

44.6% of participants respectively (Table 6.3).

Table 6.3 Descriptive Statistics of “Relational”

Item and descriptor %* Mean SD Top 5 %** 1. Having interpersonal skills 99.3 4.82 0.40 46.8 8. Valuing individual staff members 97.2 4.80 0.46 23.7 11. Approachable to staff 99.3 4.87 0.36 30.9 17. Consistent interactions with staff 99.3 4.72 0.50 33.0 19. Building relationships with staff 100 4.69 0.46 10.0 27. Respect for staff 100 4.90 0.30 44.6 29. Supportive of personal/family needs 94.3 4.49 0.63 15.1 *% = percentage of participants who considered the statement important or very important **% = percentage of participants who nominated the particular item as one of their Top 5

The importance the mid-career teacher participants placed on their principals’

interpersonal skills and the principals’ interaction with school staff was evident in the


survey data and aligned neatly with other studies into teacher work commitment (such

as Meyer, Stanley, & Parfyonova, 2012) who also highlighted the importance of school

principal interpersonal skills and positive staff interactions as vital in building a

positive school culture.

There was 100% agreement by participants for principals “building relationships with

staff” and having “respect for staff” (Table 6.3). Respect for people appears central to

relationship building (Hudson, 2016) and respect can manifest itself in the way a

principal values and approaches staff. It may also manifest itself in how the principal

builds relations with staff through consistent interactions and being supportive of the

personal and family needs of teachers. Respect is associated with the principal’s

interpersonal skills and may be linked to affective commitment (Meyer, et al., 2012)

or emotional commitment establishing a sense of pride and loyalty in the organisation

(e.g., John & Taylor, 2014). In relation to teacher retention, Brown’s (2014) study

highlights how teachers consider it important that the principal “treats us with respect

as professionals” (p. 74). Thus, according to participants, there appears a strong

possibility that a principal’s relational domain may have influence on a teacher’s work

commitment.

While overall there was high consistency in the importance of the items linked to

relational leadership practices, and through frequency of responses and percentage of

participants nominating relational items in their top five it can been seen to be the most

significant domain in relational to work commitment, it should be noted that there was

a significant difference in the opinions by gender in the survey. In five of the seven

items there was a clear statistical difference between the opinion of the male (n=21)


and female (n=121) respondents (7% of males rated these items as not important or

very important as opposed to 1% of females). The female respondents consistently

rated the relational items much higher than their male colleagues indicating that these

practices are of much more significance to them than to the male mid-career teachers.

Considering that primary teaching in Queensland is a female dominated profession,

the perspectives of the female participants and the importance of relational leadership

practices of principals on their work commitment, should weigh heavily on any

conclusions drawn from this current study.

Tables 6.4 and 6.5 relate to the educational and intellectual leadership domains. These

domains indicate high percentages of importance and a low standard deviation range

across all items. However, unlike relational leadership (Table 6.3), the highest

percentage of participants indicating a top 5 for these two domains were Item 24

(creating a commitment to learning, Table 6.4) at 20.9% and Item 3 (displaying

intellectual capacity of the role, Table 6.5) with 18.7%. Indeed, there were more than

90% who did not consider “leading curriculum requirements”, “having curriculum

knowledge”, “having pedagogical knowledge” “managing priorities” and “generating

solutions to problems” in their Top 5 on leadership practices that may impact on mid-

career teachers’ work commitment.

This data raises implications about the current focus on instructional leadership in

Education Queensland schools (Masters, 2009) as this focus does not match what

teachers indicate they need for their work commitment. From the teachers’

perspectives, the leadership practices associated with instructional leadership, many of

which would fall in the educational leadership domain, did not rate as important as


practices within the relational and personal domains in their responses in relation to

their work commitment.

Table 6.4 Descriptive Statistics of “Educational”

Item and descriptor %* Mean SD Top 5 %** 2. Possessing educational knowledge 98.6 4.71 0.48 12.0 6. Leading curriculum requirements 96.5 4.33 0.54 3.6 13. Having curriculum knowledge 96.5 4.39 0.61 7.2 15. Having pedagogical knowledge 97.2 4.44 0.58 7.9 24. Creating a culture committed to Learning 98.6 4.63 0.54 20.9 *% = percentage of participants who considered the statement important or very important **% = percentage of participants who nominated the particular item as one of their top 5

Table 6.5 Descriptive Statistics of “Intellectual”

Item and descriptor %* Mean SD Top 5 %** 3. Intellectual capacity for role 99.3 4.68 0.48 18.7 22. Articulating a school vision 94.3 4.49 0.65 10.8 23. Managing priorities 96.5 4.55 0.57 6.5 25. Generating solutions to problems 97.2 4.58 0.55 7.9 *% = percentage of participants who considered the statement important or very important **% = percentage of participants who nominated the particular item as one of their Top 5

While over 90% of participants rated the items in the educational and intellectual

domains as important or very important, the mean percentage of the total items in each

domain was statistically less than those in the relational domain. By using the mean

percentage of the items in each domain as a way of comparing the significance of each

from the teachers’ perspectives, the educational domain rated third most frequent, and

the intellectual fourth in relation to work commitment from the five leadership

domains (Figure 6.2).

Additionally greater than 80% of survey participants did not consider any of the items

in the Intellectual domain in their top 5 leadership practices that may impact on their

work commitment (Table 6.5), raising implications for transformational leadership


models. Transformational leadership employs practices within the intellectual domain

to model ideals transform teachers into leaders (McCarley, Peters, & Decman, 2016).

If this domain did not rate highly on the mid-career teachers’ surveys, it could be

concluded that transformational leadership does not have a significant impact on

teacher work commitment from the teachers’ perspectives. In regards to the

educational domain, greater than 80% of survey participants did not consider four of

the five items in their top 5 leadership practices. The single item that did rate above

20% of consideration in the educational domain was “creating an environment

committed to learning” and yet this was only nominated by 21% of the participants

(Table 6.4).

Again a gender distinction can be made between participants when analysing the

responses to items within these two leadership domains. Within the educational

leadership domain, male participants considered the principals’ “having curriculum

knowledge” and “having pedagogical knowledge” as more significant to their work

commitment than their female colleagues (95% of male respondents compared to 90%

of females). While within the intellectual domain it was seen that a principal’s ability

in “articulating a school vision” was seen by females (98%) to be statistically of greater

importance to their work commitment than it was to males (94%).

Data associated with the domains of organisational (Table 6.6) and personal (Table

6.7) indicated high percentages of importance and a low standard deviation range

across all items. Organisational leadership practices, however, proved to be of lesser

importance in respect to work commitment than practices from the personal leadership

domain. Within the organisational domain the highest percentage of participants


indicating a top 5 for each item was 21.6% for Item 28 (“providing support for your

classroom work”), (Table 6.6). However, there were three items within the personal

domain which more than a third of participants highlighted as leadership practices that

may impact on a mid-career teachers’ work commitment. “Acting in an ethical

manner”, “being trustworthy”, and “valuing staff views” were considered as a priority

by more than 33% of participants (Table 6.7) making personal leadership items second

only to relational leadership items in regards to the participants’ top 5. Personal

leadership was the only other domain where items received 100% agreement by

participants about their importance to work commitment. “Acting in an ethical

manner” and “being trustworthy” were practices rated as important or very important

by all survey participants (Table 6.7).

Table 6.6 Descriptive Statistics of “Organisational”

Item and descriptor %* Mean SD Top 5 %** 4. Managing resources effectively 95.8 4.46 0.58 4.3 7. Applying mandatory policies 95.1 4.40 0.61 1.4 9. Adhering to mandatory legislation 92.9 4.46 0.65 5.8 18. Creating partnerships 90.1 4.37 0.70 7.9 21. Shared leadership with staff 86.6 4.28 0.83 10.8 26. Built relationships between staff 91.6 4.40 0.66 5.8 28. Support for your classroom work 97.9 4.68 0.51 21.6 *% = percentage of participants who considered the statement important or very important **% = percentage of participants who nominated the particular item as one of their Top 5

Table 6.7 Descriptive Statistics of “Personal”

Item and descriptor %* Mean SD Top 5 %** 5. Acting in an ethical manner 100 4.86 0.35 38.1 10. Being trustworthy 100 4.89 0.32 33.1 12. Composed in challenging situations 97.2 4.63 0.57 9.4 14. Being emotionally mature 95.1 4.62 0.58 13.7 16. Resilience in work practices 95.8 4.55 0.58 1.4 20. Inspiring towards staff 97.9 4.53 0.54 6.5 30. Valuing staff views 99.3 4.76 0.52 41.7 *% = percentage of participants who considered the statement important or very important **% = percentage of participants who nominated the particular item as one of their Top 5


The only item in the survey to receive a very unimportant rating was item 21 “shared

leadership with staff” which falls within the organisational domain. Item 21 was also

the survey item with the lowest percentage of participants who rated it as important or

very important. When analysing the mean frequency of important or very important

for each leadership domain, organisational items were rated fifth by participants while

the personal domain was second behind relational leadership (Figure 6.2).

Figure 6.2 Bar graph of mean % of frequency for ‘very important’ and ‘important’ responses of mid-

career teachers for each leadership domain.

Within the personal leadership domain, once again there was distinct difference in the

survey data based on gender. Similar to the relational domain, female respondents

consistently rated items in the personal leadership domain of significantly greater

importance than their male colleagues (98% of females compared to 94% of male

respondents). The female respondents noted five of the seven items in the personal

leadership domain (items 12, 14, 16, 20 and 30) as statistically of greater importance

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

Relational Educational Intellectual Organisational Personal

Series 1


in relation to work commitment than their male counterparts. While both genders

recognised the importance of the relational and personal domains in regards to their

work commitment, specific practices within each of these domains appeared to be of

greater importance to females compared to males.

Although this current research did not seek to explore gendered views of leadership,

the gender patterns evident in the data raise policy implications and questions that may

be investigated in future research. This gender difference has been explored in the

literature most notably by Balliet, Macfarlan and Van Vugt (2011) and Nichols (2016).

Both of these research studies found a gender difference in relation to leadership and

of significance to the current study, identified that there was a clear difference between

the genders in regards to preferred leadership practices exhibited by principals.

6.6.1 Summary of survey data

From the survey data it was evident that the personal and relational leadership domains

emerged as the two most significant domains in relation the mid-career teacher work

commitment from the perspective of mid-career teachers. Once again these results

mirror the findings from the qualitative teacher interviews and the short answer section

of the survey. Across these three data collections discussed so far, mid-career teachers

identified relational leadership practices, closely followed by personal leadership

practices of their school principal as having the greatest impact on their work

commitment.

The link and interconnectedness between the relational and personal domains and the

importance of these to work commitment is of no surprise. Previous studies into


schools and work relationships highlight the importance of positive interactions and

supportive work environments on work commitment. Schools are environments with

many interactive relationships, eliciting positive and negative emotions from teachers.

Positive emotions may also be aligned with teacher commitment. For example, one

study (Jo, 2014) that used structural equation modelling to determine correlations

between latent variables (e.g. factors) involving 448 elementary and middle school

teachers, found that “higher levels of positive emotions were linked to higher levels of

teacher commitment” (p. 127). The school principal is influential in school settings,

particularly in the relationship development with and between staff. Studies (e.g., see

Lee & Nie, 2014) have shown that “employees’ psychological empowerment mediated

the relationship between leaders’ empowering behaviours and employees’ work

outcomes such as job satisfaction, organisational commitment” (p. 71).

Hargreaves (2001) suggests leaders aiming to build positive staff relationships should

adopt strategies that demonstrate appreciation, acknowledgment, and personal support.

Such recommendations align heavily with relational and personal leadership domains

described in this current study. Although it is argued that teachers’ work commitment

should be “the collective responsibility of people involved with schools” (Jo, 2014, p.

128), it can be argued that the principal as the leader of each school site has

considerable influence in influencing work commitment through positive leadership

practices (e.g., relational and personal leadership domains).

At the time of publication, there was no other research investigating principal

leadership and teachers’ work commitment using the Leadership Matters (Education

Queensland, 2010) framework. Other studies had confirmed that a principal’s


leadership does impact the level of work commitment for teachers (e.g., Devos,

Tuytens, & Hulpia, 2013). Similar to the current study, Devos, et al. (2013) indicated

that the principal was pivotal to teachers’ work commitment when creating an

environment of co-operation and cohesion. Relational and personal domains within

the Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) framework may be associated

with affective commitment (Meyer, et al., 2012). More research is needed to

understand the relationship between principals’ relational and personal domains with

emotional and affective commitment.

6.7 TOP FIVE SELECTED LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FROM SURVEY INSTRUMENT

To gain a deeper understanding of the respondents’ thoughts about principal leadership

practices, a final step in the survey instrument (Appendix B) was instigated. The mid-

career teachers were asked to isolate and select the top five statements, out of the 30

survey items, which they believed impacted most on their work commitment. This

process helped to distinguish from the general positive rating anticipated of all survey

items by specifically isolating the five practices which were the most important to each

participant.

The results of the respondents’ top five survey items were then coded against the

leadership categories as outlined in Appendix D and a total percentage of responses

calculated for each category (Figure 6.3). The outcomes and conclusions of this

analysis supported the conclusions of the previous three data sets – teacher interviews,

short answer responses and survey items. The relational leadership practices of school

principals were highlighted as the category which contained the most responses

(29.2%) by the mid-career teachers when they had to pick their top five statements


from the survey. This was followed by the personal domain which had the second most

responses (20.6%), again reflecting data from the short answers, surveys and

interviews. Intellectual (11%) and educational (10.4%) were rated next in order and

significantly below the top to categories, while organisational leadership practices

were seen as the area having the least impact on mid-career work commitment (8.2%).

Figure 6.3 Bar graph of % of top five responses in each leadership category.

It is salient to note that each of the 30 survey items was nominated at least once as a

top five item by the participants. This indicates that from the perspective of the

participants, all of the 30 leadership practices have an impact on mid-career teacher

commitment. While none of the survey items received a null nomination of

importance, specific survey items were perceived as having greater importance in

regard to work commitment.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Relational Educational Intellectual Organsiational Personal

series 1


By coding the frequency of responses to the top five items under the leadership

domains of Leadership Matters (Educations Queensland, 2010) it was possible to rate

the importance of each domain and make comparisons between them from the

perspective of the mid-career teachers who undertook the survey. The mid-career

teacher responses clearly showed that the relational leadership practices had the most

impact on their work commitment. The top seven items (and items with >30%

identification rate) identified by the mid-career teachers when asked to identify their

top five statements of practice were all located in the relational or personal leadership

domains (Appendix D). These results are displayed below in Table 6.8.

Table 6.8 Top 7 leadership practices identified by mid-career teachers as of most importance to their

work commitment.

Having interpersonal skills (Relational) 46.8%* Showing respect for staff (Relational) 44.6% Valuing staff views (Personal) 41.7% Acting in an ethical manner (Personal) 38% Having consistent interactions with all staff (Relational) 33% Being trustworthy (Personal) 33% Being approachable to staff (Relational) 31%

*= % of respondents who nominated statement as one of their top five

6.8 QUANTITATIVE DATA SUMMARY

This quantitative survey investigated 142 Queensland, mid-career primary teachers’

perspectives on leadership practices that impact on their work commitment. Teachers

currently working in school sites and working within the leadership practices of their

principal were considered as well placed to comment on the importance and

significance of these practices. The 142 survey participants rated 30 survey items in

relation to their work commitment, giving a total of 4260 responses. Of these total

responses only 0.02% fell in the very unimportant category with a further 0.3% in the


unimportant category in relation to their work commitment. Overall there was a strong,

positive correlation between the survey items and their importance to teacher work

commitment. Several of the respondents indicated a neutral or uncommitted opinion

of various statements by indicating that the statement was neither important nor

unimportant to their work commitment. It should also be noted that 15% respondents

rated all 30 items as exclusively very important on their survey.

