PEDAGOGIGAL OR TRANFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: AN

EXPERIENCIAL PERSPECTIVE

Anthony Gioko

Professional development Teacher

Facilitator Physics and Technology

Aga Khan Academy, Mombasa

Introduction

There is no single definition of leadership that represents my perspective of

which has been agreed upon however my interpretation from the definitions has

resulted to my understanding of viewing leadership as fluid and a responsibility which

is based on taking initiatives, motivating and influencing others on their beliefs and

practices. Among the three leadership theories based on traits, behavioral and

contingency I concur with contingency theory where leaders are made by followers

and leadership will depend on context and task. This is because in various tasks and

context I have experienced followership influencing the strength of the leader.

Leadership has taken a lot of form varying from different authors such as

Marzano, Walter and Mcnulty (2007) meta analysis has identify several leadership

styles with overlap characteristics. Consequently, similar theoretical models may

either be developed or interpreted by researchers working in isolation from each other

and with different agenda and priorities. These similarity and overlap in perspectives

sometimes makes it difficult to arrive at the differences in these theoretical models.

Hence, this paper is an attempt to draw upon two leadership styles and explore their

characteristics in terms of distinctions and implications to school improvement. These

are namely pedagogical (PL) and transformational leadership (TL). The paper further

provides a rationale for coming up with a preferable framework among the two

models.

Pedagogical, Transformational leadership: The Distinctions

The two leadership styles offer some prominent distinctions in the area of

formulation, focus and relations. In terms of formulation PL is derived from the word

pedagogue meaning historically a person leading a student in a school. On the other

hand TL was formulated as an improvement of the previous styles of transmission and

transaction. It is seen as a development of the previous styles for effective leadership.

PL is focused on capacity building, and the development of human potential in

relation to teaching and learning. For the student the focus is social (support for

learning) and academic capital (culture) while for the teacher it is Intellectual

(inquiry) and professional capital (collegiality). Furthermore, PL recognizes the

cultural and social aspects of what is learned and why it is learned. Webb, (2005)

points out that the emphasis on pedagogical leadership in school is becoming

enquiring communities. In contrast TL focuses on restructuring the school by

improving school conditions and providing individual support, intellectual stimulation

and personal vision. As Day, Harris, Hadfield Tolley and Beresford (2000) establish

that TL ensures that the systems are maintained and developed, targets are formulated

and met and school ran smoothly. In addition it is concerned with modeling best

practices and important organizational values, the continuous professional

development of teachers, shared decision making and leadership (Leithwood, Jaintzi

& Steinbach, 1999). Through this process change is brought about in the cultural

context in which people work and “capacity of an organization to continuously

improve is increased” (Leithwood et. al., 1999, p. 5). TL is about commitment and

capacity, and in organizations high level of commitment and capacity to achieve the

goal is very important, however there is a variation in the degree and distribution of

power amongst the various people in the school. Moreover it is broadly focused,

hence gives insufficient attention on pupil’s outcomes (Hopkins, 2003).

Contrary, in relations PL emphasizes social covenants maintained by “loyalty,

fidelity, kinship, sense of identity, obligation, duty responsibility and reciprocity”

(Sergiovanni, 1998; p 44). Rather, the social contracts maintained by the application

of incentives and penalties. It is premised on trust that heads and teachers “have both

the capacity and the need to sacrifice their self-interest for causes they believe in and

for conceptions or the common good that they value” (Sergiovanni, p 45). TL is

mainly about translation of cooperated and government policy into practice and not

individuals (though it may have benefits for some).

Despite the distinctions raised PL as proposed by Sergiovanni (1998) appears

particularly as a form of TL which could meet current concerns to improve pupil

learning not only in terms of achievement in literacy and numeracy but also in relation

to the broader curriculum, approaches to teaching catering for diverse learning styles

and pupil independent learning. Sergiovanni claims that pedagogical leadership

“develop human capital by helping schools become caring, focused and inquiring

2

communities (p. 37). Pedagogical leaders recognize that the learning of the students is

likely to reflect the learning opportunity of teachers.

