Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

By position, deputy principals (DP) are middle level school leaders who are anticipated to be appointed as future principals. Nevertheless, previous studies proved that DPs receive low levels of support in terms of their leadership knowledge and skills. Thus, in assisting DPs as their mentors, principals have a significant role within the informal leadership mentoring practices supporting DPs’ informal professional development. In this study, we explored the guidance principals use to assist their DPs. This mixed method study of 318 DPs from Malaysian primary schools examined their experiences of principals’ informal mentoring and guidance. In addition, using semi-structured focus group interviews, 11 DPs were interviewed to obtain in-depth experiences of principals’ informal mentoring. It was revealed that primary school DPs felt satisfied and assisted with the guidance and advice provided by their principals through sharing knowledge and being a source of reference.

Keywords

informal mentoring deputy principals experiential learning primary schools

Introduction

Within a school’s hierarchy, a deputy principal (DP) is the second in command (Shakir, 2021). Hence, DPs are commonly asked to deputize for principals whenever necessary (Chagger & Bischoff, 2012). This indicates the DP’s essential position as a middle-layer school leader who will, on occasion, occupy the position of a school principal (Arar, 2014; Barnett et al., 2017; Boone, 2020; Cansoy et al., 2021; Morgan, 2018; Williams, 2019). In school, DPs are also treated as a principal’s close friend or companion when making effective decisions, managing the smooth operation of the school, being an instructional leader, managing staff development, and being involved in student affairs (Arar, 2014; Harris, 2008; Kwan & Walker, 2008). Various terms are used to define a DP’s position in a school. For instance, “assistant principal” is widely used in American and Australian schools, whereas “deputy headteacher” is a term frequently used in United Kingdom schools. In Singapore and Canadian schools, a DP is known as a “vice principal,” whereas, in Malaysian schools, a DP is called a “senior assistant.” Despite these various designations, their school roles and responsibilities are very similar even across different educational contexts.

Explanations of DPs’ roles can include gaps in their accountabilities with their leadership activities being unclear and receiving little attention (Arar, 2014; Oplatka, 2010; Young, 2011) compared to those of principals. Additionally, DPs commonly lack support and professional development programs, leading to difficulties, feelings of unpreparedness (Allan & Weaver, 2014; Busch et al., 2012; Searby et al., 2017), and low self-efficacy (Petridou et al., 2017). Furthermore, challenges related to their professional and leadership development include inadequate training in administrative skills (Harris et al., 2003; Shakir, 2021), minimal support for professional and leadership development (Barnett et al., 2017; Bassett, 2012; Petrides et al., 2014; Searby et al., 2017), and feelings of being “squeezed in the middle” between principals and teachers (Lillejord & Børte, 2020; Odhiambo, 2014). However, although DPs should be supported with knowledge and skills through professional development programs (Gurley et al., 2015; Hilliard & Newsome, 2013; Niewenhuizen & Brooks, 2013), few such programs for DPs have been prepared.

Given the low levels of support received, DPs requested assistance from their principals as workplace mentors through the requisite school-based or informal professional development. As mentioned, mentoring relationships within the workplace are highly associated with on-the-job or experiential leadership training and development (Bass, 2008; Lamm et al., 2020). Using the mentoring approach, a mentee (in this study a DP) will receive confidential, relational, and ongoing support during their transition to the profession with enhanced confidence, critical reflexivity, and agency (Beutel et al., 2017; Willis et al., 2019). Thus, the mentoring or exposure provided by principals is considered pertinent to building DP leadership skills, confidence, and effectiveness (Sider, 2019; Thabethe, 2020). Through this method, DPs need to be supported with experiential or on-the-job professional development tailored to their needs (E. Goldring et al., 2021; Hausman et al., 2002; Lillejord & Børte, 2020; Reyes-Guerra & Barnett, 2017). On-the-job learning encompasses instructional discussions, self-assessment, observations, advice from colleagues, and knowledge-sharing among peers (Thurlings et al., 2015). Despite this, a lack of suitable ongoing leadership and professional development programs for DPs, particularly regarding informal mentoring from their principals, still remains. Indeed, although J. Ho and Kang (2022) argued that the principal is the major socialising agent influencing a DP’s future leadership practices, the lack of support courses to help DPs grow into future school leaders continues (Allan & Weaver, 2014; Williams, 2019).

