Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Transformational leadership behaviors of school principals and vice principals may have a significant contributions to their professional commitments, including moral obligations to students and society at large. However, it is assumed that any discretion in instructional leadership activity may require substantial support from the existing administrative system and schools’ context. Inadequacy of indigenous literature in the related domain makes it difficult, either to define or to understand the phenomenon and related factors. The present preliminary study was planned and conducted to explore how far senior teachers in formal schools had been able to transform learning experiences of students and to effectively engage them in the learning process, including activities. Through an interview guide, authors engaged the selected respondents in conversation and understood through their perceptions and narratives that they are mostly engaged in transactional operations. As it has been perceived by them, the existing pattern of formal education is not adequately conducive for transformational leadership activities in schools.

Keywords

formal schooling transactional leadership transformational leadership deschooling unschooling qualitative research

Introduction

The complexities of leadership process as a phenomenon in corporate organizations have been well researched, but it is not adequately explored in educational institutions, especially in primary, secondary, and higher secondary schools in India. While in business organizations the discussions and commodification of leadership spread across different levels of organization structure (Northouse, 2016), in schools it is narrowly perceived as something associated with the position and role of principals (Poon-McBrayer, 2017; Sun & Henderson, 2017). The current situations driven by disruptive market and economic forces and volatility due to innovations and advancement in technologies have created adverse effects on the aspirations and professional skill sets of younger generations. It is estimated that about 37% of the Indian workforce is expected to work with a drastically different skill sets by 2022 (Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry & National Association of Software and Services Companies, 2017). The emerging trends bring in new hopes as well as fear of obsolescence among the new age professionals and job seekers. Not only the skill sets are going to be different, the competition as well will be tough for the millennial and future generations. The significant developments and perceived worries are continuously shaking the very basic existence and ambitions of higher educational institutions. It is evident that there are uncertainties in jobs and livelihoods due to irreversible changes in occupations and nature of job profiles. How would we face and overcome such uncertainties? Do we still believe that only higher educational institutions have to address such issues? Does not it equally require a transformative learning culture in primary and secondary schools? How could we overcome such uncertainties without building high-capacity teachers in schools, developing leaderships to transform learning environments, an empowering school culture and a learning eco-system? There are many similar questions need to be answered. Building an effective and transformational educational leadership in primary and secondary schools is an indispensable requirement, not only to survive the current uncertainties but also to make education relevant to emerging scenarios and challenges.

The aim of the present study is not to find fault within the existing education system but to understand the leadership perspectives through perceptions and living experiences of the senior teachers, especially the principals/vice principals, working in private secondary schools in Mumbai.

Literature Review

The literature review is expected to serve dual purposes. First, to explore the contexts and perspectives of leadership already have been studied in schools and then to understand the research gaps to justify the scope for an empirical study in the domain. The review at this stage is to draw insights to initiate a qualitative study to develop deeper understanding about the phenomenon, that is, scope of transformational leadership in schools, and then formulating hypotheses for further study. The related literature on transformational leadership behavior has been reviewed in the following paragraphs.

Sahar Beg, a 15 year old, was not happy with the formal school, and therefore, she decided to quit and pursue her educational dream through “unschooling” life (Beg, 2018). According to Badhwar (2018), the mainstream schools are not student-centric and they operate through corporate type of structure, which otherwise forces the teachers to maintain status quo. Are the mainstream formal schools losing their relevance? It is difficult to get any concrete answer of such question. However, a few alternative models of learning, such as “home-schooling,” “unschooling,” and “self-directed learning centres,” are posing challenges to traditional education models and their leadership styles (Chhibber, 2018).

According to Kurland, Peretz, and Hertz-Lazarowitz, (2010); Sammons, Gu, Day, and Ko (2011); and York-Barr and Duke (2004), studies on leadership theories in school settings have been very limited. According to York-Barr and Duke (2004), studies in schools mostly have concentrated on examining the relationship between the leadership behavior of school principals and the enhancement of organizational performance. However, no insight has been shared through the study findings about the scope of leadership behaviors on the performance of other teachers and students’ learning in schools.