The survey instrument was proven to be internally consistent and reliable (see

Eigenvalues and Cronbach alpha scores, Table 3.4) linking leadership practices,

according to the Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) framework, and

the associated impact on mid-career teachers’ work commitment. Using the

Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) framework as a tool to order and

interpret the quantitative survey responses, it found that a school principal’s practices

from the relational and personal leadership domains had the most impact on teachers’

work commitment. While the other three leadership domains were rated as important

to teacher commitment, the survey participants rated them of less importance in

comparison to the relational and personal leadership practices.

The leadership approach and methods adopted by the principal will influence the

commitment levels of teachers on staff. While Sun (2004) argued that this is

dependent on how teachers perceive a principal’s values and commitment to the

school, the quantitative data from this study highlights the critical importance of a

principal’s commitment to interpersonal relations. In practice, a principal needs to

adopt practices form the personal and relational domains in order to build a shared

sense of values and commitment within the staff they are leading.


An empirical study involving 227 full-time teachers from 20 Filipino schools found

“significant relationships between the three major constructs: the principals’

leadership style, organisational climate, and the organisational commitment” (John &

Taylor, 2014, p. 49). As such, it is the principal’s leadership that facilitates teachers’

“social and professional engagement in school life” (John & Taylor, 2014, p. 49).

These findings are reflected in other studies (Boyd, Grossman, Ing, Lankford, Loeb,

& Wyckof, 2011; Griffith, 2004; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008) that

highlighted the principal’s role as pivotal to teacher job satisfaction and work

commitment.

Findings from a large quantitative study involving 1,522 teachers in Belgium, indicate

that teacher commitment is “mainly related to quality of the supportive leadership”

(Hulpia, Devos, & Van Keer, 2011, p. 728). A more recent quantitative survey of 270

US teachers found that a teacher’s perceptions of “their principal’s leadership practices

were a significant predictor of their self-reported job satisfaction” (Barlow, 2015, p.

112). Part of the findings also included subscales around the principal inspiring

through a shared vision, enabling others to act, and modelling the way forward. These

leadership practices from Barlow’s (2015) findings highlight the critical nature of the

intellectual, organisational and personal domains of leadership in direct contrast to the

findings being reported in this current research which has identified the relational and

personal leadership domains as the most significant in relation to influencing teacher

work commitment.


It is advocated strongly that principals need to be influential with teachers to stimulate

change and innovation, which may lead to greater job satisfaction and work

commitment (Eliophotou Menon, 2014). Researchers have attempted to pinpoint

leadership practices that may facilitate effective work practices and commitment

within organisations and despite findings indicating extrinsic factors that impact on

job satisfaction such as salaries and school holidays, there is also a significant link to

principals’ leadership (Eliophotou Menon, 2014).

The data from this survey instrument could be used in two ways to help increase

teacher commitment and ultimately teacher retention. The survey instrument can be

used as a reflective tool for principals interested in developing their potential as leaders

within the Leaders Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) framework. This can be

done by using the survey as an anonymous, evaluative tool to determine staff views on

their leadership practices in relation to teacher work commitment. This would assist in

identifying which leadership domain is perceived by their staff to be most dominant.

This feedback would give leaders the opportunity to adapt their ongoing practice in

response to staff data, and indicate if they need to incorporate more leadership

practices around the relational and personal domains. The leadership practices

identified in the survey may also be used as a foundation for developing professional

learning programs that assist principals to become aware of their practices and how

such practices may impact on teachers’ work commitment.

This reflective component of leadership and is something not highlighted explicitly in

the Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) framework, yet is something

current researchers are espousing as valuable in leadership development. Hattie (2011)


highlights in his meta-study the importance of feedback as an essential tool to self-

improvement. While Hattie’s (2011) research primarily focussed on student

development and improvement it can be argued that the same principles would apply

to school leaders. Additional studies (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Timperley, 2011)

explicitly discuss the relationship between teacher and school leader improvement and

ongoing processes of reflection and self-evaluation. Using the survey as a feedback

tool could move beyond the school or individual principal level, with departments of

education or school jurisdictions using the survey instrument as a resource to build

leadership capacity with knowledge of practices that can facilitate effective work

environments.

On a second level the survey instrument could be used to help inform principal

selection and training. It could serve as a diagnostic tool that identifies aspects of an

individual’s relational and personal leadership skill set that needs further development,

and also serve a method of measuring developmental growth in these areas over time.

It is often claimed by principals that formal leadership training is not something

provided at university in initial teacher preparation courses where the focus is teacher

training.

In Australia further university learning for leaders such as in a Masters of Education

is not a requirement for promotion. If an individual chooses to undertake post graduate

study, the individual pays for the course which is conducted in their own time, with

little support from the employment system to provide study leave (Marsden, 2017). As

teachers are promoted and placed in positions of different responsibilities and

leadership within a system, it seems logical that specialised support and training is


given to support their school leadership. Furthermore if through research we can

uncover the specific leadership practices which can increase teacher work

commitment, we should use this information to promote and educate leaders in the

leadership practices which will enhance the staffing capacity of the educational

organisation.

6.9 SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DATA

This study used two data collection processes to investigate the relationship between

principal leadership practices and mid-career teacher work commitment; qualitative

interviews and quantitative surveys. This relationship was investigated from the

perspective of current school principals and ex mid-career teachers through an

interview process as well as current mid-career teachers through a survey instrument.

In addition to investigating the relationship between leadership practices and work

commitment, this study also sought to evaluate the significance of the five leadership

domains outlined in Education Queensland’s current leadership framework to

determine how each of the five identified domains of leadership compared in relation

to mid-career teacher work commitment. By understanding this relationship and the

impact of the five leadership domains on teacher work commitment, it is hoped that

school principals and school systems are better placed to impact positively on mid-

career teachers’ work commitment with the aim of retaining mid-career teachers in the

profession.

The opinions of three distinct groups – current school principals through interviews,

former mid-career teachers through interviews and current mid-career teachers

through surveys - were sought for this study and the data results from these groups


were used to make links and draw the end conclusions. The order of significance of

each of the leadership domains as determined by the principals and former mid-career

teachers through interviews and mid-career teachers through the short answer, survey

and nomination of their top five practices is displayed comparatively in Figure 6.4.

Relational leadership practices of school principals was identified as being the most

significant category out of the five identified leadership domains in relation to mid-

career teacher work commitment by every group at every stage of data collection.


Figure 6.4 Bar graph of order of importance of the leadership domains from the interview and survey

data.

From this research some clear conclusions can be drawn between school principal

leadership practices and mid-career teacher work commitment.

(a) Through the qualitative interviews both groups of respondents (school

principals and former mid-career teachers) agreed that principal leadership

practices can impact on mid-career teacher work commitment. While the

groups may hold different perspectives on the impact of these practices, both

agreed that relational leadership practices were of most significance and had

the greatest impact on mid-career teacher work commitment. Beyond this, the

two groups had a differing belief on which domain of leadership practices were

next in significance. The teachers identified the personal domain as the second

most important while the principals identified practices in the organisational

domain. The teachers’ views from the qualitative interviews aligned well with

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Principals

Ex-teachers

Mid-career teachers surveyitems

Mid-career teacher top 5 surveyitems

Mid-career teacher shortanswers


the subsequent data from the quantitative collections where the teachers

consistently identified relational leadership practices followed by the personal

leadership domain as the most significant in relation to their work commitment.

(b) The short answer question component at the beginning of the survey instrument

allowed respondents to nominate, with no restriction, the preferred principal

leadership practices they believed increased their work commitment. While the

answers fell into all of the five domains of leadership, the majority were

concerned with the relational practices of a school principal, closely followed

by the personal domain. These results correlate with the teachers’ qualitative

interviews which also identified relational and then personal as the two

leadership domains which have the greatest impact on their work commitment.

(c) The quantitative questionnaire showed a high degree of importance for all of

the principal leadership practices listed. Each statement was consistently rated

as important or very important by current mid-career teachers in relation to the

work commitment. Even though there was strong overall agreement across all

of the statements the data was still able to separate the categories and isolate

the relational category as the most important leadership practices in relation to

mid-career teacher commitment.

(d) The final data collection asked the respondents to choose five statements from

the 30 given to highlight as being of most importance to their work

commitment. These results again clearly showed relational leadership

practices, followed by personal leadership practices as having the greatest

impact on mid-career teacher work commitment.


From the perspective of all the participants in this study, relational leadership practices

are pivotal in influencing a mid-career teacher’s work commitment which in turn

influences their decision to remain or leave the teaching profession. The importance

of principal leadership practices on mid-career teacher work commitment is not

surprising as a wide body of research literature provides evidence that school

leadership practices play a substantial role in teachers’ decisions to remain or leave the

teaching profession (Aydin, Sarier, & Uysal, 2013; John, 2017; Leithwood, Louis,

Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). Boyd, et al., (2011) concluded in their study that well

over 40% of teachers interviewed who had left the teaching profession or were still

teaching but had considered leaving, cited practices of school leaders as the most

important factor in their decision making process.

6.10 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This current study expanded on previous work and looked into the broad realm of

leadership practices to uncover the specific domains, and practices within these

domains, which are of greatest importance to mid-career teacher work commitment.

This was done from a mid-career teacher perspective in Queensland schools to

understand the impact of the leadership domains used in the Education Queensland

leadership framework more fully. This framework gives school principals a much

greater understanding of the importance of their leadership practices in retaining mid-

career teachers in the teaching profession. A final summary of this study, conclusions

and recommendations are presented in Chapter 7.

273

Chapter 7: Research Conclusions

7.1 INTRODUCTION

People don't quit bad jobs; they quit bad bosses. So states an old saying into workplace

culture and commitment quoted in Goodall, Artz and Oswald (2016). This current

research suggests there's truth behind this saying: bosses matter far more in relation to

mid-career teacher work commitment than any of the other factors which can influence

this construct. But what makes someone a good boss?

The purpose of this mixed-method research was to determine which specific school

principal leadership practices impacted on mid-career teacher work commitment from

the perspective of mid-career teachers. The importance of this research has been

established through the literature which has demonstrated a clear link between mid-

career teacher work commitment and teacher attrition (Burkhauser, 2017; Davis &

Wilson, 2000; Dou, Devos, & Valcke, 2016; Huang, 2017). Once teachers progress

past the five year mark, one of the most significant factors impacting on teacher work

commitment is principal leadership practices (Boyd, Grossman, Ing, Lankford, Loeb,

& Wyckoff, 2011; Burkhauser, 2017; Dou, et al., 2016; Huang, 2017).

Through interviews with mid-career teachers and principals, and through a survey of

current serving mid-career teachers, this study found important relationships between

mid-career teacher work commitment and principal leadership practices, specifically

those in the relational and personal domains, that have implications for practice. The

significant relationship of specific leadership practices and mid-career teacher work

commitment are discussed in this chapter in response to the research questions in

274

Section 7.2. An overview of the research findings are presented in Section 7.3 before

two additional findings centred on the conception of leadership and student

misbehaviour and mid-career teacher work commitment are discussed (Section 7.4).

Implications for policy and practice are outlined (Section 7.5) and the researcher’s

reflections given in Section 7.6. A final thesis conclusion is provided in Section 7.7.

7.2 RESEARCH QUESTION CONCLUSIONS

This research set out to investigate three specific questions relating to mid-career

teacher work commitment. Multiple data sets were collected, using a mixed method

approach to ensure the quality and accuracy of the data and also to give validity to the

conclusions drawn. Each of the three research questions are addressed and answered

below.

7.2.1 The specific school principal leadership practices which impacted most on mid-career teachers’ work commitment from the perspective of mid-career teachers

From the research data collected it was apparent that mid-career teachers perceived

that the principal leadership practices within the relational domain had the greatest

impact on their work commitment. Across the four data sets collected from mid-career

teachers; interviews with mid-career teachers who had left the teaching profession,

initial short answers from the survey instrument, the survey itself and the top five

survey items as selected by each survey participant, relational leadership practices

consistently were identified as the principal leadership practices which had the greatest

impact on their work commitment. These practices specifically included supporting

teachers with student behaviour, being collaborative and creating a positive tone within

275

the school, and displaying interpersonal skills with consistent and genuine interactions

with teachers.

The principals too, in their interviews, identified relational leadership practices as

having the greatest impact on mid-career teacher work commitment albeit from a

different perspective from the teachers. While the principals felt they implemented

appropriate leadership practices towards mid-career teachers and felt their efforts

enhance work commitment, the teachers came from a deficit perspective articulating

what was lacking or what they needed more from their school principal.

According to the interview data, the impact the relational leadership practices had on

mid-career teacher work commitment was both positive and negative depending on

the specific practice. Generally the absence of relational leadership practices led to a

decline in mid-career teacher work commitment while their positive application

maintained or increased work commitment. Three of the mid-career teachers who had

left the teaching profession, indicated that it was the lack of relational leadership

practices from their principal that led to a decline in their work commitment and was

the catalyst for them to leave teaching and seek an alternative career.

From the mid-career teacher survey, the specific nature of the impact of the relational

leadership practices was not able to be identified due to the nature of the data collection

tool. The survey participants were asked to identify the importance of stated leadership

practices on their work-commitment without stipulating the nature of this impact.

While the nature of the impact was not identified, the mid-career teachers through the

survey clearly identified relational leadership practices as having the greatest impact

276

on their work commitment. The importance of relational leadership practices on mid-

career teacher work commitment was also clear in the short answer section of the

survey and in the final data collection phase when respondents were asked to identify

their top five practices from the listed practices on the survey. In each instance,

principals’ relational leadership practices, whether positive or negative, were

identified as the most significant leadership practices in relation to mid-career work

commitment.

7.2.2 The extent to which mid-career teachers; views of leadership practices in relation to their work commitment, aligned with the leadership domains outlined in education Queensland’s Leadership Matters framework

In general, the leadership practices the mid-career teachers expected from their school

principals or identified as impacting on their work commitment aligned with those

described in the five leadership domains in Education Queensland’s Leadership

Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) leadership framework. While they did not

align evenly with some domains, specifically relation and personal, featuring much

more frequently than the others, the themes coded in the interviews with former mid-

career teachers and principals, and the short answer response current mid-career

teachers wrote to identify leadership practices which impacted on their work

commitment, could generally be classified under the five leadership domains of

Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) framework.

Some points raised by the former teacher participants, specifically around a principal’s

demonstrated capacity for self-reflection and a principal’s ability to manage the

competing tensions of teachers and departmental requirements, were areas not

specifically addressed by Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010). Yet,

277

these were viewed by the former mid-career teachers as important and impacting on

their work commitment. Similarly, support for student behaviour management which

featured significantly in the short answer responses of the current serving mid-career

teachers, is not outlined explicitly as a specific leadership skill for principals within

the Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) framework.

While the Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010) framework encompasses

five leadership domains and is concerned with leadership across the entire school, this

current research was only concerned with the relationship between leadership practices

and teacher work commitment. It is not surprising then that from the teachers’

perspectives the leadership practices impacting on work commitment fell primarily

within the relational and personal domains, and did not encompass all facets of the

framework equally. It is salient to note at this point that this does not mean the other

three leadership domains are of lesser value to school leadership or irrelevant to

teachers, only that in respect to teacher work commitment, from the perspective of the

teachers who were surveyed, they were less significant.

The conclusions drawn from this research concerning the link between relational and

personal leadership practices and teacher work commitment raise implications for the

current Education Queensland focus on instructional leadership and also for

transformational leaders. While the leadership practices of instructional leadership are

used to improve teacher pedagogy and the outcomes of students, in its purest form it

does so primarily through the educational leadership domain. According to the

teachers in this current research, this leadership domain has much less impact on their

work commitment compared to relational and personal leadership. It could be argued

278

that in relation to the National Assessment Program: Literacy and Numeracy

(NAPLAN) the focus on instructional leadership in Queensland schools (Masters,

2009) along with a prescriptive and consistent curriculum has led to an improvement

in student outcomes, arguably, from the results of this research this has been achieved

at the expense of teacher work commitment.