In Malaysia, the recent educational policy, the Malaysian Education Blueprint (MEB) 2013 to 2025, has noted the essential role of DPs as significant members of the school’s leadership team who should be trained to become effective instructional leaders (Ministry of Education, Malaysia, 2013). The Ministry of Education has an important objective outlined in the blueprints: to enhance the performance and knowledge of future principals. This can be achieved by having principals mentor other middle leaders, encouraging the development and sharing of best practices, and ensuring that professional standards are upheld by their peers (Ministry of Education, Malaysia, 2013). Thus, DPs will have an identical opportunity within the school’s decision-making processes, especially with the implementation of the distributed leadership approach (Ministry of Education, Malaysia, 2013). The overall initiatives of the MEB 2013-2025 policy aim to enhance DPs’ leadership effectiveness within the Malaysian school leadership framework and a school’s transformation process (Tai & Kareem, 2018). This effort is indeed the essential strategy to increase the qualifications of, and support for, DPs in fulfilling their role of deputising for principals (Brauckmann et al., 2020).

Currently, we remain unclear about how DPs learn and obtain leadership knowledge and skills since only limited, locally-conducted, studies have explored the configuration process between principals and DPs. Accordingly, this limited research into middle leaders’ in-service support programs suggests an area whose effectiveness requires greater attention (Bryant et al., 2020; Edwards-Groves et al., 2019; Li et al., 2021; Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2020), indeed, Bassett (2012) reports DPs’ frustrations at their insufficient training due to the few school leadership support programs. Local findings indicate that empirical studies of DPs’ professional development programs, particularly what DPs have learned from their principals, are lacking. In their study, Tahir et al. (2019) argued that DPs in Malaysian schools lacked support programs for managing stress, especially when dealing with student disciplinary issues. Formerly, Yaskom (2013) claimed that DPs required support programs in managing facilities, ICT (Information and Communication Technology), and handling teachers’ micro-politics during school change. Moreover, Said (2016) revealed that DPs requested more programs for managing stress related to onerous school disciplinary issues. Although DP leadership growth programs exist, research exploring how DPs are informally mentored, coached, and supported within their school-based leadership context from a local perspective remains limited.

This study intends to explore DPs’ initial exposure to the informal mentoring that they received in which they have been hypothetically steered or mentored by principals through on-the-job training (Barnett et al., 2017; Oleszewski et al., 2012). With that purpose, three major research questions are employed in this study:

(a) What are deputy principals’ perceptions of the informal mentoring provided by their principals?

(b) How did their principals mentor DPs?

This study also aims to explore how mentoring DPs’ informal professional development is grounded in trust and positive collaborative relationships with their principals.

Literature Review

Theoretical Perspective

This informal mentoring study uses Kram’s (1985a) model of the mentor role as its theoretical framework. Mentoring is defined as a helping process to assist, provide guidance, and share knowledge and skills, whether formally or informally (Kalbfleisch, 2002, 2007; Lapointe & Vandenberghe, 2017). Kram models the mentoring relationship using two major development functions: career and psychosocial. The career function expects a mentor to deliver guidance and support to improve their protégé’s knowledge and skills while providing both advice and friendship (Lamm et al., 2020). Thus, the mentor provides five specific career development functions: as a sponsor, coach, advocate, protector, and provider of challenging assignments that increase the protégé’s exposure and visibility (Kram, 1985a).

Kram’s second function, the psychosocial aspect, involves activities that impact the protégé’s self-image, self-efficacy, and competencies (Chao et al., 1992), as well as their professional and personal development (Kram, 1985b; Ragins & Cotton, 1999).Kram’s (1985a, 1985b) model hypothesises that mentors help their protégé develop their professional self-esteem by providing problem-solving opportunities, counseling, respect, and support while becoming a role model. This assumes that the mentor and protégé have a positive relationship utilising informal and formal approaches. This study sees principals as mentors and DPs as mentees (protégés).

Informal Professional Development Approaches in Schools

To secure a school’s effective performance, education authorities have invested considerably in professional leadership development programs to enhance performance and achieve expected results (Adams et al., 2020; Harris et al., 2014). It is widely recognised that prioritising the development and training of school leaders is crucial, as they are expected to impact student performance positively (Harris et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2015). Mentoring is considered the most favorable and meaningful professional support to improve school leaders’ knowledge and skills (Barnett et al., 2017; Marshall & Phelps Davidson, 2016). Rhodes and Fletcher (2013) noted that leadership mentoring and coaching are gaining attention as mechanisms for school leaders’ professional development in various countries.