An analysis by Barnett, McCormick, and Conners (2001) reveals that while teachers’ transformational leadership behavior is associated with their job satisfaction, it has significant negative association with student learning culture. Scholars like Bass (1985, 1990); Mackenzie, Podsakoff, and Rich (2001); Piccolo and Colquitt (2006); Omar, Zainal, Omar, and Khairudin (2009); and Zabihi and Hashemzehi (2012) have carried out studies to understand the effectiveness of transformational and transactional leadership behavior in schools. They observed that transformational leadership behaviors had greater impact on subordinates’ behavior but there had been no substantial evidence available about how far such behavior impacts the learning and life of students in schools.

In a survey with 638 teachers in 58 schools in Newfoundland and Labrador, Bruce (1996) compared transformational leadership styles with instructional behavior of school principals and found a significant relation between them. In another study with 1,762 teachers and 9,941 students, Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) found a moderate but significant effect of teachers’ transformational leadership practices on student engagement. Again they (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006) conducted another study in 12 schools and found that the concept of transformational leadership is associated with the concept of “collaborative school culture.” Further the scholars (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2007) reviewed 32 empirical studies on “transformational school leadership” and found significant but indirect effects of transformational leadership on students’ achievement and engagement. However, Currie et al. (2005) in their study in secondary schools in England observed that ‘principals sidestep policy prescriptions to enact a contingent approach to leadership that takes account of their school’s context.’ Perhaps, the available evidences indicate that practice of transformational leadership by teachers is possible, provided they have adequate willingness along with supportive policy framework and context.

In a meta-analyses, Wang, Oh, Courtright, Amy, and Colbert (2011) concluded that true leaders are those who exhibit both transactional and transformational leadership behaviors. But findings in the above studies could not either provide any narrative or empirical interpretation about the relative strength of the two different leadership behaviors to bring effective changes in organizations, especially schools. A further review leads us to more ambiguous situation, when Dai, Dai, Chen, and Wu (2013) claim that neither transactional nor transformational leadership directly affects the organizational behavior. Such ambiguity may require more qualitative research initiatives to understand the ground realities before going for hypothesis formulation and empirical analysis.

Devlin and Samarawickrema (2010) identified that criteria of effective teaching in a higher educational context are similar to dimensions of effective leadership. If so, then it raises a moot question—does effective leadership mean only effective teaching? If no, then what additional attributes are required to construct the role of an effective teacher-leader? Such questions hardly find any answer in the research paper.

Should we consider educational leadership only to measure institutes’ achievements in terms of pass-fail statistics? Should not the leadership-performance at schools be measured in terms of how far it is effective to transform the life of students? L. M. Richardson’s (2003) research paper mentions that teachers participate in school leadership to contribute to create a learning environment. They have been found to be competent, but there is no mention about their specific competencies and contributions. Moreover, the context of the study was related to business schools and not primary or secondary schools.

Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber (2009) in their study concluded that leadership had been a complex and emergent process and that was distributed and shared in organizations. They advocated for mixed methods and the context of the study was related to business establishments. It was hardly possible to draw any inference about how far their findings could help us to understand the relationship between leadership behavior of teachers in schools and their possible outcomes.

Barling, Slater, and Kelloway (2000) conducted an exploratory study of transformational leadership and emotional intelligence and found that emotional intelligence is associated with transformational leadership attributes, specifically idealized influence, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration and contingent reward. The study reveals that the individuals with higher emotional intelligence displayed more transformational leadership behaviors leading to better learning of the students. If so, the findings may be taken as imperatives to bring qualitative changes in the teachers’ recruitment policies or strategies by schools. It may indicate that perhaps emotional intelligence is more important than formal educational qualification and subject knowledge to qualify someone as a teacher in a school. There are no similar studies available to provide any lead in that regard.