What was also apparent from this research was a lack of clear understanding and clarity

around what instructional leadership actually looks like in Queensland schools. If a

focus of leadership is presented as a model of action, the practices which pertain to

this model should be clearly defined and understood. It was apparent from the data that

there was a lack of clarity around the description and practices of instructional

leadership. Without a clear and common understanding and definition of instructional

leadership, many principals are left unsure how this type of leadership should look like

in their schools and how to implement approach in an effective manner (Costello,

2015).

In contrast, transformational leadership draws heavily from the organisational and

intellectual leadership practices, as opposed to the relational and personal leadership

practices which this current research indicates to be most influential on mid-career

teacher work commitment. Attempting to inspire and change an educational work

place through transformational leadership is much more challenging if the teachers are

experiencing declining work commitment. From this research it can be concluded that

in respect to the varied leadership models enacted within a school site, school leaders

should ensure that the personal and relational leadership practices which impact on

279

teacher work commitment, supplement the other leadership practices which are being

implemented.

In answering the research question around the alignment of participants’ views of

leadership and Education Queensland’s leadership framework, it appears from the data

that there is a high degree of alignment. The leadership practices described by

participants as impacting on mid-career teacher work commitment could be placed

under the five domains of leadership described by Education Queensland and the

associated descriptors of each domain. A major issue raised by this research is not so

much the content descriptors of the leadership domains which readily encompassed

participants needs, but rather the enactment of these descriptors or the absence of them

from principals in the opinion of some mid-career teachers. Furthermore, the teachers

believed that not all of these domains were equal in respect to their work commitment

and sought leadership practices from the relational and personal domains far more than

practices from the others.

7.2.3 The extent of alignment that exists between the views of mid-career teachers and school principals, in relation to principal leadership practices and mid-career teacher work commitment

There was a noted difference between the views of the mid-career teachers and the

principals around leadership practices and how these impacted on teacher work

commitment. On a comparative level of the frequency for each of the leadership

domains in the quantitative data interviews it was easy to see that while the teachers

and principals agreed that relational leadership practices had the greatest impact on

mid-career teacher work commitment; there was a marked difference in the alignment

of the leadership domains beyond this initial one.

280

The differences in the perceptions of leadership practices in respect to teacher work

commitment is of some concern and if not addressed could lead to further teacher

attrition. If school principals believe they are implementing appropriate leadership

practices which teachers view as of reduced importance to their work commitment,

then teacher commitment may suffer. The teachers expressed that they wished to see

principals focussed on their relational and personal leadership practices, connecting

with staff in honest and genuine ways. The principals felt it was more important to

ensure their educational and organisational leadership practices were being

implemented, as they believed these are of greater significance to work teachers’

commitment than the principals’ personal practices.

Now that this difference in beliefs has been identified it is important for principal

training and development to reposition a focus on these specific leadership practices

to better meet teacher expectations. While principals may have their own belief on

what teachers’ need to enhance their work commitment, it is important seek feedback

from their own staff to ensure that there is clear alignment between teacher

expectations and needs and ongoing leadership practices. It is also important to note

that school principals in Education Queensland are often directed towards priorities

and/or have access to information not available to teachers that will impact on their

leadership direction. However being aware of teacher perceptions and expectations in

relation to their work commitment will assist principals to reflect on their leadership.

From the results of this research, there is still a way to go to close this gap.

281

The misalignment of views on leadership practices between mid-career teachers and

school principals was also evident at the implementation level. As already discussed,

the principals believed that they were value adding to their staff and applying

leadership practices which enhanced teacher commitment. This view was being

reinforced as there was little evidence of evaluation processes or seeking feedback

from teachers by the interviewed principals, to gauge the effectiveness of their

leadership on teacher work commitment.

From the teachers’ perspective, in both the interviews and survey short answers, there

was a strong indication that their experiences of leadership practices often did not meet

their expectations or needs. The gaps between enacted leadership practices and teacher

expectations was articulated as a deficit of the school leader and in many cases linked

to the teachers declining work commitment and decision to leave the teaching

profession. From this present research it can be concluded that there is lack of

alignment between the views of mid-career teachers and school principals. There

appeared to be a real discourse in the beliefs that plays out in schools and this has had

significance impact on teacher work commitment.

7.3 RESEARCH SUMMARY

Overall the findings from this study align with the data from the literature concerning

teacher work commitment and school leadership practices (Hartsel, 2016; Lindqvist,

Nordänger, & Carlsson, 2014). What this study extended on was identifying from the

mid-career teachers’ perspective the specific leadership practices which can impact on

this commitment. As the people most often experiencing the impact of school

principals’ leadership practices, the mid-career teachers were well placed and able to

282

describe particular leadership practices and the impact specific ones had on their own

work commitment. Their social and situated perspectives helped inform the

conclusions of this study.

The specific leadership practices identified by the teachers in this study, which

impacted on their work commitment, fell within the school factors which can be

influenced by principal leadership practices identified earlier in Chapter 2. What the

teachers did was to break these school factors down into more identifiable, specific

leadership practices for greater analysis. As noted in Chapter 2, Leadership Matters

(Education Queensland, 2010) provided the analytical framework to interrogate the

data. By using Leadership Matters (Education Queensland, 2010), the interview and

survey responses could be distilled and classified under the five domain of leadership

identified to determine the impact of the specific leadership practices, and each

domain, on teacher work commitment.

In line with the literature (Brezicha, Bergmark, & Mitra, 2015; Yu & Miller, 2005)

this study showed that teachers in the mid-career stage of teaching desire different

leadership practices than teachers at early or late career stage. The mid-career teachers

articulated a desire for a consultative and collaborative style of leadership. They

wanted to feel valued for their experience and knowledge, contribute to the direction

of the school in conjunction with the leadership team and not have actions which

impacted on them delivered by the school principal in a transactional way. While many

new, early career teachers may desire a direct and transactional style of leadership to

provide direction and supportive guidelines (Brezicha, et al., 2015; Yu & Miller,

2005), mid-career teachers reported that the practices associated with more

283

transactional leadership practices had a negative impact on their work commitment

and they desired a different leadership style. This becomes a challenge for school

principals who need to lead teachers in all stages of their career (Leithwood, Harris, &

Hopkins, 2008). To successfully do this a principal must move within many different

models of leadership and differentiate the leadership practices depending on staff

needs and career stage (Leithwood, et al., 2008).

The mid-career teachers in this study relayed little desire for instructional leadership

where the principal’s focus is more on the organisational or educational components

of leadership (Lashway, 2002; Masters, 2009; Murphy, 1990). While these leadership

practices were seen as being of some degree of importance, the general view was these

should be developed in collaboration with the mid-career teacher not by the principal

alone. Primarily the leadership practices which impacted negatively on a mid-career

teacher’s work commitment were the principals’ relational and personal skills. The

way a principal acted, interacted and conducted themselves had a far greater impact

on teacher work commitment than anything in the educational, organisational or

intellectual domains. The importance of the personal and relational skills of a principal

was also the conclusion of Dixon, Belnap, Albrecht and Lee (2010) in their study into

workplace leadership.

For the mid-career teacher it is the relational interactions and the personal ways a

principal conducts them self which help set a tone and culture for a school which has

the greatest impact on their work commitment (Dixon, et al., 2010). While the other

domains of leadership remain important in respect for student learning and providing

facilities and opportunities for learning to occur, this study was concerned with the

284

impact of leadership on work commitment from the teachers’ perspectives, and from

all of the data sets collected, for mid-career teachers it is clear that the personal and

relational leadership practices have the greatest impact on mid-career teacher work

commitment.

7.4 ADDITIONAL FINDINGS

While the intent of this research was seek answers to the research questions, through

the data collection and analysis processes two additional findings became evident.

These additional findings are listed and discussed below.

7.4.1 Enactment of leadership

As discussed in the literature review in Chapter 2, leadership is a multifaceted concept

with many different interpretations of its meaning. Leadership means different things

to different people and these beliefs become the lens leadership is viewed through. The

changing definitions and interpretations of leadership need to be part of the leadership

conversations so leaders can be aware of shifts in expectations and so adapt their own

practices.

The school leaders in this research had different beliefs of leadership and these beliefs

influenced how their leadership practices were enacted within their school and also

influenced the scope or limitations of their leadership. Often these leadership beliefs

have been formed by the practices experienced by their own school leaders when the

principals themselves were teachers. How workers see their supervisors enact

leadership often acts as a blueprint for their own leadership later in their career

(Chemers, 2014; Kolb, 2014). While these studies were not education specific and

285

looked at leadership development in general, their conclusions can be applied to the

school principals in this current research who may have based their own leadership

framework on what they experienced as teachers earlier in their career.

What is evident from this current research is the current absence of a commonly

understood definition of leadership at a systemic level. There is not a clearly

articulated statement in regards to how leadership is to be enacted in Education

Queensland policy documents. Nor is there a systematic approach to selection,

training and development of school principals. It could be concluded that directives

from Education Queensland outline the what of leadership with expectations, direction

and accompanying programs made clear to school principals, however the how of

school leadership and the specific leadership practices to utilise to implement the

bigger vision, while ensuring teachers remain committed to their profession, is

currently left up to each individual leader (Cranston, 2014).

The benefits of this approach are autonomy for principals to enact individual

leadership based on the context of each school site, directed at the specific needs of

each school and open to innovation and system’s free enactment of practices

(Cranston, 2014). The drawbacks are often the principal is left to act in isolation with

no opportunity to discuss and reflect on their leadership practices with colleagues or

fellow school leaders as a formal supportive structure (Cranston, 2014).

This leadership in isolation means each school principal has to rely on their own

judgements and capabilities regarding how to enact leadership effectively in their

school context. As such, these enacted leadership practices emerge from each

286

individual leader’s assumptions and beliefs about leadership and guide their daily

interactions with teachers. A principal’s success as a leader relies on these practices.

From the data collected in this research it was evident that the success of each school

leader at delivering appropriate leadership was dependent on the individual and their

unique interpretation of leadership and the enactment of this understanding evidenced

by their leadership practices.

In this thesis, the literature from several decades has shown that ideals for educational

leadership have evolved over time and school leaders need to evolve in line with this.

Where concepts of educational leadership had more of a hierarchical, top-down

structure, expectations for school leaders have changed, towards more collaborative

model of leaders working side by side with workers (Eacott & Norris, 2014; Hewlett,

Sherbin, & Sumberg, 2009). More recent policy seems to be returning to a traditional

view of leadership with Eacott (2017) citing the focus on performativity and global

comparisons as the cause of this shift. Approaches to leadership are dynamic and

reflective of the needs of the people and the systems of the time and people from

different times relate to different leadership styles.

To ensure mid-career teachers remain committed to teaching it is not just a matter of

enacting leadership based on the past experiences, but rather ensure leadership evolves

and reflects the current needs of staff and is delivered in a context that maximises the

commitment of those it is impacted on. It is clear that the relational leadership practices

of school principals play a pivotal role in this evolution. If the trend of teacher attrition

is not reversed, the latest teacher work force figures of an aging work force and a work

287

force with an inflated attrition rate (AITSL, 2016) would suggest work force planning

is emerging as a national priority issue.

7.4.2 Student (mis)behaviour

Concerns about student misbehaviour featured prominently from mid-career teachers

in the short answer component of the survey instrument. It was an issue the mid-career

teachers stated impacted on their work commitment and one which they wanted more

support to address from the school principal. The significance of student misbehaviour,

particularly in classrooms, was not surprising as Education Queensland’s own figures

published in their annual report (Education Queensland, 2015) shows an increase of

over 22% in suspension and exclusion rates for the period 2013 to 2015. In 2013, 52

489 students were suspended or excluded from Queensland schools, increasing to 58

347 in 2014 and 64 306 in 2015 (Education Queensland, 2015). These figures only

account for the students whose behaviours warranted their removal from school

permanently or for a period of time, they don’t account for the myriad of lesser

behaviours which may not have resulted in a suspension or exclusion but never-the-

less are disruptive to the class and need to be dealt with on a daily basis by the teacher

(Beaman, Wheldall, & Kemp, 2007). A study by Aloe, Shisler, Norris, Nickerson and

Rinker (2014) found students’ misbehaviour significantly contributed to teacher

emotional exhaustion which in turn led to declining commitment and career change.

For principals, the implications are clear. To assist teachers’ work commitment in a

positive way, leadership practices need to address student misbehaviour and support

teachers in their day to day dealings with this. Several teachers referenced their

school’s behaviour management plans but also indicated that the implementation of

288

these plans by their principal was their concern. This tension again highlights the

position school principals are in to implement the policy on their school site in a way

that delivers positive outcomes for the greater system and the individual teachers and

school community (Riley, 2014).

While not explicitly addressed as an individual leadership practice in Leadership

Matters (Education Queensland, 2010), managing the behaviour of students is still of

critical importance to the tone and culture of a school site and ultimately teacher

commitment (Gibbs & Miller, 2014). School culture is something that is built over

time, but it is something that can be felt almost immediately by teachers when they

enter a new workplace. Schools with a poor culture, in the form of poor student

behaviour arguably experience higher rates of teacher attrition (Ashiedu & Scott-Ladd,

2012; Buchanan, 2010, 2012; Buchanan, Prescott, Schuck, Aubusson, Burke, &

Louviere, 2013; Mason, 2010).

It is the principal’s leadership beliefs and practices which guide the interpretation and

actioning of policy at the school site. The principal’s relational leadership practices,

coupled with their personal leadership, can allow for feedback of policy

implementation and for teachers to have a say and express what they specifically need

to enhance their work commitment and overcome issues such as student behaviour.

Throughout this research, mid-career teachers have highlighted the importance of a

principal’s relational leadership practices as the key to positively impacting on

teachers’ work commitment. With these practices a principal is able to listen and

address teachers and their concerns and not just assume they understand their needs.

289

7.5 IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE

This research set out to determine which specific school principal leadership practices

impact on mid-career teacher work commitment from mid-career teachers’

perspectives. It was framed from a position that if a better understanding of the

relationship between leadership practices and teacher work commitment could be

gained, the increasing trend of mid-career teacher attrition could be addressed. As

previously stated, not all teacher attrition is negative to an education system. Some

teachers need to leave due to their ineffectiveness or realisation that teaching is not the

correct profession for them (Adnot, Dee, Katz, & Wyckoff, 2017). In these cases

teacher turnover can instead have positive effects within a school as low-performing

teachers can be replaced with more effective teachers (Adnot, et al., 2017). While some

level of turnover and teacher renewal is positive, with teachers leaving the profession

in numbers greater than natural attrition would suggest, more attention is needed to

this issue. It is the loss of the experienced mid-career teachers and the associated

knowledge and social capital which should be concerning to educational jurisdictions,

particularly when this loss can be reversed or slowed.

Beyond the five year mark the major reason given by mid-career teachers for leaving

the teaching profession is a declining work commitment impacted by their principal

leadership practices. What this current research has found is that it is the relational

leadership practices of a school principal in particular which can influence a teacher’s

work commitment closely followed by their personal leadership. Therefore, to address

the issue of teacher attrition it is these domains of leadership practices which need to

be focussed on and developed in school leaders. This section proposes some actions

for policy and practice.

290

When talking about the concept of teacher attrition, caution needs to be used as some

latest studies suggest that teacher attrition is a more non-linear and complex

phenomenon than what is typically proposed (Lindqvist et al., 2014). One implication

for both policy and practice is to address the current lack of formal training for school

principals (Hughes, 2014). Being an effective teacher does not transfer necessarily into

being an effective school leader, similarly being a successful deputy principal or

middle level leader does not always prepare an individual for the sole school leadership

role. A different mindset and skillset are required, yet often a teacher is placed into a

position of school leadership directly from the classroom, or a middle leader is

promoted with limited leadership experience of knowledge.

Historically, training for school principals, particularly in Australia, has generally been

ad hoc and doesn’t formally and systemically prepare principals for the complexity of

expectations and requirements of the role (Hughes, 2014). Principals developed their

leadership skills while in the role and often this leadership was guided by the needs of

the greater system and its priorities such as improving student outcomes through

instructional leadership instead of developing generic leadership practices. A

recommendation from this research is that further professional learning and

development for principals is prioritised.