Mentoring is defined as a process involving personal and reciprocal relationships between experienced (senior) staff who act as coaches, mentors, and teachers to less experienced (novice) staff. As mentors, they share their knowledge, advice, support, and challenges to help the mentee become a full member of the profession (W.B. Johnson, 2016). According to Hackmann and Malin (2020), mentoring is a long-duration relationship involving shared commitment and reciprocity between mentor and mentee. Varney (2012) described mentoring as a help and guidance process that involves supporting, motivating, and encouraging the mentee to reach their potential.

Several factors contribute to the strength of the mentor/mentee relationship, including trust, mutual respect, openness, and honesty. Both parties must engage in reflective and thought-provoking conversations that are non-judgmental (Cowin et al., 2016). DPs are believed to favor informal or job-embedded mentoring or coaching over formal mentoring programs offered by education authorities (Barnett et al., 2017; Searby et al., 2017).

DPs’ Mentoring in Schools

As with school principals, DPs should receive formal and informal professional and leadership development since they are future school leaders (D.E Armstrong, 2010; Santacrose, 2016). Moreover, DPs play major roles within the school’s administrative structure (Barnett et al., 2012; Pont et al., 2008; Sun & Shoho, 2017), including responsibilities for instructional leadership, pastoral care, and management (Kaplan & Owings, 1999; Petrides et al., 2014). However, many studies have pointed out the lack of preparation programs for DPs (Barnett et al., 2017; Petrides et al., 2014; Searby et al., 2017).

DPs acquire their leadership skills and professional development through experiential or job-embedded learning (Barnett et al., 2017; Marshall & Phelps Davidson, 2016; Oleszewski et al., 2012) and the process of socialisation (Santacrose, 2016). In this sense, DPs receive guidance from experienced principals related to the knowledge and administrative skills needed to carry out their duties (Boone, 2020; Searby et al., 2017; Williams, 2019). Thus, school principals are recognised as individuals who guide, mentor, and share their knowledge with DPs (Marshall & Hooley, 2006). This confirms that principals and the school system can support DPs with thoughtful and well-designed mentoring experiences (D. Armstrong, 2015; Barnett et al., 2017; Service et al., 2016). However, Williams (2019) noted that successful practice highly depends on principals’ willingness to nurture and support DPs through informal mentoring. To help DPs, principals must employ a collaborative approach, devoting time to building trust and practicing mentoring to facilitate DPs’ school-based continuing professional development (Bartholomew et al., 2005; Calabrese & Tucker-Ladd, 1991; Mitchell et al., 2017).

Through informal mentoring, DPs can acquire knowledge and skills from their principals, benefiting their prospective schools (Hitt et al., 2012). The mentor and protégé develop their relationship spontaneously without assistance over a long duration (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Informal mentoring also benefits principals by allowing them to obtain honest reflections from DPs related to improving their leadership effectiveness (Service et al., 2016). In addition, Barnett et al. (2017) highlighted the advantages DPs gain from being mentored, including the development of decision-making skills, improvement of interpersonal and communication skills, opportunities for self-reflection, and clarification of values and beliefs. At the same time, they learn the practical elements of managing school operations, providing suitable resources, and expanding their professional networks.

In the Malaysian context, Deputy Principals (DPs) or senior assistants participated in informal workshops and programs similar to those of their school principals. These programs focus on instructional and curricular leadership, strategic management, supervision, student assessment, and teachers’ professional development (Institut Aminuddin Baki [IAB], 2014). DPs gained knowledge and skills related to their roles as effective instructional leaders. Recently, school leaders in Malaysia have been allowed to choose courses or programs beneficial to their leadership journey. However, they must refer to the IAB (2014) leadership model—formerly known as KOMPAS—when selecting programs. The rationale for providing school leaders with effective professional development courses is based on the assumption that knowledgeable school leaders will lead to improved school effectiveness and achievement (Dexter et al., 2020). The Malaysian Education Blueprint (MEB) states that school leaders should receive professional development programs at least seven times in an academic year. The content of these programs includes professional knowledge (60%), professional skills (20%), and the values/practices of teachers’ professionalism (20%)(Alias & Hamzah, 2017).