Bowman (2004) has revealed through his study that students often challenge the traditional role of teachers in classrooms and he attributed such phenomenon to teachers’ control on decision making in class. However, Bowman (2004) has not yet made any observation about whether such control behavior is similar to autocratic style of leadership. Findings of the study do not directly provide any insight about what would be a teacher’s appropriate leadership style in classroom to fulfill compelling student needs, their expectations, and learning ambitions.

In another study, York-Barr and Duke (2004) established a relationship between teachers’ level of instructional performance and his or her classroom leadership behavior. The researchers (York-Barr & Duke, 2004) have attributed the instructional performance to “classroom leadership style” of a teacher. Unless there is enough evidence about other possible and effective attributes of a teacher to be qualified as a transformational leader, it could be difficult to define the scope of “teachers” transformational leadership behavior beyond classrooms. Hence, instead of taking the findings as conclusive statements, it would be justified to go for further research to identify the other attributes of a transformational leader in schools and its scope beyond classrooms.

Hunter, Boyle, and Warden (2007) contented that most of the research studies on leadership styles have been conducted in the realm of “manager-subordinate” relationship and with assumptions that either managers or leaders exercise their leadership role primarily for the advancement of business purposes. Is it possible to apply similar inferences or assumptions to understand and conceptualize “leadership behaviour of teachers in schools” where teacher–student relationship may not fit into the manager–subordinate relationship? Should we consider students as subordinates to teachers in school settings?

It has been observed that although it is small, the number of unschoolers is growing (Chhibber, 2018). If the phenomenon attains prominence, then it may substantially impact the formal school education system and its leadership. It may demand more leaning space and autonomy for the children, both in formal establishments and outside. From the available evidences on related studies in schools, it is difficult to understand about what type of leadership styles or practices are exactly being followed in schools in India, especially in Mumbai region.

While Stentz, Clark, and Matkin (2012) in their paper concluded that quantitative approach is the most utilized approach in the field of leadership studies by leadership researchers, and it has also been observed that some of the scholars have advocated for mixed methods for drawing better insights and understanding about the phenomenon of “leadership behaviour” in schools. With a preliminary approach, the present study attempts to understand the leadership styles of senior teachers in schools more through qualitative perspectives with limited descriptive statistics. The authors, through this attempt, do not claim to make any substantial contribution to fill the gaps in the existing literature but to explore opportunities for further and continuous research endeavors in the domain.

Objective

The present study has been a preliminary and exploratory study to understand leadership styles of secondary school principals and vice/deputy principals through their beliefs, views, and perceptions. The understanding through the conversations with the respondents is expected to help in conceptualization and planning for further advanced research studies in the subject or domain.

Approach

Initially, the purpose of the study was communicated to some selected private secondary schools in Mumbai and received approval from most of them. Then, the principals/vice principals of those schools were contacted to conduct the interviews. As an approach, a combination of exploratory and qualitative research methods was used. An interview guide was prepared and used. Through the interview guide, the authors first tried to engage every individual respondent in discussion on a few teaching–learning approaches, such as “Constructivism,” ‘Hierarchical–Individual “Hierarchical–Collective,” “Distributed–Individual,” and “Distributed–Collective.” Each of the approaches was narrated to the respondents, and then, they were requested to express their opinion on each approach. The views of respondents were recorded and analyzed to draw inferences.

Also, the interview guide includes a “Likert-type” type ratio scale to measure the perception of teachers about their leadership style and to conduct or facilitate learning sessions for their students. The 10 criterion variables (items) used by Robert and Beverly (2000) to determine transformational leadership among local government officials in England and Wales were adapted to prepare the instrument to understand the respondents “agreeableness” against each item on a 5-point scale. Within the limited scope of this study, efforts have been made to construct the items, so that they are consistent with the concepts of transformational leadership that emerge through the work of Robert and Beverly (2000). Also, while conducting interviews, a naturalistic approach was followed through remaining sensitive to the surrounding situations and context (Stake, 1995). The respondents had been pursued to continue their daily professional cores while engaged in the interview process and conversation.