Any leadership training undertaken by the principals in these interviews seemed to be

self-directed by the principal and viewed as an add-on expense when undertaken rather

than an inherent part of their development. This was specifically noted by Principal 3.

Principal 3 also mentioned performance plans and leadership supervision in their

291

interview but it was discussed as an experience of governance to improve student

outcomes. Using performance planning to plan leadership learning also appeared to be

self-directed in nature and not externally guided by a supervisor or from feedback to

help improve leadership practices. The development of school leaders did not appear

to be a strategic or formal process in the case of the five principals interviewed. This

lack of formal training and development may explain why the principals tended to

view leadership within a compliance framework as opposed to a more strategic

leadership approach.

At no time did the principals interviewed talk about their own leadership in a reflective

way or talk about any formal leadership training. If the principals had undergone some

formal training in leadership to help them develop in their role (and there are many

professional development opportunities that are easily accessible both internal and

external to Education Queensland) they weren’t mentioned in the interviews.

Additionally, issues of declining work commitment of teachers on their staff did not

appear to cause the principals interviewed to critically reflect on their own practices or

to be an area of their concern. There appeared to be an underlying assumption that if

teachers left their school the principals or department will just get more. While this

may have been due to the method of data collection, the apparent lack of reflection

remains a concern if principals are to adapt their leadership practices to meet the needs

of staff.

The Masters Report (2009) commissioned by the Queensland Government recognised

a lack of formal leadership training in Queensland school principals as an area for

292

development. This led to the establishment of the Queensland Educational Leaders

Institute (QELI) to help develop school leaders. QELI was established to not only

provide initial leadership training to beginning principals but also to provide ongoing

and refresher training for established and experienced principals. While this research

is not positioned to judge the effectiveness of this leadership training, it was noted that

not one of the school leaders interviewed made reference to QELI or their own

leadership training or development. There was an underlying presumption by the

principals that just being in the position made them effective leaders and best placed

to know what was needed by the staff they led.

The Independent Public School (IPS) agenda has not only encouraged more self-

determination and autonomy in the 250 IPS schools which now exist, it has also flowed

over into the non IPS schools increasing the autonomy of these principals too. Despite

Education Queensland’s move to increase the autonomy given to school leaders, the

responses of principals in their interviews reflected compliance to the rules and

reinforcement of the existing hierarchy, both key fundamentals to a traditional style of

leadership (Hartog, Muijen, & Koopman, 2011).

The interviews with the principals reflected a culture that focused on leadership that is

compliance driven with a short term focus on improvement, rather than committing to

the long term cultural shifts that marks deep change in a school (Heffernan, 2017;

Harris, 2011; Nori, 2011). Examples of compliance driven phrases included; “I

certainly have looked to implement Department programs…” (Principal 1), “…it

behoves me to ensure that I give them the departmental PD.” (Principal 2), “…engage

them through the many avenues available within our school and EQ.” (Principal 4)

293

This culture of compliance evident within the interviewed principals may be due to the

fact that these were the leadership practices they experienced themselves as teachers

and in the absence of any formal, systemic leadership training they have used these as

a model of their own leadership. Or it may be reflective of the growing shift within the

system towards a tighter compliance and systems driven leadership which has grown

stronger over the past five years. Bloxham, Ehrich and Iyer (2015) found the role of

Assistant Regional Director (ARD), a principal’s immediate supervisor in Queensland

state schools, as contributing to this compliance leadership framework. Bloxam, et al.,

(2015) believed that there is significant pressure for the ARDS to focus on systems

performance. The ARD role carries a clear weight of expectation in improving the

organisations performance and as such a clear sense of the ARD hierarchical position

and compliance has evolved.

These leadership practices being enacted on principals through the ARDs in a culture

of compliance may influence how principals model their own leadership practices. The

ARD’s leadership practices become the principal’s model of leadership and these

become the leadership practices implemented within their school. This compliance

based leadership, may lead to principals seeking permission to lead and a reluctance

to be innovative and make independent decisions, or to consult teachers about

leadership approaches.

The conclusion of the analysis of the leadership practice data collected for this research

is a mismatch between the perspectives of mid-career teachers and school principals.

The mid-career teachers clearly articulated that the most important leadership practices

294

in relation to their work commitment were the principal’s leadership practices which

lay in the domain of relational followed by the practices within the domain of personal.

In many cases it was the absence of these, or their ineffective application, which from

the teachers’ perspective, was having a negative impact on their work commitment.

The principals also agreed that the relational domain leadership practices had the most

impact on mid-career teacher work commitment; however they believed that they were

applying these effectively and positively. While all participants agreed to the

importance of relational leadership practices it was evident that the teachers and the

principals had two distinct and different trains of thoughts of their application.

Additionally the principals also had a different view of the impact of the other domains

of leadership on teacher work commitment. The principals believed that the domains

of organisational and educational leadership were of next importance in relation to

teacher commitment, a view not shared by the teachers.

The gap in alignment is of great significance as the principals believed they were

adding to teacher commitment through relational leadership practices while often the

teachers believed it was the ineffective use of these practices which was impacting

negatively on their work commitment. Having such diametrically opposed views on

the relational leadership practices should be of concern to education jurisdictions

worldwide and is something which may need further investigation to fully address and

remedy to go a way to address teacher attrition.

It is clear from this research that mid-career teachers seek relational leaders who

maximise their work commitment. While the current focus of Education Queensland

295

and many other jurisdictions worldwide is on instructional leadership with an agenda

of improving student performance, this current research provides evidence that solely

focussing on this may come at the expense of mid-career teacher commitment. Lifting

student outcomes is of vital importance and a key role for schools but this cannot be

achieved effectively if the experienced staff are declining in their work commitment

and electing to leave the profession.

Focussing only on instructional leadership as defined by a focus on principals being in

every classroom, modelling for teachers and giving feedback on their pedagogy

discounts the importance of the social contexts of schools and the importance actions

and inter actions of people play in setting a tone and workplace environment which

connects with people and increases work commitment. Teaching is a people profession

and from the perspective of the experienced teachers, to lead such environments an

effective school leader needs to be trained in and implement effective relational

leadership practices. The challenge for all education systems who wish to retain their

experienced mid-career teacher is to develop school leaders with strong relational

leadership practices as this leadership domain is the most important in terms of teacher

work commitment. Significantly these are also the practices that cannot be franchised

out. While a principal may be able to get someone else to design the curriculum and

pedagogy, help them with facilities, or help organise rosters and timetables, it is near

impossible to engage a third party to enact the relational and personal skills which have

been highlighted as so vital in this research. As Principal 3 stated:

I know that there are the five leadership strands we look at to help select our leaders

in EQ and all strands are equally important, but in my mind the one you can’t miss –

or get an expert in to do for you - is the relational. Teaching is a people based

profession and to get the best out of people you need to know how to get on with them.

296

Now that the mid-career teachers have clearly articulated through the data what they

need to enhance their work commitment, it is important to act on these needs if the

problem of attrition is to be genuinely addressed. Below in Table 7.1 is a list of

pragmatic suggestions around relational leadership practices that could be easily

adopted by school principals to increase mid-career teacher work commitment.

Table 7.1 Suggested leadership practices to enhance relational leadership

1. Greet each staff member by their name in every encounter and ensure as a school leader you know everybody’s name on staff.

2. Take the time to learn everybody’s story and how this story may impact on their work.

3. Listen actively and ensure you understand all points being raised before you make a decision.

4. If the decision is counter to what some staff believe take the time to explain why you went with the decision you did.

5. Make the staff feel valued and respected for their knowledge and opinion. 6. If you wish to give feedback also model your acceptance of the same. 7. Model the culture and inter-relationships you expect at the school, the tone starts at

the top. 8. Be a ‘people person’ genuine concern and interactions with staff create a climate of

caring.

297

9. Be genuine with everything you do and say. 10. Show respect for people and their areas, you may be the leader but respect is a two

way street. 11. Empower others do not power over. 12. Show the way for staff, don’t only tell the way. 13. Differentiate your approach to different people to get the best out of them. 14. Be empathetic and know when to listen and when to take action. 15. Take time to take care of the people, without them the other important aspects of

school around teaching, learning, curriculum, facilities etc. cannot happen as easily.

7.6 REFLECTIONS

As a current school principal of a large primary school in Education Queensland, the

challenge for me is how this study will inform my own leadership practices. While I

believe relational leadership practices have been a cornerstone of my leadership career,

perhaps as this research showed, my perception and the teachers’ perception of my

leadership may be different. To help determine this I will now look to set up systems

of feedback within my school to ensure that I get an understanding of the perceptions

of the teachers and how my leadership practise are impacting on their work

commitment. Furthermore, I will look to differentiate my leadership practices to cater

for the different needs and contexts of different staff and move away from the one size

fits all frameworks which have proved ineffective in many research studies.

Beyond my own practices there are some important lessons in this research for all

school leaders. I believe part of my own professional responsibilities is to share my

findings with colleagues to enable them to maximise their leadership practise in a way

that will positively impact on mid-career teachers’ work commitment to stem the flow

of teacher attrition. I will also ensure that the mentoring and training programs I am

involved in which develop the next generation of leaders will be informed by this

298

research. For my colleagues I will model the kind of reflexive leadership which leaders

should display to ensure the effectiveness of their leadership practices

7.7 CONCLUSION

Abraham Lincoln, the famous American president, made a memorable quote about the

challenges of leading people. He said;

You can please some of the people some of the time, some of the people all of

the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time.

Never has a truer word been said. I often hear from fellow principals, that they are

frustrated that they can’t please everyone. Pleasing everyone all of the time may well

be impossible but improving work commitment is the real challenge we should face.

This research was not concerned with pleasing teachers, but rather about enhancing

teacher commitment. As principals we may not be able to please all of our teachers all

of the time, but we should ensure that our leadership practices are enhancing the work

commitment of our mid-career teachers so that these experienced and valuable

teachers, who have made a decision to stay with teaching, are supported and

encouraged to keep doing the job. With their commitment, our schools can fulfil their

purpose of providing a quality education for all students.

Bibliography 299

Bibliography

Adey, K., Oswald, M., & Johnson, B. (1991). Discipline in South Australian schools: A Survey of teachers-Survey no 1: Teachers in metropolitan schools (Education Department of South Australia, Trans.). Adelaide: University of South Australia.

Adnot, M., Dee, T., Katz, V., & Wyckoff, J. (2017). Teacher turnover, teacher quality, and student achievement in dcps. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 54-76.

Ahmad, R. H., & Ghavifekr, S. (2017). School leadership for the 21st century: A conceptual overview. MOJEM: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management, 2(1), 48-61.

Akbaba, S. (2014). A comparison of the burnout levels of teachers with different occupational satisfaction sources. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(5), 1253-1261. doi:10.12738/estp.2014.4.1994

Aloe, A. M., Shisler, S. M., Norris, B. D., Nickerson, A. B., & Rinker, T. W. (2014). A multivariate meta-analysis of student misbehavior and teacher burnout. Educational Research Review, 12, 30-44.

Amoroso, P. F. (2002). The impact of principals’ transformational leadership behaviours on teacher commitment and teacher job satisfaction. Unpublished Doctorate Thesis, Seton Hall University.

300 Bibliography

Arbaugh, J. B. (2002). Beyond Change Management: Advanced Strategies for Today's Transformational Leaders. Academy of Management, Learning and Education, 1, 221-223.

Arnup, J., & Bowles, T. (2016). Should I stay or should I go? Resilience as a protective factor for teachers’ intention to leave the teaching profession. Australian Journal of Education, 60(3), 229-244.

Ashiedu, J. A., & Scott-Ladd, B. D. (2012). Understanding Teacher Attraction and Retention Drivers: Addressing Teacher Shortages. Australian journal of teacher education, 37(11), n11.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (2016). Initial teacher education: data report 2016, AITSL, Melbourne.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) (2011a), Australian Professional Standard for Principals, AITSL, Melbourne.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) (2011b). National professional standards for teachers. Retrieved 1 July, 2018, from http://www.teacherstandards.aitsl.edu.au/

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re‐examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 72(4), 441-462.

Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F., & Weber, T. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research and future directions. Annual Review Psychology, 60, 421-429.

Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.). (2013). Introduction to, and overview of, transformational and charismatic leadership. In Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead 10th Anniversary Edition (pp. xxvii-xxxiii). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Bingley: United Kingdom.

Aydin, A., Sarier, Y., & Uysal, S. (2013). The Effect of School Principals' Leadership Styles on Teachers' Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction. Educational sciences: Theory and practice, 13(2), 806-811.

Bailey, J., Price, R. A., & Esders, L. P. (2009). Marketing unions to young people: Recruiting and ‘rusting on’. In: Labour, Capital and Change – Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of the Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand, 4 – 6 February, Newcastle, Australia.

Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Balliet, D., Li, N. P., Macfarlan, S. J., & Van Vugt, M. (2011). Sex differences in cooperation: a meta-analytic review of social dilemmas. Psychological bulletin, 137(6), 881.

Barlow, J. (2015). Relationship of teacher perception of principal leadership practices and job satisfaction in the Southeast Region of the Association of Christian Schools International. Liberty University.

Bibliography 301

Barnard, C. I. (1940). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bartlett, J. E., Korlik, J. W., & Higgins, C.C. (2001). Organisational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research, Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal, 19(1), 41.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance; Beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. Free Press.

Bates, J., Lewis, S., & Pickard, A. (2011). Education policy, practice and the professional. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Bastian, K. C., McCord, D. M., Marks, J. T., & Carpenter, D. (2017). A Temperament for Teaching? Associations Between Personality Traits and Beginning Teacher Performance and Retention. AERA Open, 3(1).

Beaman, R., Wheldall, K., & Kemp, C. (2007). Recent research on classroom behaviour: A review. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 31(1), 45-60.

Becton, J. B., Walker, H. J., & Jones‐Farmer, A. (2014). Generational differences in workplace behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(3), 175-189.

Beerel, A. (2009). Leadership and change management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Limited.

Behnke, K., & Steins, G. (2017). Principals’ reactions to feedback received by school inspection: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Change, 18(1), 77-106.

Bennett, N., Woods, P., Wise, C., & Newton, W. (2007). Understandings of middle leadership in secondary schools: A review of empirical research. School Leadership and Management, 27(5), 453-470.

Bennis, W. G. (1959). Leadership theory and administrative behaviour: The problem of authority. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4(3), 272 – 300.

Bernard, H. R., Wutich, A., & Ryan, G. W. (2016). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. SAGE publications.

Bilz, J. A. (2008). Job satisfaction and teacher career stages. (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).

Blake, R. & Mouton, J. (1985). The Managerial Grid III: The Key to Leadership Excellence. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.

Blau, G. J. (1985). The measurement and prediction of career commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 58(4), 277-288.

302 Bibliography

Bloxham, R., Ehrich, L. C., & Iyer, R. (2015). Leading or managing? Assistant Regional Directors, School Performance, in Queensland. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(3), 354-373.

Bogler, R. (1999, April). Reassessing the behaviours of principals as a multiple-factor in teachers’ job satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada

Bolman, L. G., & Deal. T. E. (1992). Reframing leadership: The effects of leaders’ images of leadership. In K. Clark (Ed.), Impact on Leadership (pp. 269-280). Greensboro: Centre for Creative Leadership.

Bonett, D. G., & Wright, T. A. (2015). Cronbach's alpha reliability: Interval estimation, hypothesis testing, and sample size planning. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 3-15.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901.

Bowles, T., & Arnup, J. L. (2016). Early career teachers’ resilience and positive adaptive change capabilities. The Australian Educational Researcher, 43(2), 147-164.

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 303-333.

Bragg, D. J. (2003). The seasons of a police officer's life: an analysis of the influence of career stage on the job satisfaction and work commitment of Queensland police officers (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology).

Branch, G. F., Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2013). School leaders matter. Education Next, 13(1).

Branson, C. (2007). Effects of structured self-reflection on the development of authentic leadership practices among Queensland primary school principals. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(2), 225-246.