Leadership style Implication to school improvement

There is a mixed position regarding linking school leadership with school

improvement. Leadership has been seen as an agent of creating conditions which

school reforms can succeed (Hargreaves, Earl, Moore & Manning 2001), as well as a

key aspect in improving students learning (Leithwood, Karen, Lous, Anderson and

Wahlston, 2004). However, Evans and Lakomski, (2000) consider leadership as a

misplaced pillar of organizational effectiveness. In addition, Hallinger and Heck

(1996) identify a paucity of evidence linking leadership at this level to improved

student outcomes. Despite this I consider leadership as a crucial element for school

improvement since research evidence has consistently reinforced the importance of

leadership in securing and sustaining improvement (e.g. Hopkins, 2001; Van Velzen,

Miles, Elholm, Hameyer & Robins, 1985). Furthermore, it is clearly argued by

Leithwood and Jaintzi (2000) that effective leaders exercise an indirect but powerful

influence on the effectiveness of the school and on the achievement of students. In

summary, the impact of leadership upon school effectiveness and school improvement

is significant (Wallace, 2002). The following are implication based on the particular

leadership styles.

Pedagogical Leadership

PL has impacted on the school improvement through its characteristic of

capacity building, mediating and enabling environment.

PL focus on capacity building has lead to sustenance of school improvement

as Fullan (2001b) Hopkins and Jackson (2002), Mitchell and Sackney (2000) links

sustenance to capacity building. Fullan (2001a) argues the Individual and collective

learning of its members are at the heart of organizational capacity. Hence the schools

develop intellectual capital by becoming inquiring communities. As the leadership

focuses on the individuals the reception of change initiatives will be higher hence

impacting on school improvement.

According to Southworth (2004) pedagogical leaders use mediating factors

such as on going workplace interaction, action planning, monitoring classroom

practice and evaluating and celebrating pupils achievement to bring about desired

3

improvements and promote staff professional development. Focus on the conditions

that support learning for and future students are a focus to change. Leadership, from

this perspective, resides in the human potential available to be released within an

organization. It is what Gronn (2000) terms “an emergent property of a group or

network of individuals in which group members pool their expertise” (p. 3). It

suggests a view of the school as a learning community chiefly concerned with

maximizing the achievement capacities of all those within the organization.

Pedagogical leaders concern are enabling the learning and intellectual growth

of the students it is predicated on informal teachers practice and reflection, teachers

empowerment to exercise professional responsibility and supportive judgments.

According Hopkins (2003) raising students achievement is through focusing the

teacher learning processes and condition that supports it. Intellectual capital is the

sum of what everyone in the school knows and shares that can help the school be

more effective in enhancing the learning and development of students. As the amount

of intellectual capital increases, the school capacity to add value to lives of students

increases. According to Sergiovanni (1998), the school gets smarter as a result (p. 39).

Transformational Leadership

TL has impacted on the school improvement through its characteristics of

empowering, culture change, moral purpose, vision building influencing condition

and broad focus.

The development and achievement of fundamental improvement in teaching

and learning cannot be achieved solely by the efforts of the Head Teacher but require

in addition enthusiasm , motivation and leadership displayed at different times and in

divers ways by all the staff. However argues Webb (2001) while delegated initiatives

can provide opportunities for teachers to be leaders, if there are to be experienced as

empowering rather than solely as an additional workload, it is vital that teachers want

to assume a leadership role and have the full support of head and other colleagues.

Transformational leaders allocate responsibility to those not informal leadership

position hence they are able to lead and to undertake task. Such an action will

accelerate change initiatives as the points of influence are dispersed among the staff.

The transformational nature of leadership has a potential of altering the

cultural context with which people work. School improvement is linked to the cultural

change. In TL the leaders interrogates current practices and policies that negates

4

affect the learning environment, teacher competence and student achievement

(Dantley & Tillman, in press). Hence they pursue change by espouse a philosophical

work towards creating and sustaining an environmental where teachers and students

excel. Fullan (2001a) claims that “the single factor common to every successful

change initiative is that relationships improve [and for this reason he considers that]

leader must be consummate relationship builders with diverse people and groups” (p

5). According to Fullan (2005) effective culture establishes more interactions in which

demanding process produce both good ideas and social cohesion. In such an

environment the teacher’s motivation and commitment may be impacted leading to a

kind of extra effort which is significant for organizational change. School

improvement will succeed when the focus is on strategies on culture and ethics in the

school.