The sample size was limited to 15 and samples were drawn from eight different secondary schools, affiliated either to Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) or Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) boards in India. Convenient sampling technique was used to draw samples from selected institutions.

After the completion of interviews, the obtained data were processed and analyzed. The confidentiality and anonymity of the respondents were ensured throughout the study and later. The following definitions of approaches were narrated to the respondents during interview.

Constructivism

It is a learning or meaning-making theory, which maintains that individuals create or construct their own new understanding or knowledge through the interaction of what they already know and believe and the ideas, events, and activities with which they come in contact (Cannella & Reiff, 1994; V. Richardson, 1997). In this approach, students’ learning is characterized by active engagement, inquiry, problem-solving, and collaboration with others. Here, the teacher is a guide and he or she encourages learners to question, challenge, and formulate their own ideas and opinions, and the teacher never emphasizes correct answer or single interpretation (Abdal-Haqq, 1998).

Hierarchical–Individual Approach

An organized age-grade structure, where teachers deliver knowledge through a structure or pattern, which is common to all the students in a class, and schools consider learning as students’ responsibility. This approach believes that its society’s collective decision about what should be taught in a particular subject to a particular class of students or age group (Elmore, 2000).

Hierarchical–Collective Approach

This approach tends to define learning as more a communal activity and less an individual and competitive activity. It may be referred as a progressive version of hierarchical–individual approach, and ideally, this approach is synonymous to community school. The purpose here is to develop civic consciousness and a favorable attitude toward collective living and mutual coexistence (Elmore, 2000).

Distributed–Individual Approach

This approach tends to believe that individuals learn for their own benefits, to develop knowledge and skills as they want. The guiding principle here is that learning is an inherent biological imperative and people never stop learning and that sources for learning are broadly distributed throughout society, including but not limited to formal educational institutions (Elmore, 2000).

Distributed–Collective Approach

Students, through this approach, shall learn what is of interest to them and to members of their learning network. They are engaged in learning by taking both learning and teaching roles and join different networks and communities. Success in learning for them is determined by the learning community and its members and is based on communal interests and priorities (Elmore, 2000).

Results and Discussion

No attempt was made to identify the respondents on the basis of their age, gender, race, religion, or other socioeconomic parameters. The attention of researchers was more on observing and understanding the respondents’ perceptions about their leadership styles among the learners in their respective institutions. However, before initiating the discussion on their leadership styles, it is essential to understand their brief professional profile, which is presented in the following.

The respondents (n = 15) comprised principals (60%) and vice principals (40%). The majority (53%) of respondents are very senior with more than 20 years of total teaching experience and the remaining (47%) have around 20 years or less teaching experience. Among the respondents, a larger majority (about 73%) have been serving on their current roles/positions for last 10 years or less, and about 27% have completed a span of 11 to 20 years.

National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) has clearly specified the minimum qualifications for teachers in 2001, and as per the mandate under the NCTE Act and also under the Right to Education (RTE) Act, BEd is mandatory for teachers serving in Indian schools (“BEd Compulsory for Teachers,” 2011). However, through observation (Table 1), it is understood that a larger majority (about 73%) of the respondents do not possess the mandatory qualification (BEd). Also, there is hearsay that BEd is not compulsory for any MTech qualified candidate to pursue teaching as a career in private schools in India. The scholars here have no intention either to make any critical views on BEd as mandatory qualification or to test a hypothesis to ascertain whether there is any significant relationship between teachers’ leadership styles and BEd qualification. Similarly, “gender” may sometime play a decisive role in determining leadership styles (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995; Rosener, 1990; Sparrow & Rigg, 1993), but that has not yet been included as a variable in the study. Nevertheless, the related issues may well be incorporated in further research attempts, and noninclusion of such issues in the present study may be considered as limitations.

Table 1.

Respondents’ Roles/Positions, Total Years of Teaching Experience, No. of Years on Current Roles/Positions, and BEd Qualification (n = 15).