Braun, A., Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Taking context seriously: Towards explaining policy enactments in the secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 32(4), 585-596.

Brezicha, K., Bergmark, U., & Mitra, D. L. (2015). One size does not fit all: Differentiating leadership to support teachers in school reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(1), 96-132.

Brown, K. M. (2014). Principal Leadership in" Beating the Odds" Schools... Advocates for Social Justice and Equity. Revista internacional de educación para la justicia social (RIEJS), 3(2), 59-83.

Brunsting, N. C., Sreckovic, M. A., & Lane, K. L. (2014). Special education teacher burnout: A synthesis of research from 1979 to 2013. Education and treatment of children, 37(4), 681-711.

Bibliography 303

Bryman, A. (2017). Quantitative and qualitative research: further reflections on their integration. In Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research (pp. 57-78). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Buchanan, J. (2010). May I be excused? Why teachers leave the profession. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30(2), 199-211.

Buchanan, J. (2012). Telling tales out of school: Exploring why former teachers are not returning to the classroom. Australian Journal of Education, 56(2), 205-217.

Buchanan, J., Prescott, A., Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Burke, P., & Louviere, J. (2013). Teacher retention and attrition: Views of early career teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 112-129.

Buckley, J., Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. (2004). The effects of school facility quality on teacher retention in urban school districts. Chestnut Hill, MA: National

Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.

Burden, P. R. (1982, Feb). Developmental supervision: Reducing teacher stress at different career stages. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Phoenix, AZ.

Burkhauser, S. (2017). How Much Do School Principals Matter When It Comes to Teacher Working Conditions?. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 126-145.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Bush, T. (2008). From management to leadership: Semantic or meaningful change? Educational Management Administration Leadership, 36(2), 271-287.

Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: What do we know? School Leadership & Management, 34(5), 553-571.

Busher, H., Harris, A., & Wise, C. (2000). Subject leadership and school improvement. London: Paul Chapman.

Cameron, M., & Lovett, S. (2015). Sustaining the commitment and realising the potential of highly promising teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 21(2), 150-163.

Cancio, E. J., Albrecht, S. F., & Johns, B. H. (2013). Defining administrative support and its relationship to the attrition of teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 36(4), 71-94.

Carpenter, J. (2004). A correlational study of perceived principals’ leaderships styles and teacher job satisfaction. Unpublished Doctorate Thesis. State University of West Georgia.

Charan, R. (2008). Leadership potential. Leadership Excellence, 25(9), 18-26.

Chemers, M. (2014). An integrative theory of leadership. London: Psychology Press.

Christie, P., & Lingard, B. (2001, April). Capturing complexity in educational leadership. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Research Association, Seattle, USA.

304 Bibliography

Chu, C. I. (2001). Examining organisational citizen behaviour among nurses using Price and Mueller’s Turnover Model, Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University of Iowa.

Chughtai, A., Byrne, M., & Flood, B. (2015). Linking ethical leadership to employee well-being: The role of trust in supervisor. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(3), 653-663.

Ciulla, J. B. (2016). 3 The moral pitfalls of leadership. Leadership in Organizations: Current Issues and Key Trends, 45.

Clandinin, D. J., Long, J., Schaefer, L., Downey, C. A., Steeves, P., Pinnegar, E., Mckenzie Robblee, S., & Wnuk, S. (2015). Early career teacher attrition: Intentions of teachers beginning. Teaching Education, 26(1), 1-16.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Colak, I., Altinkurt, Y., & Yilmaz, K. (2014). The relationship between teachers’ teacher leadership roles and organizational commitment levels. Educational Process: International Journal, 3(1-2), 35-51.

Colbert, A. E., Barrick, M. R., & Bradley, B. H. (2014). Personality and leadership composition in top management teams: Implications for organizational effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 351-387.

Committee for the review of teaching and teacher education (2003). Australia’s teachers: Australia’s future, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Conger, D. (1989). Cited in G. Solomon, N. J. Allen, & P. Resta (Eds.), Towards digital equity – Bridging the divide in education (Chapter 2). Allyn and Bacon, Boston: MA.

Costello, D. (2015). Challenges and supports of instructional leadership in schools. Antistasis, 5(1).

Covey, S. M. (2006). The speed of trust: The one thing that changes everything. Simon and Schuster: New York,

Cranston, N. (2014). The impact of school-based management on primary school principals: An Australian perspective. Journal of School Leadership, 10(3), 214-232.

Cranston, N. (2002). School-based management, leaders and leadership: Change and challenges for principals. International Studies in Educational Administration, 30(1), 2-12.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 3rd Edition. Sage Publications Inc. Thousand Oaks: California.

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124 – 130

Bibliography 305

Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. (1986). The influences of career stages on salespeople’s job attitudes, work perceptions and performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), 119-129.

Crosswell, L. (2006). Understanding teacher commitment in times of change (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology).

Dajani, A. E. (2014). Qualitative investigation of principal behaviors that impact teacher turnover intention and job satisfaction in an American international school. Northcentral University.

Davis, J., & Wilson, S. M. (2000). Principals' efforts to empower teachers: Effects on teacher motivation and job satisfaction and stress. The clearing house, 73(6), 349-353.

Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2009). Veteran teachers: Commitment, resilience and quality retention. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 15(4), 441-457.

Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221-258.

Day, C., & Leithwood, K. (Eds.). (2007). Successful principal leadership in times of change: An international perspective (Vol. 5). Springer Science & Business Media.

Day, C., Townsend, A., Knight, R., & Richardson, K. (2016). School leadership in the Primary Years Programme. Nottingham: The University of Nottingham, School of Education, IB Research department.

Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (2016). Shaping school culture. John Wiley & Sons: New Jersey.

DeFeo, D. J., Trang Tran, M. P. P., Hirshberg, D., & Cope, D. (2017). The cost of teacher turnover in Alaska.

De Nobile, J. (2017). Organisational communication and its relationships with job satisfaction and organisational commitment of primary school staff in Western Australia. Educational Psychology, 37(3), 380-398.

Depree, (1989). Cited in Solomon, G., Allen, N. J., & Resta, P. E. (Eds.). (2003). Toward digital equity: Bridging the divide in education (Chapter 2). Prentice Hall: Boston.

Devos, G., Tuytens, M., & Hulpia, H. (2013). Teachers’ organizational commitment: Examining the mediating effects of distributed leadership. American Journal of Education, 120(2), 205-231.

Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2016). School leadership and management from a distributed perspective: A 2016 retrospective and prospective. Management in Education, 30(4), 147-154.

Dixon, J., Belnap, C., Albrecht, C., & Lee, K. (2010). The importance of soft skills. Corporate finance review, 14(6), 35.

306 Bibliography

Donald, W., Baruch, Y., & Ashleigh, M. (2017). Boundaryless and Protean Career Orientation: A Multitude of Pathways to Graduate Employability. In Graduate Employability in Context (pp. 129-150). Palgrave Macmillan, London: UK.

Dou, D., Devos, G., & Valcke, M. (2016). The relationships between school autonomy gap, principal leadership, teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(6), 959-977.

Du Plessis, A., Carroll, A., & Gillies, R. M. (2015). Understanding the lived experiences of novice out-of-field teachers in relation to school leadership practices. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 4-21.

Eacott, S. (2017). School leadership and the cult of the guru: the neo-Taylorism of Hattie. School Leadership & Management, 37(4), 413-426.

Eacott, S., & Norris, J. (2014). Managerial rhetoric, accountability, and school leadership in contemporary Australia. Leadership and policy in Schools, 13(2), 169-187.

Eberhard, J., Reinhardt-Mondragon, P., & Stottlemyer, B. (2000). Strategies for new teacher retention: Creating a climate of authentic professional development for teachers with three or less experience. Unpublished paper prepared for The South Texas Research and Development Centre, Texas A & M University- Corpus Christi.

Education Queensland, (1990). Focus on schools. Queensland Government Press. Brisbane: Australia.

Education Queensland, (1997). Leading schools. Queensland Government Press. Brisbane: Australia.

Education Queensland, (2010). Leadership matters: Leadership capabilities for Education Queensland principals. Queensland Government Press. Brisbane: Australia.

Education Queensland, (2012a). Principal’s capability and leadership frameworks. Queensland Government, 2012. Queensland Government Press. Brisbane: Australia.

Education Queensland, (2012b). Independent Public Schools: Policy framework. Brisbane, Qld: Australia. Queensland Government Press. Brisbane: Australia.

Education Queensland, (2014a). Mentoring Beginning Teachers program. Beginning teacher Handbook. Queensland Government Press. Brisbane: Australia.

Education Queensland, (2014b). Performance insights; School disciplinary absences.

Queensland Government, 2014. Queensland Government Press. Brisbane: Australia.

Education Queensland, (2015). Department of education and training annual report. Queensland Government, 2015. Queensland Government Press. Brisbane: Australia.

Bibliography 307

Eisner, S. P. (2005). Managing generation Y. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 70(4), 4.

Eliophotou Menon, M. (2014). The relationship between transformational leadership, perceived leader effectiveness and teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(4), 509-528.

Elliott, J. P. IV. (2001). An exploratory study of the relationship between organisational commitment and turnover in industries with high employee turnover. Unpublished PHD. Thesis, Alliant International University.

Evans, R. W. (2011). The tragedy of American school reform: How curriculum politics and entrenched dilemmas have diverted us from democracy. Springer: New York.

Ewing, R. (2001). Keeping beginning teachers in the profession. Independent Education, 31(3), 30-32.

Fakis, A., Hilliam, R., Stoneley, H., & Townend, M. (2014). Quantitative analysis of qualitative information from interviews: A systematic literature review. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8(2), 139-161. doi:10.1177/1558689813495111

Farrell, T. S. (2016). Surviving the transition shock in the first year of teaching through reflective practice. System, 61, 12-19.

Firestone, W. A. (2014). Teacher evaluation policy and conflicting theories of motivation. Educational Researcher, 43(2), 100-107.

Frugo, J. A., Johnston, A. E., McCauley, B. J., & Navarro, K. C. (2016). Leading character: An investigation into the characteristics and effective practices of character education leaders (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri: Saint Louis).

Gallant, A., & Riley, P. (2014). Early career teacher attrition: new thoughts on an intractable problem. Teacher development, 18(4), 562-580.

Gardner, W. L., Fischer, D., & Hunt, J. G. J. (2009). Emotional labor and leadership: A threat to authenticity? The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 466-482.

Garrick, A., Mak, A. S., Cathcart, S., Winwood, P. C., Bakker, A. B., & Lushington, K. (2017). Teachers’ Priorities for Change in Australian Schools to Support Staff Well-Being. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 26(3-4), 117-126.

Geldenhuys, M., Laba, K., & Venter, C. M. (2014). Meaningful work, work engagement and organisational commitment. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 01-10.

Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analysing qualitative data. In U. Flick (Ed.). The Sage qualitative research kit. London: Sage.

Gibbs, S., & Miller, A. (2014). Teachers’ resilience and well-being: A role for educational psychology. Teachers and Teaching, 20(5), 609-621.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.

308 Bibliography

Gobby, B. (2013). Principal self-government and subjectification: The exercise of principal autonomy in the Western Australian Independent Public Schools programme. Critical Studies in Education, 54(3), 273-285.

Goddard, R., & Goddard, M. (2006). Beginning teacher burnout in Queensland schools: Associations with serious intentions to leave. The Australian Educational Researcher, 33(2), 61-75.

Goddard, R., & O’Brien, P. (2003). Beginning teachers’ perception of their work, well-being, and intention to leave. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education and Development, 6(2), 99 – 110.

Gold, Y., Roth, R. A., Wright, C. R., & Michael, W. B. (1991). The relationship of scores on the Educators Survey, a modified version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory, to three teaching-related variables for a sample of 132 beginning teachers. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(2), 429-438.

Gonski, D. (2011). Review of funding for schooling (Gonski review). Department of

Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra.

Goddard, R., Goddard, Y., Sook Kim, E., & Miller, R. (2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 501-530.

Goldberg, C., Riordan, C. M., & Zhang, L. (2008). Employees' perceptions of their leaders: is being similar always better? Group & Organization Management, 33(3), 330-355.

Gonzales, S., & Lambert, L. (2014). Teacher leadership in professional development schools: Emerging conceptions, identities, and practices. Journal of School Leadership, 11(1), 6-24.

Grady, C., Eckstein, L., Berkman, B., Brock, D., Cook-Deegan, R., Fullerton, S.M., Greely, H., Hansson, M.G., Hull, S., Kim, S. and Lo, B., 2015. Broad consent for research with biological samples: workshop conclusions. The American Journal of Bioethics, 15(9), pp.34-42.

Gray, L., & Taie, S. (2015). Public School Teacher Attrition and Mobility in the First Five Years: Results from the First through Fifth Waves of the 2007-08 Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study. First Look. NCES 2015-337. National Center for Education Statistics: Washington DC.

Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 333-356.

Grootenboer, P., Rönnerman, K., & Edwards-Groves, C. (2017). Leading from the Middle: A Praxis-Oriented Practice. In Practice Theory Perspectives on Pedagogy and Education (pp. 243-263). Singapore: Springer.

Gross, S. J., & Shapiro, J. P. (2015). Democratic Ethical Educational Leadership: Reclaiming School Reform. United Kingdom: Routledge.

Bibliography 309

Groundwater, S. V. (2016). Thriving with Social Purpose: A Phenomenological Investigation of Resilience and the Role of Life Meaning in a Teacher's Decision to Remain in the Teaching Profession (Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University).

Gruenert, S., & Whitaker, T. (2015). School culture rewired: How to define, assess, and transform it. ASCD.

Gu, X. (2016). Teacher Job Satisfaction in Public Schools: The Relation to the Years of Teaching Experience. (Master’s thesis, Buffalo State College). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

Guglielmi, D., Bruni, I., Simbula, S., Fraccaroli, F., & Depolo, M. (2016). What drives teacher engagement: a study of different age cohorts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31(3), 323-340.

Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organisations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Hall, D. T., & Nougaim, K. E. (1968). An examination of Maslow’s need hierarchy in an organizational setting. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 3, 12-35.

Halse, C. (2004). Striving for balance: Australian perspectives on the future of schooling. International journal of educational research, 41(7-8), 523-533.

Handford, V., & Leithwood, K. (2013). Why teachers trust school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 194 – 212.

Hanna, R., & Pennington, K. (2015). Despite reports to the contrary, new teachers are staying in their jobs longer. Center for American Progress, January, 8(20), 15.

Hansen, K. M. (2016). Effective school leadership practices in schools with positive climates in the age of high stakes teacher evaluations

Harbinson, F., & Myers, C. A. (1959). Management in the Industrial World: An International Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hargreaves, A. (2001). The emotional geographies of teachers’ relations with colleagues. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 503-527.

Hargreaves, A. (2005). Educational change takes ages: Life, career and generational factors in teachers’ emotional responses to educational change. Teaching and teacher Education, 21(8), 967-983.

Harris, A. (2013). Distributed leadership: Friend or foe?. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 545-554.

Harris, A. (2011). Distributed leadership: Implications for the role of the principal. Journal of Management Development, 31(1), 7-17.

Harris, A., Jones, M., Cheah, K. S. L., & Adams, D. (2017). Exploring principals’ instructional leadership practices in Malaysia: insights and implications. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(2), 207-221.

310 Bibliography

Hartog, D. N., Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (2011). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(1), 19-34.

Hartsel, L. M. (2016). Why are mid-career teachers leaving the profession? (Doctoral dissertation, Ashland University).

Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied psychology, 73(4), 695.

Hattie, J. (2011). Feedback in schools. Feedback: The communication of praise, criticism and advice. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112.

Heffernan, A. (2017). The accountability generation: exploring an emerging leadership paradigm for beginning principals. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 1-12.

Heinbuch, D. N. (2001). Educational assistance and organisational commitment influencing turnover intentions. Unpublished Master of Arts Thesis, California State University.

Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of applied psychology, 87(3), 474 - 478.