Methodology

Design

This study employs a sequential explanatory mixed-method design to investigate DPs’ informal professional development which is believed to be obtained through their experiential learning or informal mentoring with their school principals. The explanatory sequential mixed method is a two-phase, mixed-method design that involves collecting quantitative and qualitative data. The design starts with the collection and analysis of the quantitative data followed subsequently by the collection and analysis of qualitative data. The qualitative data was designed to further explain and connect to the results of the quantitative data (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Greene, 2007; R. B. Johnson & Christensen, 2014; Morse, 1991).

The sequential mixed method design was chosen to provide readers with a clear understanding and description of the study’s results. Therefore, to investigate the informal learning experiences of DPs, two major phases were implemented. In the initial phase, a questionnaire was administered to all chosen DPs, inquiring about their experiential learning with their school principals. The second phase involved a series of interviews with 11 purposely selected DPs related to their personal experiences when being guided and mentored by their principals. It is hypothesised that combining both paradigms enables the collection of comprehensive data. This provides a holistic overview and a deep understanding of the situation (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The overview of the sequential explanatory mixed method is presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1.

A Flowchart for the Sequential Explanatory Mixed Method.

Phase	Procedure	Outcomes
Phase 1: Quantitative data collection	Administration of survey	DP responses are based on numerical data.
Phase 1: Data analysis	DP responses to informal mentoring (RQ1)• Mean scores and standard deviations• Exploratory factor analysis• Confirmatory factor analysis.	• Descriptive statistics• Psychometrics checking
Phase 1: Data analysis	Linking DPs’ demographics with informal mentoring (RQ3)• T-tests and ANOVA• Logistic regression	• Inferential statistics• Predictive analysis
Connecting Phase 1 and Phase 2	How are DPs being mentored? (RQ2).• Purpose sampling to select 11 deputy principals• Developing items for the interview protocol	• Interview samples• Items for semi-structured interview purposes
Phase 2: Qualitative data collection	• Interviewing the 11 DPs• Verbatim transcriptions of the interview data	Interview transcripts
Phase 2: Data analysis	• Thematic analysis
Integration of Phase 1 and Phase 2	• Integration of the survey data	• Discussion• Implications for practice• Future research

Participants

A total of 318 primary school DPs were randomly selected to voluntarily participate in the study. They were asked to identify informal mentoring initiatives that they believed their principals should provision. The descriptive statistics for the 318 DPs from selected primary schools who completed the questionnaire show that 126 DPs (39.6%) were male and 192 (60.4%) females. In terms of their experience as DPs, the majority (81.4%) had been serving as DPs for more than 3 years. Another 33 DPs (10.4%) had been appointed within the past 2 years, while only 26 DPs (8.2%) had at least 1 year of experience as a DP. Out of the total sample, 140 DPs (44%) held the position of deputy principal (administration) in schools, followed by 116 (36.5%) who were deputy principal (students’ affairs), and 54 who were DP (extra-curricular; 17.8%). Lastly, there were only eight (2.5%) DPs who were appointed for evening sessions.

During the interview sessions, we selected 11 DPs (five males and six females) from primary schools to gather their feedback and reflections on the questionnaires. To maintain their anonymity, we used pseudonyms in this study, replacing their real identities with “DP1” to “DP11.” The purpose of these interviews is to provide insights, detailed explanations, and perspectives on the DPs’ informal mentoring relationships with their principals. The selection of 11 DPs is based on the concept of “theoretical saturation” when further interview sessions do not provide any additional information (Saunders et al., 2017). The selection criteria for interview sessions are based on their informal mentoring with their principals for at least 2 years upon taking office as DPs and being mentored by their principals. The interview sample represents DPs who have common characteristics with at least 2 years of informal mentoring with their principals. The sample was also chosen based on their differences in personal characteristics such as gender, seniority in office, types of schools, and their positions as DPs. These selection criteria were chosen based on DPs’ characteristics to avoid the biased selection of samples. In the final selection, there were five male and six female DPs who represented the various types of schools (National, Tamil, and Chinese medium). DPs personal characteristics are presented in Table 2 below.

Table 2.

Interviewees’ Characteristics.