	Frequency	%
Roles/positions
Principal	09	60.00
Vice principal	06	40.00
Total years of teaching experience
Up to 10 years	03	20.00
11-20 years	04	26.66
21-30 years	06	40.00
31-40 years	02	13.33
No. of years serving on current roles/positions
Up to 5 years	04	26.66
6-10 years	07	46.66
11-15 years	02	13.33
16-20 years	02	13.33
BEd qualified respondents
With BEd	04	26.66
Without BEd	11	73.33

Here, the main purpose was to understand the mind set of respondents through their perceptions of different learning approaches and then to retrieve their performing leadership styles in their respective job contexts. Hence, instead of using an investigative interview process, a more grounded theory (Martin & Turner, 1986; Turner, 1983) approach was adopted to explore the leadership styles of senior teachers. The observations are as follows (Table 2).

Table 2.

Respondents’ Views on Different Learning Approaches and Their Use in Schools.

Learning approach	Respondents are aware or believe in approach	Respondents are not aware or do not believe in approach	Respondents practice/hopeful to use the approach
Constructivism	73.33% (n = 15)	27% (n = 15)	27% (n = 15)
Hierarchical–Individual	87% (n = 15)	13% (n = 15)	100%
Hierarchical–Collective	20% (n = 15)	80% (n = 15)	60% (n = 15) using it partially
Distributed–Individual	25% (n = 15)	80% (n = 15)	25% (n = 15)
Distributed–Collective	80% (n = 15) favored the idea but not for school children/students	All (100%) were very sensitive to use “virtual network” for learning purpose in schools	None

Respondents’ Views and Perceptions About Constructivism

Out of 15 respondents, 11 (73.33%) believe that the approach is effective for cognitive development of the children, but according to them, it is “hardly possible” to follow such approach in existing frame of formal education system. Only, about 27% (n = 11) are hopeful to pursue such approach through parent–teacher collaboration and that too through “homework.” What could be the design of such “homework” assignments? None could confidently respond to the question. Those who did not believe (27%, n = 15) the approach defended their stand by citing following reasons: (a) “paying individual attention would never be possible” in a class with more than 15 to 20 students, (b) “standard delivery system” does not create such scope, and (c) “teachers are over-loaded with additional assignments.”

Respondents’ Views and Perceptions About Hierarchical–Individual Approach

As observed through individual interview sessions with the respondents, there has been a “unanimous endorsement” of this approach by all the respondents. In fact, the respondents perceived this approach as more “comfortable” than “constructivism.” According to 13 (about 87%) out of 15 respondents, believe that this approach fits well with an education system, where teaching–learning situations are guided and controlled by “weekly routines,” “academic calendar,” and “standard evaluation criteria.” The remaining two (13%) respondents expressed discomfort with the existing system but could not provide any alternative; 60% (n = 15) respondents believe that this approach may be effective, if the students of a particular class is divided into sections based on their “ability to learn,” “level of intelligence,” and “level of interests in a particular subject.” Whether such beliefs are really progressive? Are these beliefs or perceptions acceptable to create an inclusive education system? Whether such mind-sets can build transformational leadership attributes among the teachers? The observations may lead us to many such research questions to probe further.

Respondents’ Views and Perceptions About Hierarchical–Collective Approach

The interview process and discussion on this approach were started with the mention of “Socratic Seminar.” Twelve, out of 15 respondents, said that they never knew about it, and among those 12, 11 were not BEd qualified. Among 4 BEd qualified respondents, only 3 were aware about “Socratic Seminar.” Later, to proceed with the discussion, the authors narrated the process of conducting “Socratic Seminar” to the respondents, to observe their views about the utility of this approach in schools. More than half (60%, n = 15) of the respondents claimed that sometimes similar techniques were used in class, but the scope was limited to enriching students’ knowledge in any subject. While the higher goal of this approach, such as “developing civic consciousness and building awareness about social norms and values among the students,” was narrated to the respondents, they mostly identified activities or events like “annual cultural fest” and “annual sports day.” However, their views and explanations could not justify well the purpose of this approach, that is, “less concern for individual and competitive activity and more emphasis on community living and mutual understanding.” The inputs received here, in the form of respondents’ views and perspectives, do not succinctly establish any progressive leadership styles of respondents. Although we cannot ignore that there are potentials among the respondents to emerge as transformative leaders, yet opportunities are to be created through policy changes and building effective collaboration between schools and civil society.