Hewlett, S. A., Sherbin, L., & Sumberg, K. (2009). How Gen Y & Boomers will reshape your agenda. Harvard Business Review, 87(7/8), 71-76.

Holden, S. D. (2016). Reducing teacher attrition: The roles and responsibilities of building principals in a large urban district to support teacher retention (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park).

Hopkins, D, (2003). Instructional leadership and school improvement. In A. Harris, C, Day, D. Hopkins, M. Hadfield, A. Hargreaves & C. Chapman (Eds.), Effective leadership for school improvement (pp. 55-71). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Horng, E., & Loeb, S. (2010). New thinking about instructional leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 66-69.

Houghton, C. (2015). Young people's perspectives on participatory ethics: Agency, power and impact in domestic abuse research and policy‐making. Child Abuse Review, 24(4), 235-248.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of applied psychology, 78(6), 891.

Bibliography 311

Howes, L. M., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2014). Life course research design: Exploring career change experiences of former school teachers and police officers. Journal of Career Development, 41(1), 62-84.

Howes, L. M., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2015). Teachers' career decisions: Perspectives on choosing teaching careers, and on staying or leaving. Issues in Educational Research, 25(1), 18-35.

Hoyles, J. (1995). In G. Solomon, N. J. Allen & P. Resta (Eds.). Towards digital equity – Bridging the divide in education (pp. 15-20). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon

Huang, L. Y. (2017). A study of Relationship between Elementary School Principals' Positive Leadership and Teachers' Organizational Commitment in Kaohsiung City.

Hudson, P. (2013). Mentoring as professional development: ‘growth for both’ mentor and mentee. Professional development in education, 39(5), 771-783.

Hudson, P. (2016). Forming the mentor-mentee relationship. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 24(1), 30-43.

Hudson, T. J. (2009). New teacher job dissatisfaction and attrition from 1983–2005: A meta- analysis (Doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis University).

Hughes, E. M. (2014). Entry planning: a key aspect in preparing for school leadership in Western Australia.

Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Van Keer, H. (2011). The relation between school leadership from a distributed perspective and teachers’ organizational commitment: Examining the source of the leadership function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(5), 728-771.

Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Van Keer, H. (2009). The influence of distributed leadership on teachers’ organizational commitment: A multilevel approach. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(1), 40-52.

Hultell, D., Melin, B., & Gustavsson, J. P. (2013). Getting personal with teacher burnout: A longitudinal study on the development of burnout using a person-based approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 32, 75-86.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American educational research journal, 38(3), 499-534.

Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & May, H. (2016). Do Accountability Policies Push Teachers Out?. Educational Leadership, 73(8), 44-49.

Ingersoll, R, Merrill, L & May, H (2014) What are the effects of teacher education and preparation on beginning teacher attrition, Philidelphia: Consortium for policy research in Education.

Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & Stuckey, D. (2014). Seven trends: the transformation of the teaching force, updated April 2014. CPRE Report (# RR-80). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

312 Bibliography

Isenberg, E., Glazerman, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Lugo-Gil, J., Grider, M., & Britton, E. (2009). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Results from the second year of a randomized controlled study. NCEE 2009-4072. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Jacobsen, C. B., & Bøgh Andersen, L. (2015). Is leadership in the eye of the beholder? A study of intended and perceived leadership practices and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 75(6), 829-841.

Jo, S. H. (2014). Teacher commitment: Exploring associations with relationships and emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 120-130.

John, M. C., & Taylor, J. W. (1999). Leadership style, school climate, and the institutional commitment of teachers. In International Forum Journal, 2 (1), 25 – 57.

Johnson, B., Down, B., Le Cornu, R., Peters, J., Sullivan, A., Pearce, J., & Hunter, J. (2015). Early career teachers: Stories of resilience. New York: Springer.

Jones, S. (2014). Distributed leadership: A critical analysis. Leadership, 10(2), 129-141.

Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta- analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755 - 768.

Kalidass, A., & Bahron, A. (2015). The relationship between perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, organizational commitment and employee turnover intention. International Journal of Business Administration, 6(5), 82 - 89.

Kanter, R. M. (1974). Commitment and social organisation. In D. Field (Ed.), Social psychology for sociologists, (pp.126 –146). London: Nelson.

Karsenti, T., & Collin, S. (2013). Why are new teachers leaving the profession? Results of a Canada-wide survey. Education, 3(3), 141-149.

Kearney, S. (2014). Teacher Attrition, Retention and Mobility: Where Does Australian Stand?. Education and Society, 32(2), 5-24.

Keith, S., & Girling, R. H. (1991). Education, management, and participation: New directions in educational administration. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kelley, C., & Dikkers, S. (2016). Framing feedback for school improvement around distributed leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(3), 392-422.

Kelloway, E. K., & Dimoff, J. K. cited in Burke, R. J., & Page, K. M. (Eds.). (2017). Research handbook on work and well-being. Massachusetts, US: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bibliography 313

Keogh, J., & Garrick, B. (2011). Creating Catch 22: zooming in and zooming out on the discursive constructions of teachers in a news article. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(4), 419-434.

Kidger, J., Brockman, R., Tilling, K., Campbell, R., Ford, T., Araya, R., King, M., & Gunnell, D. (2016). Teachers' wellbeing and depressive symptoms, and associated risk factors: A large cross sectional study in English secondary schools. Journal of affective disorders, 192, 76-82.

Kise, J. A. (Ed.). (2017). Differentiated Coaching: A Framework for Helping Educators Change. Thousand Oaks, California:Corwin Press.

Kim, H., & Cho, Y. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ motivation, sense of teaching efficacy, and expectation of reality shock. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 67-81.

Kim, H., Kang, D. S., Lee, S. W., & McLean, G. (2016). Career commitment as a mediator between organization-related variables and motivation for training and turnover intentions. Journal of Career Development, 43(2), 130-144.

Kim, J., Youngs, P., & Frank, K. (2017). Burnout contagion: Is it due to early career teachers' social networks or organizational exposure?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 250-260.

Klandermans, B. (2011). Psychology and trade union participation: Joining, acting, quitting. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59(3), 189-204.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). New York: Guildford.

Knight, J. (2009). Instructional coaching. Coaching approaches and perspectives, 29-55.

Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey, US: FT press.

Kotter, J. P. (2008). Force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kozulin, A. (Ed.). (2003). Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Kozlowski S., & Doherty M. (1989) Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 546-553.

Kythreotis, A., & Antoniou, P. (2015). Exploring the impact of school leadership on student learning outcomes: constraints and perspectives. In Multidimensional Perspectives on Principal Leadership Effectiveness (pp. 349-372). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

LaBarre, M. (2013). The Call to Teach, by David T. Hansen. Journal of Catholic Education, 3(3), 14.

314 Bibliography

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge

Larson, E. W., & Fukami, C. V. (1984). Relationships between worker behaviour and commitment to the organisation and union. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 222-226.

Lassig, C., Doherty, C. A., & Moore, K. (2015). The private problem with public service: rural teachers in educational markets. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 47(2), 117-139.

Lasswell, H. D. (2017). Power and personality. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Lave, J. (2009). The practice of learning. Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists… in their own words, 200-208.

Lavigne, A., & Bozack, A. (2015). Successes and Struggles of Teaching: Perspectives of Beginning, Mid-Career, and Veteran Teachers. Journal of Teaching Effectiveness and Student Achievement, 2(2), 68-80.

Lee, A. N., & Nie, Y. (2014). Understanding teacher empowerment: Teachers' perceptions of principal's and immediate supervisor's empowering behaviours, psychological empowerment and work-related outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 67-79.

Leithwood, K., & Azah, V. N. (2016). Characteristics of effective leadership networks. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(4), 409-433.

Leithwood, K., Begley, P. T., & Cousins, J. B. (1992). Developing expert leadership for future schools. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press, Taylor and Francis, Inc.

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1996). Towards an explanation of variation in teachers’ perceptions of transformational school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(4), 512-534.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinback, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Buckingham, Open University Press.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 4.

Leithwood, K., & Sleegers, P. (2006). Transformational school leadership: Introduction. School effectiveness and school improvement, 17(2), 143-144.

Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of Transformational school leadership a meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387-423.

Bibliography 315

Leong, F. T., Huang, J. L., & Mak, S. (2014). Protestant work ethic, Confucian values, and work-related attitudes in Singapore. Journal of Career Assessment, 22(2), 304-316. School effectiveness and school improvement, 17(2), 143-144.

LePine, M. A., Zhang, Y., Crawford, E. R., & Rich, B. L. (2016). Turning their pain to gain: Charismatic leader influence on follower stress appraisal and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 1036-1059.

Levinson, H., Price, C. R., Munden, K. J., Mandl, H. J., & Solley, C. M. (1962). Men, management and mental health. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lewis, S. (2015). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Health promotion practice, 16(4), 473-475.

Limerick, B., & Anderson, C. (1999a). Female administrators and school-based management: new models in an era of change?. Educational Management & Administration, 27(4), 401-414.

Limerick, B., & Andersen, C. (1999b). “Go out there and go for broke”: senior women and promotion in Education Queensland, Australia. Women in Management Review, 14(2), 37-43.

Lindqvist, P., & Nordänger, U. K. (2016). Already elsewhere-A study of (skilled) teachers' choice to leave teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 54(February), 88-97.

Lindqvist, P., Nordänger, U. K., & Carlsson, R. (2014). Teacher attrition the first five years– A multifaceted image. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 94-103.

Ling, S., & Ling, M. (2016). The influence of transformational leadership on teacher commitment towards organization, teaching profession, and student learning in secondary schools in Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia. EDUCARE, 4(2).

Liu, P. (2015). Motivating teachers’ commitment to change through transformational school leadership in Chinese urban upper secondary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(6), 735-754.

Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2004). The effect of organisational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction: A cross-national comparison. The Journal of Management Development, 23 (3/4), ABI/INFORM Global.

Lorber, M., Treven, S., & Mumel, D. (2018). Leaders' Behavior in Association With Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment. In Social Issues in the Workplace: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice (pp. 602-624). IGI Global.

Losen, D. J., Hodson, C. L., Keith, I. I., Michael, A., Morrison, K., & Belway, S. (2015). Are we closing the school discipline gap?

Lovely, S. (2012). Will millennial stay? Examining teacher retention from a generational perspective (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest Dissertations and Theses database. (Publication number 3528263)

Lunenburg, F.C., & Ornstein, A.O. (1996). Educational administration: Concepts and practices, 2nd.ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

316 Bibliography

Lyons, S. T., Schweitzer, L., & Ng, E. S. (2015). How have careers changed? An investigation of changing career patterns across four generations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(1), 8-21.

Macdonald, D. (1999). Teacher attrition: A review of literature. Teaching and teacher education, 15(8), 835-848.

Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Ball, S. (2015). ‘Where you stand depends on where you sit’: the social construction of policy enactments in the (English) secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of education, 36(4), 485-499.

Maguire, M., & Dillon, J. (2007). Education policy and schooling. Becoming a teacher, 3, 29-41.

Mansfield, C. F., Beltman, S., Broadley, T., & Weatherby-Fell, N. (2016). Building resilience in teacher education: An evidenced informed framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 54, 77-87.

Mansfield, C., Beltman, S., & Price, A. (2014). ‘I’m coming back again!’ The resilience process of early career teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 20(5), 547-567.

Manuel, E. (2003). Such are the ambitions of youth: Exploring issues of retention and attrition of early career teachers in New South Wales. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. 31(2), 139-150.

Manuel, J., & Hughes, J. (2006). ‘It has always been my dream’: exploring pre‐service teachers’ motivations for choosing to teach. Teacher Development, 10(1), 5-24.

Martin, T. J. (2016). Teachers' Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices in Middle Tennessee Schools (Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University).

Martin, L. E., & Mulvihill, T. M. (2016). Examining Teacher Attrition and Other Related Issues: A Conversation with Dr. D. Ray Reutzel. The Teacher Educator, 51(2), 91-96.

Maslach, C. (2003). Job burnout: New directions in research and intervention. Current directions in psychological science, 12(5), 189-192.

Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. California, US: ISHK.

Mason, S. (2010). Language teacher: To be or not to be. Babel, 45(1), 14-21.

Mason, S., & Matas, C. P. (2015). Teacher attrition and retention research in Australia:Towards a new theoretical framework. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 40(11), 45.

Masters, G. N. (2009). A shared challenge: Improving literacy, numeracy and science learning in Queensland primary schools. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Report for the State of Queensland (Department of Education and Training).

Bibliography 317

Maxwell, J. C. (2013). Be a people person: Effective leadership through effective relationships. David C Cook.

Maxwell, J. C. (2014). Good leaders ask great questions: Your foundation for successful leadership. UK:Hachette.

Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach, 41. California: US. Sage publications.

Maxwell, A., & Riley, P. (2017). Emotional demands, emotional labour and occupational outcomes in school principals: Modelling the relationships. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(3), 484-502.

Mayer, D., Dixon, M., Kline, J., Kostogriz, A., Moss, J., Rowan, L., Walker-Gibbs, B., & White, S. (2017). Studying the Effectiveness of Teacher Education: Early Career Teachers in Diverse Settings. New York: Springer.

McCarley, T. A., Peters, M. L., & Decman, J. M. (2016). Transformational leadership related to school climate: A multi-level analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(2), 322-342.

McCormick, J., & Barnett, K. (2006, November). Relationships between teacher career stages/states and locus of control: A multilevel analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Adelaide.

McCormick, C. P., and Powell B. (1988), “Management for the 1990s”, Newsweek, April, pp. 47- 48.

McInerney, D. M., Ganotice, F. A., King, R. B., Marsh, H. W., & Morin, A. J. (2015). Exploring commitment and turnover intentions among teachers: What we can learn from Hong Kong teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, (52), 11-23.

McKenzie, P., Weldon, P. R., Rowley, G., Murphy, M., & McMillan, J. (2014). Staff in Australia’s schools 2013: Main report on the survey.

Meriac, J. P., Woehr, D. J., Gorman, C. A., & Thomas, A. L. (2013). Development and validation of a short form for the multidimensional work ethic profile. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(3), 155-164.

Mette, I. M., & Scribner, J. P. (2014). Turnaround, transformational, or transactional leadership: An ethical dilemma in school reform. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 17(4), 3-18.

Meyer, F., Le Fevre, D. M., & Robinson, V. M. (2017). How leaders communicate their vulnerability: implications for trust building. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(2), 221-235.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, L. J., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2012). Employee commitment in context: The nature and implication of commitment profiles. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 1-16.

318 Bibliography

Mills, M., & McGregor, G. (2016). Learning not borrowing from the Queensland education system: lessons on curricular, pedagogical and assessment reform. The Curriculum Journal, 27(1), 113-133.

Mittal, R., & Elias, S. M. (2016). Social power and leadership in cross-cultural context. Journal of Management Development, 35(1), 58-74.

Morimoto, H., & Shimada, H. (2015). The relationship between psychological distress and coping strategies: Their perceived acceptability within a socio-cultural context of employment, and the motivation behind their choices. International Journal of Stress Management, 22(2), 159 – 182.

Morrison, A. R. (2018). Beyond the status quo–setting the agenda for effective change: The role of leader within an international school environment. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(3), 511-529.

Morrow, P. C. (1983). Concept redundancy in organisational research: The case of work commitment. Academy of Management Review, 8 (3), 486-500.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (2013). Employee—organization linkages:The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. Massachusetts, US: Academic press.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organisational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 14(2), 224-247.

Msila, V. (2013). In Search of a Liberating Practice: Leadership, Teacher Commitment and the Struggle for Effective Schools. International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), 41(3).

Murray, D., Chua, S., Bond, C., Lunsford, L. G., & Padilla, A. (2015). What is leadership. Leadership in sport, 9 – 18. New York: Routledge.

Nahavandi, A. (2016). The Art and Science of Leadership -Global Edition. Melbourne: Pearson.

Nardi, P. M. (2018). Doing survey research: A guide to quantitative methods. Routledge.

Neumerski, C. M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here? Educational administration quarterly, 49(2), 310-347.