Change of culture for the better has a focus on moral values and values laden

activities of leaders and how this are disclosed to other colleagues (Duignan &

Macpherson, 1992). The sense of moral purpose is fueled by a focus on value added

“expectations for all, raising capability, pulling together and an ongoing hunger for

improvement”. (Fullan 2001b, p. 59). The power of such leaders is used with or

through other people and not control over them. Leading to a transforming role where

the subject leaders and the teachers participate in shaping and defining school

direction. The concept suggests individual empowerment and dispersion of leadership

by virtue of leadership sharing and enabling the school vision.

School visions acts like a guide to direct the school to articulate the change

initiatives developed in the school for improvement. TL offers opportunity for

building and sharing of the vision (Busher & Saran, 1994) as commitment to agreed

goals, as intellectual stimulation, as consensus building inclusivity (Gunter, 2001).

This has contributed positively to teacher’s professional commitment and Job

satisfaction possibly also for retention. However according to Earley, Evans,

Collarbone, Gold and Halpin (2002) “there is no evidence to support that on its own

it bring about anything but modest improved consequences for pupil outcome (p. 80).

In contrast Leithwood and Jaintzi (2005) conclude that TL has significant indirect

effect on the student academic and school engagement program. I argue that the

significance will depend on the level of TL.

Furthermore TL has been found to influence attitude, effort and in role

performance including job satisfaction organizational commitment and organizational

5

citizenship behavior (Ngunia, Sleegersb & Denessenc, 2006). Educational change

foster change in beliefs and practices, TL will facilitate such in school improvement.

School improvement initiates benefits from TL as it draws attention to a

broader array of school and classroom condition that may need to be changed if

learning is to improve (Leithwood et al, 2004). TL according to Bass and Avolio,

(1994), argue that it motivates the subordinate to strive to satisfy their own higher

order needs. The motivational influence towards teacher in school may influence on

the take-up of change initiatives for school improvement since TL has “added on

Value’ (Selzer & Bass, 1990) leading to performance beyond expectation.

Rational for preferable model

From the two styles I will prefer a blend of the two. From the distinction of the

model it clearly comes out that the two models have some distinctions. The

implications established has outlined complimenting elements which are offered by

the two models. On the basis of such impacts to school improvement it will only be

efficient and more effective if both the models are blended and practiced. Furthermore

my mini research on leadership styles of a principal in a school revealed a multiple of

styles in varying frequency of application based on the tasks. This will ensure the

school environment is conducive to capacity building based on the cultural changes

developed by transformational leadership. Furthermore teachers and students under

such an environment will undergo pedagogical leadership which will further develop

socially, academically and intellectually, professionally respectively. However the

proportionate of the blending will determine the benefits, if the prevailing contextual

and human resource capacity is considered. The leader should be in a position to scan

the environment and respond accordingly. As the teachers and the student capacity are

built, there will be a need to respond to cultural change to match the situation.

Conclusion

The attempt to review the two leadership styles and their implications to

school improvement has highlighted the process of exploring leadership styles.

Educational leadership is aimed at realizing the set goal of provision of education to

the students through learning teachers and enriched curriculum. One of the factors

though still debatable is the leadership styles. Understanding the styles is crucial for

both the leaders and the followers as they both play a role in the style. The awareness

6

of the implications towards school improvement will influence the choice and

enhance specific practices for efficiency and effectiveness. In practice there is an

overlap among elements of leadership styles hence knowledge of the distinctions may

influence the dominance of a particular style with respect to person, task or context.

The review drew upon insights of the clarity between PL and TL hence shaping the

rationale for preferable framework.

7

References

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (Eds) (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness

through Transformational Leadership, Sage Publications, London.