Respondents’ Views and Perceptions About Distributed–Individual Approach

This approach is based an assumption that individuals are natural learners and they generally do not require any guidance through hierarchical learning system. Here, it was observed that most (80%) of the respondents were conservative about “digital learning” and “self-learning space.” They perceive that such opportunity may not be suitable for younger people as they lack maturity to distinguish between “useful” and “harmful” contents. About 75% (n = 15) believe that schools cannot contest against the formal education system, which is governed by command and control principles; 25% of respondents are of opinion that even in formal education system, the students must be given a considerable space to develop knowledge and skills as they want. Whether the absence of adequate self-learning space for children and lack of transformative leadership attributes among teachers in contemporary schools are the main reasons behind emergence of “unschooling” or “home-schooling” or “deschooling” (Holt, 1967; Illich, 1971) trends in India? The question was not well received by majority (75%, n = 15) of the respondents.

Respondents’ Views and Perceptions About Distributed–Collective Approach

This approach assumes that students can learn outside formal education system and hierarchies, by creating networks of common learning interests. Individually, the respondents never contested the idea, but were not sure if such practices would be feasible for school students in India. Majority (80%, n = 15) favored the approach for higher age groups, that is, learners in undergraduate, postgraduate, or higher studies. Very particularly, the respondents were sensitive to “virtual networks” and they were very conservative to allow such practices in schools.

“The mainstream schools can pretend to want the right thing, but they have neither the intent nor the wherewithal to place the individual child at centre of educational practice” (Badhwar, 2018). She (Badhwar, 2018) observes that traditional or formal schooling inculcates fear and damages the self-esteem of students. The conversation with the respondents in the study does not reveal any potential fact, which may generate confidence among their external stakeholders about the hope for “transformational leadership” practices by teachers in formal schools. It has been evident that the existing hierarchical learning environment in schools rely more on “conformity,” “obedience,” and “control” mechanisms than leaping forward to make the system more “adaptive,” “accommodative,” and “empowering” to transform “learning experience” of the students. We know that other than “leadership styles,” there are many other factors or variables, which directly or indirectly impact the education system and its outcomes, but we cannot undermine the role of leadership in transforming the future of education and learning.

The interview was continued further and the respondents were given a 10-item adapted scale (Robert & Beverly, 2000) to map their agreeableness on each item. The findings are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Respondents’ Agreeableness on Individual Scale Items.

	Statements	Degree of agreeableness
S. No.		SA	A	N	D	SD
1	It is not always possible to show genuine concern for students’ development	6.7%	40%	13.3%	40%	—
2	A teacher should not be politically sensitive to others and they do not require political skills	13.3%	33.3%	13.3%	33.3%	6.7%
3	A person cannot be a teacher if he or she does not have decisiveness, determination, and self-confidence	66.7%	33.3%	—	—	—
4	Having knowledge is more important than teachers’ self-confidence	—	6.7%	33.3%	60%	—
5	Individual performance is more important than maintaining integrity	—	6.7%	33.3%	60%	—
6	Being trustworthy and honest shall not be essential quality of a teacher	—	20%	20%	60%	—
7	Schools shall not held teachers responsible for empowering and developing students’ potential beyond formal education	—	13.3%	—	33.3%	53.3%
8	Due to academic assignments and workload teachers are not always accessible and approachable	13.3%	—	13.3%	33.3%	40%
9	It is not practically feasible to involve students and their parents in school decision making process	20%	46.7%	—	20%	13.3%
10	The conventional teaching methods do not allow teachers to encourage critical and strategic thinking among students	40%	20%	20%	—	20%

Note. SA = strongly agree; A = agree; N = neutral; D = disagree; SD = strongly disagree.