Ng, D. F. S., Wong, B., & Choy, W. (2016). Instructional leadership in Singapore and East Asia.

Ng, I. S. P. (2016). Principals’ instructional leadership practices and their influence on key personnel in providing a positive school learning climate (Doctoral dissertation).

Nichols, A. L. (2016). What do people desire in their leaders? The effect of leadership experience on desired leadership traits. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(5), 658-671.

Bibliography 319

Nori, J. (2012). School improvement: The simple truth. Principal Leadership, 13(2), 63-64.

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice. California: Sage publications.

Northouse, P. G. (2017). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice. California: Sage Publications.

O’Brien, P., Goddard, R., & Keeffe, M. (2007, November). Burnout confirmed as a viable explanation for beginning teacher attrition. Paper presented at Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference (AARE), Fremantle, Western Australia.

Ogbonnaya, C., Daniels, K., Connolly, S., van Veldhoven, M. J., & Nielsen, K. (2016). Employees, managers and high performance work practices: A ‘win-win’ or the transformational leader’s exploitative approach to organizational performance. In N.M, Ashkanasy, R. J. Bennett & M.J. Martinko, (Eds) Understanding the high performance workplace: The line between motivation and abuse. New York: Routledge.

Ogbonnaya, C. N., & Nielsen, K. (2016). Transformational leadership, high performance work practices, and an effective organization. In 76th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management.

O'Leary, Z. (2004). The essential guide to doing research. Sage.

Orlando, J. (2014). Veteran teachers and technology: change fatigue and knowledge insecurity influence practice. Teachers and Teaching, 20(4), 427-439.

Orphanos, S., & Orr, M. T. (2014). Learning leadership matters: The influence of innovative school leadership preparation on teachers’ experiences and outcomes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(5), 680-700.

Osborne, S. (2016). Employee Engagement and Organizational Profitability (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).

Ost, B. (2014). How do teachers improve? The relative importance of specific and general human capital. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(2), 127-151.

Palestini, R. (2003). The human touch in education leadership: A postpositivist approach to understanding educational leadership. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Hershfeldt, P. A. (2012). Teacher-and school-level predictors of teacher efficacy and burnout: Identifying potential areas for support. Journal of school Psychology, 50(1), 129-145.

Pillay, H. K., Goddard, R., & Wilss, L. A. (2005). Well-being, burnout and competence: Implications for teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 30(2), 22-33.

320 Bibliography

Player, D., Youngs, P., Perrone, F., & Grogan, E. (2017). How principal leadership and person-job fit are associated with teacher mobility and attrition. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 330-339.

Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Soini, T., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). Reducing teacher burnout: A socio-contextual approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 62-72.

Podsen, I. J. (2002). Teacher Retention: What Is Your Weakest Link? Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.

Poplin, M. S. (1992). The Leader's New Role: Looking to the Growth of Teachers. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 10-11.

Price, H. E. (2012). Principal–teacher interactions: How affective relationships shape principal and teacher attitudes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 39-85.

Price, H. E., & Moolenaar, N. M. (2015). Principal-teacher relationships: foregrounding the international importance of principals’ social relationships for school learning climates. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), 8–39.

Priest, K. L., & Seemiller, C. (2018). Past experiences, present beliefs, future practices: Using narratives to re (present) leadership educator identity. Journal of Leadership Education, 17(1), 93-113.

Puni, A., Agyemang, C. B., & Asamoah, E. S. (2016). Leadership styles, employee turnover intentions and counterproductive work behaviours. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 5(1), 1–7.

Queensland College of Teachers (2013), Attrition of recent Queensland graduate teachers, Brisbane: Queensland College of Teachers.

Queensland Teachers’ Union (2016). Teachers' Journal, 121(6), 13

Quin, J., Deris, A., Bischoff, G., & Johnson, J. T. (2015). Comparison of Transformational leadership practices: Implications for school districts and principal preparation programs. Journal of Leadership Education, 14(3), 71-85.

Rawsthorne, L. J. (2001). An interdependence analysis of pro-organizational behaviour. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University of Rochester.

Reynolds, D., & Teddlie, C. (2000). The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research: London: Routledge Falmer.

Rhodes, C., Nevill, A., & Allan, J. (2004). Valuing and supporting teachers: A survey of teacher satisfaction, dissatisfaction, morale and retention in an English local education authority. Research in Education, 71(1), 67-80.

Rice, S. M. (2014). Working to maximise the effectiveness of a staffing mix: what holds more and less effective teachers in a school, and what drives them away? Educational review, 66(3), 311-329.

Rigby, J. G. (2014). Three logics of instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(4), 610-644.

Bibliography 321

Riley, P. (2014a). The complexities of school leadership: Many boundaries to cross. In Boundary-Spanning in Organizations: Network, Influence, and Conflict, edited by J. Kangan-Fox and C. L. Cooper. 185-205. London: Routledge.

Riley, P. (2014b). The Australian Principal occupational health, safety and wellbeing survey: 2011–2014 data. [Report]. Available at: http://www.principalhealth.org/au/2011-14%20Report_FINAL.pdf. Google Scholar

Riley, P. (2013). Attachment theory, teacher motivation & pastoral care: A challenge for teachers and academics. Pastoral Care in Education, 31(2), 112-129.

Ritchie, S. M., Tobin, K., Roth, W., & Carambo, C. (2007). Transforming an academy through the enactment of collective curriculum leadership. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(2), 151 – 175.

Rivers, M. J., & Truitt, T. (2014). A union representative's perspective of declining union membership. International Journal of Management, Economics and Social Sciences (IJMESS), 3(3), 125-143.

Robertson-Kraft, C., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). True grit: Trait-level perseverance and passion for long-term goals predicts effectiveness and retention among novice teachers. Teachers College record, 116(3).

Robinson, V. M. (2010). From instructional leadership to leadership capabilities: Empirical findings and methodological challenges. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(1), 1-26.

Rugg, L. J. M. (2005). Teacher satisfaction with principal transformational leader behavior. Published doctoral dissertation, West Lafayette: Purdue University.

Ryan, M., & Bourke, T. (2013). The teacher as reflexive professional: Making visible the excluded discourse in teacher standards. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 34(3), 411-423.

Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. California: Sage.

Sanford, K. (2017). The phenomenon of teacher burnout: Mitigating its influence on new teachers. (Master Thesis). Dominican University of California, California.

Savage, G. C. (2016). Who’s steering the ship? National curriculum reform and the re-shaping of Australian federalism. Journal of Education Policy, 31(6), 833-850.

Schein, E. H. (1965). Organisational psychology (1st ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Scott, J. A., & Halkias, D. (2016). Consensus processes fostering relational trust among stakeholder leaders in a middle school: A Multi-Case Study. International Leadership Journal, 8(3).

Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2013). Sociocultural theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory/

322 Bibliography

Seifert, M., Brockner, J., Bianchi, E. C., & Moon, H. (2016). How Workplace Fairness Affects Employee Commitment. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(2), 15.

Selamat, N., Nordin, N., & Adnan, A. A. (2013). Rekindle teacher's organizational commitment: the effect of transformational leadership behavior. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 566-574.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse: How is it different? Why is it important? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1982). Ten principles of quality leadership. Educational Leadership, 39(5), 330-336.

Shahnawaz, M.G., & Jafri, H. (2009). Psychological capital as predictors of organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35, 78-84.

Shatzer, R. H., Caldarella, P., Hallam, P. R., & Brown, B. L. (2014). Comparing the effects of instructional and transformational leadership on student achievement: Implications for practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 445-459.

Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behaviour. New York: Macmillan.

Simon, N. S., & Johnson, S. M. (2015). Teacher turnover in high-poverty schools: What we know and can do. Teachers College Record, 117(3), 1-36.

Singh, P., & Glasswell, K. (2016). Distributed Leadership Policies and Practices: Striving for Educational Equity in High Poverty Contexts. In Leadership in Diverse Learning Contexts (pp. 255-273). Springer, Cham.

Smeed, J. L., Kimber, M., Millwater, J., & Ehrich, L. C. (2009). Power over, with and through: Another look at micropolitics. Leading & Managing, 15(1), 26-41.

Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American educational research journal, 41(3), 681-714.

Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. The leadership quarterly, 16(3), 419-439.

Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributive leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143-150.

Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Burch, P., Hallett, T., Jita, L., & Zoltners, J. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16(5), 731-762.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.

Bibliography 323

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributive perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.

Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of educational research, 72(3), 387-431.

Stanley, L., Vandenberghe, C., Vandenberg, R., & Bentein, K. (2013). Commitment profiles and employee turnover. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(3), 176-187.

Starr, J. P. (2016). Leadership: Lead with transparency and integrity. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(2), 72-73.

Steffy, B. E., & Wolfe, M. P. (2001). A life-cycle model for career teachers. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 38(1), 16-19.

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: The Free Press.

Struyven, K., & Vanthournout, G. (2014). Teachers' exit decisions: An investigation into the reasons why newly qualified teachers fail to enter the teaching profession or why those who do enter do not continue teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 37-45.

Sun, J. (2004). Understanding the impact of perceived principal leadership style on teacher commitment. International Studies in Educational Administration, 32(2), 18-31.

Supeli, A., & Creed, P. A. (2016). The longitudinal relationship between protean career orientation and job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention-to-quit. Journal of Career Development, 43(1), 66-80.

Sukri, S., Asogan, P., & Waemustafa, W. (2015). Factor Influencing Job Involvement in Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP). Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(6 S4), 157.

Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the US. Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://learningpolicyinstitute. org/product/coming-crisis-teaching.

Szeto, E., & Cheng, A. Y. N. (2018). Principal–teacher interactions and teacher leadership development: Beginning teachers’ perspectives. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(3), 363-379.

Tan, O. S., & Liu, W. C. (2017). Championing the Teacher Factor. In Teacher Education in the 21st Century (pp. 33-43). Springer Singapore.

Teow, H. H., Au, W. C., & K Ahmed, P. (2016). A Discussion Paper: Gender Differences in Protean Career Orientation (PCO).

324 Bibliography

Terry, P. (1997, April). Teacher burnout: Is it real? Can we prevent it? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. Chicago, IL, April 8.

Thomas, G. (2017). How to Do Your Research Project: A Guide for Students. Sage: New York.

Thompson, G., & Mockler, N. (2016). Principals of audit: Testing, data and ‘implicated advocacy’. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 48(1), 1-18.

Thompson, N. (2015). People skills. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Thompson, T. (2016). Principal behavior and teacher perceptions: Cultivating a positive school climate. Philadelphia: Widener University.

Timperley, H. (2011). Knowledge and the leadership of learning. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(2), 145-170.

Townsend, L., & Wallace, C. (2016). Social media research: A guide to ethics. University of Aberdeen.

Triwahyuni, R., & Ekowati, V. M. (2017). The effect of employee satisfaction on employees performance through organizational commitment.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 217-247.

Tschopp, C., Grote, G., & Gerber, M. (2014). How career orientation shapes the job satisfaction–turnover intention link. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(2), 151-171.

Tsui, A. B. (2009). Distinctive qualities of expert teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 15(4), 421-439.

Tubin, D. (2017). Every teacher carries a leadership wand. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(2), 259-264.

Tye, B. B., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Why are experienced teachers leaving the profession? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 24-32.

Ullrich, A., Lambert, R. G., & McCarthy, C. J. (2012). Relationship of German elementary teachers' occupational experience, stress, and coping resources to burnout symptoms. International Journal of Stress Management, 19(4), 333.

Urick, A., & Bowers, A. J. (2014). What are the different types of principals across the United States? A latent class analysis of principal perception of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(1), 96-134.

Veldman, I., Admiraal, W., van Tartwijk, J., Mainhard, T., & Wubbels, T. (2016). Veteran teachers’ job satisfaction as a function of personal demands and resources in the relationships with their students. Teachers and Teaching, 22(8), 913-926.

Bibliography 325

Vennebo, K. F., & Ottensen, E. (2012). School leadership: Constitution and distribution, International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 15 (3), 255 – 270.

Viljoen, J. P., & Rothmann, S. (2009). Occupational stress, ill health and organisational commitment of employees at a university of technology. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 35(1), 67-77.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman (Eds). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wahyuni, D. U., Christiananta, B., & Eliyana, A. (2014). Influence of OrganizationalCommitment, Transactional Leadership, and Servant Leadership to the Work Motivation, Work Satisfaction and Work Performance of Teachers at Private Senior High Schools in Surabaya. Educational Research International, 3(2), 82-96.

Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group & Organization Studies, 15(4), 381-394.

Walker, A., & Hallinger, P. (2015). A synthesis of reviews of research on principal leadership in East Asia. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(4), 554-570.

Watlington, E., Shockley, R., Guglielmino, P., & Felsher, R. (2010). The high cost of leaving: An analysis of the cost of teacher turnover. Journal of Education Finance, 36(1), 22-37.

Ware, H. W., & Kitsantas, A. (2011). Predicting teacher commitment using principal and teacher efficacy variables: An HLM approach. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(3), 183-193.

Watson, L. (2005). Quality teaching and school leadership, Canberra: A scan of research findings. Teaching Australia, Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Canberra.

Watt H. M. G., & Richardson P. W. (2008a). Motivation for teaching. Learning and Instruction, 18(5), 405-407.

Weldon, P. R., & Ingvarson, L. (2016). School staff workload study: Final report to the Australian education union–Victorian branch. Retrieved from, http://research.acer.edu.au/tll_misc/27/ Google Scholar

Ylimaki, R., & Jacobson, S. (2013). School leadership practice and preparation: Comparative perspectives on organizational learning (OL), instructional leadership (IL) and culturally responsive practices (CRP). Journal of Educational Administration, 51(1), 6-23.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Yu, H. C., & Miller, P. (2005). Leadership style: The X Generation and Baby Boomers compared in different cultural contexts. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 35-50.

326 Bibliography

Yujing, P., & Shuming, Z. (2015). Study on Knowledge Workers' Calling, Career Commitment and Job Attitudes. Journal of Management, 2, 10.

Zabel, K. L., Biermeier-Hanson, B. B., Baltes, B. B., Early, B. J., & Shepard, A. (2017). Generational differences in work ethic: Fact or fiction? Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(3), 301-315.

Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2016). Qualitative analysis of content. Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science, 318.

Zopiatis, A., Constanti, P., & Theocharous, A. L. (2014). Job involvement, commitment, satisfaction and turnover: Evidence from hotel employees in Cyprus. Tourism Management, 41, 129-140

Zysberg, L., Orenshtein, C., Gimmon, E., & Robinson, R. (2017). Emotional intelligence, personality, stress, and burnout among educators. International Journal of Stress Management, 24(S1), 122.

Appendices 327

Appendices

Appendix A Initial mid-career teacher survey.

This survey aims to investigate mid-career teachers’ views about principal leadership practices, in particular the impact of principal leadership practices on mid-career teacher work commitment. A mid-career teacher is defined as a teacher who has been teaching for five years or longer and who is more than five years from retirement. Section 1: To preserve your anonymity, there is no need to write your name on this survey. Please circle or write responses that apply to you.

a) What is your gender? Male Female b) What is your age? < 25yrs 25-35yrs 35-45yrs >45yrs c) For how many years have you been teaching? ____________ d) What is your highest education level? Diploma Bachelor Post Graduate Masters Doctorate

Section 2: What leadership practices could a school principal enact that would help you improve your commitment to teaching? ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Please rate how important the following statements are to you in relation to your work commitment by circling one response to the right of each statement. Key: VI =Very Important I =Important N = Neither important or unimportant U = Unimportant VU = Very unimportant

How important to your work commitment are principals’ leadership practices in the

following areas:

1. Having interpersonal skills VI I N U VU 2. Possessing educational knowledge VI I N U VU 3. Displaying intellectual capacity for role VI I N U VU 4. Managing resources effectively VI I N U VU 5. Acting in an ethical manner VI I N U VU 6. Leading curriculum requirements VI I N U VU 7. Applying mandatory policies VI I N U VU 8. Creating partnerships VI I N U VU 9. Adhering to mandatory legislation VI I N U VU 10. Being trustworthy VI I N U VU 11. Possessing resilience in work practices VI I N U VU 12. Remaining composed in challenging situations VI I N U VU 13. Being emotionally mature VI I N U VU 14. Having curriculum knowledge VI I N U VU 15. Having pedagogical knowledge VI I N U VU 16. Being approachable to staff VI I N U VU 17. Having consistent interactions with all staff VI I N U VU 18. Valuing individual staff members VI I N U VU 19. Building relationships with staff VI I N U VU 20. Inspiring towards staff VI I N U VU 21. Developing shared leadership with staff VI I N U VU 22. Articulating a school vision VI I N U VU 23. Managing priorities VI I N U VU 24. Creating a culture committed to learning VI I N U VU 25. Generating solutions to problems VI I N U VU 26. Building relationships between staff VI I N U VU 27. Showing respect for staff VI I N U VU

328 Appendices

Appendix B Mid-career teachers’ views on principal leadership

practices

This survey aims to investigate mid-career teachers’ views about principal leadership practices, in particular the impact of principal leadership practices on mid-career teacher work commitment. A mid-career teacher is defined as a teacher who has been teaching for five years or longer and who is more than five years from retirement.