Label (pseudonym)	Gender	Seniority	Type of school	Position
DP 1	Female	7	National primary	Administration
DP 2	Male	4	Tamil primary	Students’ affairs
DP 3	Female	2	National primary	Evening
DP 4	Male	7	Chinese primary	Administration
DP 5	Male	5	Tamil primary	Co-curricular
DP 6	Female	5	National primary	Students’ affairs
DP 7	Female	8	Tamil Primary	Administration
DP 8	Male	4	National primary	Students’ affairs
DP 9	Female	2	Tamil primary	Evening
DP 10	Female	6	National primary	Administration
DP 11	Male	4	Chinese primary	Co-curricular

Instrumentation

The study involved both a questionnaire and an interview protocol. The 24-item questionnaire was organised into two main sections. Section A (2 items) gathered demographic information about the DPs, such as their gender and their role as primary DPs. Section B focused on the informal and experiential leadership mentoring provided by the DPs, specifically through their positive collaboration with school principals (22 items). The items were self-developed and adopted based on internationally published literature on DPs’ professional development when dealing with their principals (Thabethe, 2020; Williams, 2019). The questionnaire had seven sub-constructs: demonstrating (4 items), source of reference (4 items), sharing (5 items), receiving support (3 items), providing chances (2 items), taking care (2 items), and providing guidance (2 items).

Regarding response scaling, all items used a five-point Likert scale ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). To ensure that the DPs understood the meaning of the items, all materials were prepared in Malay. As a part of the content validation process, two DPs who were not included in the final study sample were asked to review the items. Furthermore, the items were thoroughly reviewed by three officers from the state departments of education who possess extensive experience in organizing support programs for the professional development and leadership skills of school leaders. The officers were chosen for two specific purposes: (a) to assess the appropriateness of the items and (b) to ensure that the items did not include any sensitive topics about Ministry of Education policies.

Pilot study: Before proceeding with the actual data collection, a pilot study was conducted with 20 DPs from primary schools not included in the sample. Findings indicated that items were acceptable for actual data collection. Modifications were made based on the comments of the 20 DPs who participated in the pilot study. Changes included: (a) improvement of item statements that provided less understanding to the pilot study DPs, (b) deletion of eight items due to redundancy, and (c) creation of simpler item statements for easier understanding. Following the improvements, item reliability was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. Exploratory factor analysis was also performed. Since all items used interval scaling, Cronbach’s alpha was used to examine their reliability. The pilot study revealed Cronbach’s alpha values for each factor as follows: demonstrating (α = .954), source of reference (α = .952), informing (α = .956), giving support (α = .952), providing chance (α = .960), taking care (α = .953), and providing guidance (α = .953). The overall Cronbach’s alpha value for item reliability was .819. Further analysis indicated an overall internal consistency value of 0.961 for all 24 items, surpassing the acceptable threshold of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2013).

The interview protocol focused on the informal mentoring that DPs received from their principals. The items in the protocol were created based on discussions with two DPs who emphasised the guidance and mentoring they received. Before conducting the actual interviews, a pilot study was conducted with two DPs purposefully selected from the 20 DPs who participated in the quantitative pilot study. Modifications were made to all items in the interview protocol based on the pilot study interview sessions. Initially, seven items/questions were suggested. Based on findings from the pilot study, three items were dropped, and four items were revised. The decision to exclude the three items was made because the pilot study sessions lasted over an hour each. The interviews were conducted in Malay and in informal settings to make participants feel more at ease. Questions posed in the actual interview session were:

(a) Can you tell us how you are being guided and mentored by your principals?

(b) Can you share with us the process of mentoring or guidance provided by your principals?

(c) Do you agree that your principal is your significant mentor who guided you to improve your knowledge and skills in leading your school?

During the DP interviews, the researcher used the probing method to gather more detailed information. Probes are questions that encourage the participant to provide additional information about their previous responses (Robinson, 2023).

Data Collection Procedure

The targeted samples for the quantitative phase were DPs from primary schools. The total population of DPs in primary schools is 1,179 DPs. As suggested by Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) table, a total of 400 DPs should be selected as a sample using the random sampling technique. A total of 400 randomly selected DPs were provided with questionnaires to gather their responses. The data collection phase commenced by distributing the questionnaires to the chosen DPs, assisted by education officers. Researchers also kept the demographic information of all 400 DPs which includes the school’s names, and their cellular phone numbers. In collecting the questionnaires, researchers made official visits to the DPs who had been randomly selected for the study sample. A total of 40 primary schools were visited to collect the distributed questionnaires from all DPs.

A total of 355 questionnaires were returned by DPs. The return rate was approximately 88%. Nevertheless, only 318 questionnaires were used as the study’s data after the process of checking and inspecting all the returned questionnaires. After checking and inspecting the outliers, only 318 questionnaires were used as the data for this study. During the next phase, we conducted three series of interviews with a total of 11 DPs. Each session lasted for approximately 1 to 2 hr. Before the interviews took place, the DPs were briefed on the objective of the study and assured that their identities would be kept confidential.