The data presented in Table 3 do not adequately qualify the respondents as “transformative leaders.” There is hardly any coherence in respondents’ positions or views on Items 8 and 9, Items 2 and 3, and Items 7 and 10. Respondents’ contradictory positions on the scale items may not adequately contribute to their wisdom to emerge as transformative leaders in schools. However, considering the sample size and limited number of scale items, it is difficult to ascertain the leadership styles of the respondents.

Conclusion

When we compare the findings from conversations with the respondents about different teaching–learning approaches, and their positions on different scale items, we do not find any consistency in respondents’ beliefs, perceptions, and potential actions. Here in this study, the items constructed may not be exhaustive enough to ascertain the “leadership styles” of the respondents. Also, the items adapted in this study for the scale have been sourced from literature related to leadership issues in noneducational settings. Their adaptations and constructions for further research may demand more exploratory and mixed-method approaches, not only to contextualize the items to Indian educational settings but also to check their reliability and validity for empirical analysis. The present attempt definitely may not lead us to any generalization about “leadership styles” of the senior teachers, but it may lead us to assume that perhaps in most of the Indian formal schools, the senior teachers are maintaining their status quo, more as “transactional leaders” and less as “transformations leaders.”

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Indrajit Goswami

Author Biographies

Seema Saini,a passionate educationist with 26 years of experience in school and higher education. She is a B’Ed and MA (Economics) from Mumbai University and obtained MHRD degree from Xavier University,USA. She is an invited speaker to different national and international events. Currently pursuing her doctoral study from Mumbai University,India.

Indrajit Goswami,an academician and researcher with 24 years of experience. Published more than 40 research articles including in Emerald and SCOPUS journals. He is serving as member of editorial board and reviewer of many reputed journals.

References

Abdal-Haqq

(1998). Constructivism in teacher education: Considerations for those who would link practice to theory (ERIC Digest). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.

Alimo-Metcalfe

(1995). An investigation of female and male constructs of leadership and empowerment. Women in Management Review, 10, 3-8.

Avolio

Walumbwa

Weber

T. J.

(2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. (University of Nebraska–Lincoln Management Department Faculty Publications, Paper 37). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/37

Badhwar

(2018, September). To trust children, we must first learn to trust ourselves. Mint, Cover Story, Mumbai, pp. 12, 26.

Barling

Slater

Kelloway

E. K.

(2000). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: An exploratory study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21, 157-161.

Barnett

McCormick

Conners

(2001). Transformational leadership in schools—Panacea, placebo or problem? Journal of Educational Administration, 39, 24-46.

Bass

B. M.

(1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass

B. M.

(1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York, NY: Free Press.

BEd compulsory for teachers. (2011, July 11). The Times of India. Retrieved from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home

10.

Beg

(2018). School forced me to put parts of myself inside a box. Mint, 12(234), 9.

11.

Bowman

R. F.

(2004). Teachers as leaders. The Clearing House, 77, 187-189.

12.

Bruce

(1996). Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 42, 325-344.

13.

Cannella

G. S.

Reiff

J. C.

(1994). Individual constructivist teacher education: Teachers as empowered learners. Teacher Education Quarterly, 21(3), 27-38.

14.

Chhibber

(2018, September 29). School’s out, published in. Mint, Cover Story, Mumbai.

15.

Currie

Boyett

Suhomlinova

(2005). Transformational leadership within secondary schools in England. A Panacea for organizational ills? Public Administration, 83(2), 265-296. doi:10.1111/j.oo33-3298.2005.00450.x

16.

Dai

Y. D.

Dai

Y. Y.

Chen

K. Y.

H. C.

(2013). Transformational vs transactional leadership: Which is better? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25, 760-778. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-Dec-2011-0223

17.

Devlin

Samarawickrema

(2010). The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education context. Higher Education Research & Development, 29, 111-124.

18.

Elmore

(2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.

19.

Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry & National Association of Software and Services Companies. (2017, September 15). By 2022, 37% of Indian workforce would be in jobs demanding radically different skill sets: A report. Retrieved from http://ficci.in/pressrelease-page.asp?nid=2874

20.

Holt

(1967). How children learn. New York, NY: Perseus Books.

21.

Hunter

S. C.

Boyle

Warden

(2007). Perceptions and correlates of peer-victimization and bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 797-810. doi:10.1348/000709906X171046

22.

Illich

(1971). Deschooling society. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

23.

Kurland

Peretz

Hertz-Lazarowitz

(2010). Leadership style and organizational learning: The mediate effect of school vision. Journal of Educational Administration, 48, 7-30.

24.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 112-129.

25.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2006). Transformational leadership: How principals can help reform school cultures. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 1, 249-280.

26.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2007). A review of transformational school leadership research 1996-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 177-199.

27.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Rich

G. A.

(2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29, 115. doi:10.1177/03079459994506

28.

Martin

P. Y.

Turner

B. A.

(1986). Grounded theory and organizational research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22, 141-157.

29.

Northouse

P. G.

(2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). New Delhi, India: Sage.

30.

Omar

Zainal

Omar

Khairudin

(2009). The influence of leadership behavior on organizational citizenship behavior in self-managed work teams in Malaysia. South African Journal of Human Resource Management, 7, 1-11. doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v7i1.209

31.

Piccolo

R. F.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327-340.

32.

Poon-McBrayer

K. F.

(2017). Contextualizing the participation and challenges in education for all: The case of Guam and Hong Kong. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 13, 63-80.

33.

Richardson

L. M.

(2003). Helping teachers participate competently in school leadership. The Clearing House, 76, 202-205.

34.

Richardson

(1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. In Richardson

(Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building new understandings (pp. 3-14). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

35.

Robert

J. Alban-Metcalfe

Beverly

Alimo-Metcalfe

. (2000). The Transformational Questionnaire (TLQ-LGV): A Convergent and discriminant validation study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(6), 280-296. doi:10.1108/01437730010343077

36.

Rosener

(1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68, 119-225.

37.

Sammons

Day

(2011). Exploring the impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes: Results from a study of academically improved and effective schools in England. International Journal of Educational Management, 25, 83-101.

38.

Sparrow

Rigg

(1993). Job analysis: Selecting for the masculine approach to management. Selection & Development Review, 9, 5-8.

39.

Stake

R. E.

(1995). The art of case study research (pp. 35-40). London: Sage.

40.

Stentz

J. E.

Clark

V. L. P.

Matkin

G. S.

(2012). Applying mixed methods to leadership research: A review of current practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 1173-1183. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.001

41.

Sun

Henderson

A. C.

(2017). Transformational leadership and organizational processes: Influencing public performance. Public Administration Review, 77, 554-565.

42.

Turner

B. A.

(1983). The use of grounded theory for the qualitative analysis of organizational behavior. Journal of Management Science, 20, 333-348.

43.

Wang

Courtright

S. H.

Amy

Colbert

A. E

. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36, 223-270. doi:10.1177/1059601111401017

44.

York-Barr

Duke

(2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74, 255-316.

45.

Zabihi

Hashemzehi

(2012). The relationship between leadership styles and organizational citizenship behavior. African Journal of Business Management, 6, 3310-3319.

A Preliminary Study to Understand Leadership Style of Senior Teachers Through Their Perceptions and Contexts in Formal Schools in Mumbai

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Objective

Approach

Constructivism

Hierarchical–Individual Approach

Hierarchical–Collective Approach

Distributed–Individual Approach

Distributed–Collective Approach

Results and Discussion

Respondents’ Views and Perceptions About Constructivism

Respondents’ Views and Perceptions About Hierarchical–Individual Approach

Respondents’ Views and Perceptions About Hierarchical–Collective Approach

Respondents’ Views and Perceptions About Distributed–Individual Approach

Respondents’ Views and Perceptions About Distributed–Collective Approach

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References