Section 1: To preserve your anonymity, there is no need to write your name on this survey. Please circle or write responses that apply to you. (Data will be used for statistical purposes only)

a) What is your gender? Male Female b) What is your age? < 25yrs 25-35yrs 35-45yrs >45yrs c) For how many years have you been teaching? ____________ d) What is your highest education level? Diploma Bachelor Post Graduate Masters

Doctorate

Section 2: What leadership practices could a school principal enact that would help you improve your commitment to teaching? ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Please rate how important the following statements are to you in relation to your work commitment by circling one response to the right of each statement.

Key: VU = Very Unimportant U = Unimportant N = Neither important nor unimportant I =Important VI =Very Important

How important to your work commitment are principals’ leadership practices in the following areas:

1. Having interpersonal skills VU U N I VI 2. Possessing educational knowledge VU U N I VI 3. Displaying intellectual capacity for role VU U N I VI 4. Managing resources effectively VU U N I VI 5. Acting in an ethical manner VU U N I VI 6. Leading curriculum requirements VU U N I VI 7. Applying mandatory policies VU U N I VI 8. Valuing individual staff members VU U N I VI 9. Adhering to mandatory legislation VU U N I VI 10. Being trustworthy VU U N I VI 11. Being approachable to staff VU U N I VI 12. Remaining composed in challenging

situations VU U N I VI

13. Having curriculum knowledge VU U N I VI 14. Being emotionally mature VU U N I VI 15. Having pedagogical knowledge VU U N I VI 16. Possessing resilience in work practices VU U N I VI 17. Having consistent interactions with all

staff VU U N I VI

18. Creating partnerships VU U N I VI 19. Building relationships with staff VU U N I VI 20. Inspiring towards staff VU U N I VI 21. Developing shared leadership with staff VU U N I VI 22. Articulating a school vision VU U N I VI 23. Managing priorities VU U N I VI 24. Creating a culture committed to learning VU U N I VI

Appendices 329

25. Generating solutions to problems VU U N I VI26. Building relationships between staff VU U N I VI

27. Showing respect for staff VU U N I VI 28. Providing support for your classroom work

VU U N I VI

29. Being supportive of personal/family needs

VU U N I VI

30. Valuing staff views VU U N I VI Section 3: From the above 30 items please circle the number next to five statements that you believe are the most important to your work commitment.

Thank you for your time

330 Appendices

Appendix C Mid-career teachers’ views on principal leadership

practices

As part of a research study I am looking to test the implementation of this survey to determine how practical and clear it is for teachers to undertake. To assist me in evaluating the effectiveness of this survey, I am inviting you to read the questions and indicate with a yes or no whether you understood each item and if you would be able to answer from your perspective. There is also a space for comments if you wish to comment on any question item. Please note I do not require you to do the survey – only indicate if each question is clear to you and answerable.



e) What is your gender? Male Female f) What is your age? < 25yrs 25-35yrs 35-45yrs >45yrs g) For how many years have you been teaching? ____________ h) What is your highest education level? Diploma Bachelor Post Graduate Masters

Doctorate



How important to your work commitment are principals’ leadership practices in the following areas: yes or no comments



13. Having curriculum knowledge VU U N I VI 14. Being emotionally mature VU U N I VI 15. Having pedagogical knowledge VU U N I VI

Appendices 331

16. Possessing resilience in work practices VU U N I VI 17. Having consistent interactions with all

staff VU U N I VI

18. Creating partnerships VU U N I VI 19. Building relationships with staff VU U N I VI 20. Inspiring towards staff VU U N I VI 21. Developing shared leadership with staff VU U N I VI 22. Articulating a school vision VU U N I VI 23. Managing priorities VU U N I VI 24. Creating a culture committed to learning VU U N I VI 25. Generating solutions to problems VU U N I VI 26. Building relationships between staff VU U N I VI

27. Showing respect for staff VU U N I VI 28. Providing support for your classroom work

VU U N I VI


VU U N I VI



Are there any additional leadership practices you would like added to this list to be asked about in relation to your work commitment? _____________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

332 Appendices

Appendix D Survey aligned to five leadership domains



i) What is your gender? Male Female j) What is your age? < 25yrs 25-35yrs 35-45yrs >45yrs k) For how many years have you been teaching? ____________ l) What is your highest education level? Diploma Bachelor Post Graduate Masters

Doctorate



How important to your work commitment are principals’ leadership practices in the following areas:



13. Having curriculum knowledge VU U N I VI 14. Being emotionally mature VU U N I VI 15. Having pedagogical knowledge VU U N I VI 16. Possessing resilience in work practices VU U N I VI 17. Having consistent interactions with all

staff VU U N I VI

18. Creating partnerships VU U N I VI 19. Building relationships with staff VU U N I VI 20. Inspiring towards staff VU U N I VI 21. Developing shared leadership with staff VU U N I VI 22. Articulating a school vision VU U N I VI 23. Managing priorities VU U N I VI 24. Creating a culture committed to learning VU U N I VI 25. Generating solutions to problems VU U N I VI 26. Building relationships between staff VU U N I VI

27. Showing respect for staff VU U N I VI

Appendices 333

28. Providing support for your classroom work

VU U N I VI


VU U N I VI



334 Appendices

Appendix E Schedule of interview questions

Former mid-career teachers

Researcher: Thank you very much for agreeing to be a part of this research and agreeing to be interviewed. I will just give you a bit of background information. The study is concerned with finding the perspectives of mid-career teachers and primary principals regarding the relationship between principal leadership practices and mid-career teacher’s commitment to the teaching profession. The study aims to take a broad look at the issue and is not concerned with details about individual teachers, principals or schools. Participation in this interview is entirely voluntary and you can elect not to answer a question or end the interview at any time. The interview will be audio recorded and if you inadvertently name an individual or a school, these identifying names will be removed from the final transcript. You will be given a copy of the transcript as soon as practical after the interview to give you an opportunity to check your responses and provide further input or delete any comments prior to final inclusion. The recordings will be destroyed after they have been transcribed ensuring no-one will be able to identify individuals who took part in the study. This study has ethics approval and consent from both QUT and Education Queensland. Do you have any questions? Researcher: Are happy to proceed with the interview and be part of the research project? Researcher: You have been invited to take part in this research interview because you are an ex mid-career teacher who has taught for more than five years in Education Qld? Can you confirm that this is correct? Researcher: How many years did you teach for as a teacher in EQ? Researcher: And you are no longer teaching and have moved on to different employment? Researcher: What reasons can you share for making your decision to leave the teaching profession?

Appendices 335

Appendix F Schedule of interview questions

Current school principals

Researcher: Thank you very much for your time. For some background: this study is concerned with finding the perspectives of mid-career teachers and primary principals regarding the relationship between principal leadership practices and mid-career teacher’s commitment to the teaching profession. The study aims to take a broad look at the issue and is not concerned with details about individual teachers, principals or schools. Participation in this interview is entirely voluntary and you can elect to not answer a question or end the interview at any time. This interview will be audio recorded and if you inadvertently name an individual or a school, these identifying names will be removed from the final transcript. You will be given a transcript as soon as practical after the interview to give you an opportunity to check your responses and provide further input prior to final inclusion. The recordings will then be destroyed after they have been transcribed. This study has ethics approval and consent from both QUT and Education Queensland. Do you have any questions about this background? R: Thank you. Are happy to proceed with this interview and take part in the research project? R: Thank you very much. For the sake of validity can I confirm that you a current Band 8, 9 or 10 primary principal, employed by Education Queensland in the South East Region. R: How long you have been a principal for? R: Thank you. Now I would like you to think back over your years as a principal, specifically to the mid-career teachers who you have had on staff – that is the teachers who have taught for more than 5 years and were not yet thinking of retiring – what have you done for these specific teachers, as a principal, to enhance the work commitment of these mid-career teachers and encourage them to remain in teaching. What has been the effectiveness of some of those practices you may have used?

336 Appendices

Appendix G Ethics Approval from Education Queensland

Appendices 337

338 Appendices

Appendix H Ethics Approval from Queensland University of

Technology

Appendices 339

Appendix I Participant consent for interviews

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Interview –

Determining leadership practices that impact on mid-career teachers’ commitment to the profession

QUT Ethics Approval Number 1300000364

RESEARCH TEAM Principal Researcher: Keith Graham, Doctor of Education student, QUT Associate Researcher:

DESCRIPTION This project is being undertaken as part of a Doctor of Education study for Keith GRAHAM. The purpose of this project is to investigate the impact of school principals’ leadership practices on teachers’ work commitment. You are invited to participate in this interview because you fall into one of the three groups: (a) Current primary state school principal, (b) An ex-teacher of at least 5 years’ experience, or

PARTICIPATION Your participation will involve an audio recorded interview at your school or a location of your choice that will take approximately 20 mins of your time. Questions will include Group 1 – 5 x Current school principals Q1 – What leadership practices do you believe a school principal can display to enhance mid-career teachers’ work commitment? Q2 – Research indicates that mid-career work commitment can be influenced by school principal leadership practices. What have you done in the past, as a principal, to enhance the work commitment of mid-career teachers? Comment on the effectiveness of your response in that situation. Group 2 – 5 x Ex-teachers who have recently left the profession Q1 – You have recently resigned from the teaching profession, what reasons can you share for making this decision? Q2 – Thinking back to your time as a teacher, what leadership practices could a school principal display to make you (and other teachers) more committed to their work? Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you do agree to participate you can withdraw from the project without comment or penalty. If you withdraw, on request any identifiable information already obtained from you will be destroyed. Your decision to participate or not participate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT or with Education Queensland. EXPECTED BENEFITS It is expected that this project will not directly benefit you. However, it may benefit school principals and Education Queensland in providing school leadership to mid-career teachers in relation to their perspectives on how leadership practices impact on their work commitment. RISKS For groups 1 and 3, there are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this project. For group 2 there are minimal risks associated with your participation in this project. These include

340 Appendices

anxiety or discomfort about recalling your resignation from teaching. To minimise these risks you can bring a support person to the interview, decide on what you wish to discuss and what you do not, and you can terminate the interview at any time. The interview will be held at a location of your choice. QUT provides limited free counselling for research participants of QUT projects who may experience discomfort or distress as a result of their participation in the research. Should you wish to access this service please contact the Clinic Receptionist of the QUT Psychology Clinic on 3138 0999. Please indicate to the receptionist that you are a research participant. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY All comments and responses will be treated confidentially unless required by law. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses. The audio recordings will be available to you immediately after the interview to give you the opportunity to verify your comments and responses prior to final inclusion. These recordings will be destroyed after they have been transcribed at the end of the project. The data from the audio recordings will be used for advancing leadership practices that may enhance teachers’ work commitment. This data will be published in a final thesis and may also be used in related publications. Any published data will be de-identified and only the researcher will have access to the original recordings. If you do not wish to be recorded it is possible to participate in an interview that will be transcribed by a third party throughout the discussion. Please note that non-identifiable data collected in this project may be used as comparative data in future projects or stored on an open access database for secondary analysis. CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE We would like to ask you to sign a written consent form (enclosed) to confirm your agreement to participate. QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT If have any questions or require further information please contact one of the research team members below.

Keith GRAHAM – Student Researcher (Doctor of Education) Faculty of Education

CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROJECT QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Unit on [+61 7] 3138 5123 or email [email protected]. The QUT Research Ethics Unit is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.

Thank you for helping with this research project. Please keep this sheet for your information.

Appendices 341

CONSENT FORM FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Interview –

Determining leadership practices that impact on mid-career teachers’ commitment to the profession: Mid-career teachers’ perspectives.


RESEARCH TEAM CONTACTS Keith GRAHAM – Student Researcher (Doctor of Education) Faculty of Education

STATEMENT OF CONSENT

By signing below, you are indicating that you: • Have read and understood the information document regarding this project. • Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction. • Understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team. • Understand that you are free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty. • Understand that you can contact the Research Ethics Unit on 3138 5123 or email

[email protected] if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project. • Understand that the project will include an audio recording. • Understand that non-identifiable data collected in this project may be used as comparative

data in future projects. • Agree to participate in the project.

Name

Signature

Date MEDIA RELEASE PROMOTIONS From time to time, we may like to promote our research to the general public through, for example, newspaper articles. Would you be willing to be contacted by QUT Media and Communications for possible inclusion in such stories? By ticking this box, it only means you are choosing to be contacted – you can still decide at the time not to be involved in any promotions.

Yes, you may contact me about inclusion in promotions. No, I do not wish to be contacted about inclusion in promotions.

Please return this sheet to the investigator.

342 Appendices

Appendix J Participant consent for surveys

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Survey –

Determining leadership practices that impact on mid-career teachers’ commitment to the profession: Mid-career teachers’ perspectives.


RESEARCH TEAM Principal Researcher: Keith Graham, Doctor of Education student, QUT Associate Researcher:

DESCRIPTION This project is being undertaken as part of a Doctor of Education study for Keith GRAHAM. The purpose of this project is to investigate mid-career teachers’ perspective of school principals’ leadership practices and how these practices impact on teachers’ work commitment. You are invited to participate in this project because you are a mid-career teacher and your valued opinion is specifically being sought for this research. PARTICIPATION Participation will involve completing a 30 item anonymous survey with Likert scale responses (very unimportant VU – very important VI) that will take approximately 20 mins of your time. Questions will include:

1. Having interpersonal skills VU U N I VI 2. Possessing educational knowledge VU U N I VI

Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. Your decision to participate or not participate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT or Education Queensland.The survey is anonymous and once it has been submitted it will not be possible to withdraw. EXPECTED BENEFITS It is expected that this project will not directly benefit you. However, it may benefit school principals and Education Queensland in providing school leadership to mid-career teachers in relation to how leadership practices impact on mid-career teachers’ work commitment. RISKS There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this project. Some may experience inconvenience in completing the survey. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY All comments and responses are anonymous and will be treated confidentially. The names of individuals are not required in any of the responses. Any data collected as part of this project will be stored securely as per QUT’s Management of research data policy. Please note that non-identifiable data collected in this project may be used as comparative data in future projects. CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

Appendices 343

The return of the completed survey is accepted as an indication of your consent to participate in this project. QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT If have any questions or require further information please contact one of the research team members below.

Keith GRAHAM – Student Researcher (Doctor of Education)Faculty of Education Associate Professor Peter Hudson – Senior Supervisor Faculty of Education Dr Jill Willis – Associate Supervisor Faculty of Education

CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROJECT QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Unit on [+61 7] 3138 5123 or email [email protected]. The QUT Research Ethics Unit is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.

Thank you for helping with this research project. Please keep this sheet for your information.

Documents

DETERMINING LEADERSHIP PRACTICES THAT IMPACT ON … · 1.1 chapter preview School principal leadership practices have been linked to teachers’ work commitment by researchers such