Busher H & Saran R (1994) Towards a model of school leadership, Educational

Management and Administration, 22(1), 5± 13.

Dantley, M. E., & Tillman, L. C. (in press). Social justice and moral/transformative

leadership. In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for social justice:

Making it happen. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H. & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading schools

in times of change. Buckingham: Open University press.

Duignan P. A. & Macpherson R. J. S. (1992). Educative leadership: a practical theory

for new Administrators and managers, London: Falmer Press.

Earley, P., Evans, J., Collarbone, P., Gold, A. & Halpin, D. (2002) Establishing the

current state of school leadership in England (London, DfES).

Evans, C. & Lakomski, G. ( 2000). Doing educational administration. Amsterdam:

Pergarnon.

Fullan, M. (2001a) Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2001b). Leadership and sustainability. System thinkers in action .

Thousands Oarks: Kirwan.

Gronn, P. (2000) ‘Distributed Properties: A New Architecture for Leadership’,

Educational Management & Administration 28(3): 317–38.

Gunter, H. M. (2001) Leaders and leadership in education (London, Paul Chapman).Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. (1996) ‘Reassessing the Principal’s Role in School

Effectiveness: A Critical Review of Empirical Research 1980–1995’,

Educational

8

Hargreaves, A. Earl, l. Moore, S. & manning, M. (2001). Learning to change:

Teaching beyond subject standards. San Francisco. Jossey Bass.

Hopkins, D. (2001) School Improvement for Real. London: Falmer Press.

Hopkins, D. (2003). Instructional leadership and school improvement In R Glatter, M,

Preedy and C. Riches & M Masterton, Understanding School management.

Milton Keynes: Open University

Hopkins, D. and Jackson, D. (2002) ‘Building the Capacity for Leading and

Learning’, in A. Harris, C. Day, M. Hadfield, D. Hopkins, A. Hargreaves and

C. Chapman (eds) Effective Leadership for School Improvement. London:

Routledge, pp. 84–105.

Leithwood, K. and Jaintzi, D. (2005).

Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2000) ‘The Effects of Transformational Leadership on

Organisational Conditions and Student Engagement’, Journal of Educational

Administration 38(2): 112–29.

Leithwood, K. Jaintzi, D. & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing Leadership for changing

Times, Buckingham: Open University.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership

research 1996 to 2005. Paper presented at AERA, Montreal, April.

Leithwood, K., Karen, S., Louis, K, Anderson, S & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Learning

from Leadership Project How leadership influences student learning The

Wallace Foundation retrieved July 21, 2006, From

http:/wallacefoundation/WF/knowledgecentre/knoledgetopic/educational

%20ership/hoelesdershipinfluences student learning

Marzano, R. J., Walter, T., Mcnulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:

Research to results. Association for supervisors and curriculum developers:

California.

9

Mitchell, C. and Sackney, L. (2000) Profound Improvement: Building Capacity for a

Learning Community. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Ngunia S., Sleegersb, P., and Denessenc, E. (2006). Transformational and

Transactional Leadership Effects on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction,

Organizational Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in

Primary Schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School

Improvement 17, 2, 145 – 177.

Selzer, J. and Bass, B.M. (1990), “Transformational Leadership: Beyond Initiation

and Consideration”, Journal of Management, Vol. 16, pp. 693-703.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1998). Leadership as pedagogy, capacity development and school

effectiveness, International journal of leadership education. 191): 37-46

Southworth (2004)

Van Velzen, W., Miles, M., Elholm, M., Hameyer, U. and Robin, D. (1985) Making

School Improvement Work. Leuven: ACCO.

Wallace, M. (2002) ‘Modelling Distributed Leadership and Management

Effectiveness: Primary School Senior Management Teams in England and

Wales’, School Effectiveness and School Improvement 13(2): 163–86.

Webb, R. (2001). Delegation Burden or Empowerment. Education 3-13 , 30(3), 35-

41

Webb, R. (2005) leading teachers and learning in the primary school from educative

leadership to pedagogical leadership, Educational management administration

& leadership. 33(1) 69-91

10