Data Analysis

The analysis of quantitative data began with an examination of descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages, and involved calculating mean scores and standard deviations. Frequencies and percentages presented the DPs’ demographics, while mean scores and standard deviations summarised the DPs’ responses across all items from the seven constructs of informal mentoring. All descriptive statistics addressed research question one, which focused on DPs’ responses to principals’ informal mentoring.

To address research question two, derived from the 11 deputy principals’ interview transcripts, a multi-phase thematic analysis was conducted following Braun and Clarke (2006). In phase one, the interview transcripts were re-read multiple times to become familiar with their meaning and to capture the DPs’ ideas, stories, and perspectives. Then, phase 2 involved coding the transcripts and grouping codes with similar connotations and ideas, which enabled themes to emerge (Brundrett & Rhodes, 2013). Finally, phase 3 (checking and reviewing) ensured the relevance of the themes and that a comprehensive understanding of the interview data had emerged. The credibility of the qualitative interview data was secured using two major approaches. First, three evaluators were informally appointed to assess the transcripts to ensure data validity and reliability. These evaluators were experienced school leadership researchers who frequently conducted qualitative research studies. Two evaluators were officers from the Ministry of Education, whilst the third was a qualitative researcher at a public university. After the evaluation process, their feedback was subject to kappa statistical analysis, yielding an acceptable value of 0.79. The second validity check involved returning all transcripts to the interviewed DPs to validate the accuracy of the transcripts and the validators’ agreements (Bush, 2012).

In addressing research question three, which explores the relationship between the gender of DPs and their positions, the analysis began by examining the differences in all constructs of informal mentoring against the DPs’ demographics using T-tests and one-way ANOVA. Both tests identified significant differences based on DPs’ demographics. The decision to use independent t-tests and ANOVA followed previous research, which demonstrated the suitability of these methods for detecting significant differences between the mean scores of two independent groups (R. Ho, 2006; Stockemer, 2019; Weisburd & Britt, 2014). The groups were determined based on demographic factors, specifically gender and position. The independent t-test was selected as being appropriate for comparing mean scores among different groups, particularly male and female participants (Field, 2013; R. Ho, 2006; Kim, 2019; Liang et al., 2019). Similarly, ANOVA was employed to assess significant differences among demographic factors or variables with more than two mean scores (Field, 2013; Stockemer, 2019; Weisburd & Britt, 2014). Additionally, both binary and multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted. Multinomial logistic regression is an extension of binary logistic regression and is an appropriate statistical method for examining the associations between binary response variables and nominal scale variables (Cleophas & Zwinderman, 2016; Field, 2013; Leech et al., 2011; Weisburd & Britt, 2014).

Findings

Factor Structure of Items

To analyze the validity and internal consistency of the items, we conducted exploratory factor analysis using the varimax rotation procedure. Additionally, we performed the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy test to ensure that our sample size was sufficient for the EFA. According to the KMO values, exceeding 0.90 is considered excellent, 0.80 is considered good, 0.70 is average, 0.60 is mediocre, and less than 0.50 is unacceptable (Kaiser, 1974). The KMO test results have exceeded the cut-off and accepted value (Hair et al., 2010; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014). The analysis of the KMO revealed a value of 0.910, indicating high values in Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (χ² = 6,828.203; df = 300; ρ = 0.000). Furthermore, the total variance explained reported a value of 67.801%, surpassing the suggested value of 60% (Hair et al., 2013; Mujis, 2010).

To ensure the high consistency and validation of the informal mentoring, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted, specifically establishing a measurement model consisting of 24 items. The CMIN/DF value was found to be 4.554, which is lower than the recommended threshold of <0.50. The fit statistics for this model are as follows: CFI = 0.867, IFI = 0.868, RFI = 0.805, NFI = 0.837, all indicating a good fit. However, the RMSEA value of 0.106 exceeds the accepted value of 0.08 suggested by Hair et al. (2013).

DPs’ Feedback on Their Informal Mentoring With Principals

By definition, the principals’ informal mentoring is seen as being a prudent process when principals are providing their advice, assistance, and support in providing DPs with knowledge and skills in leading schools. Thus, it is more the sharing of experience within the workplace context. In answering the mentoring or guidance section obtained from DPs, both findings from the survey and interview sessions were presented. Responses from DPs on the questionnaire items are presented in Figure 1 followed by findings obtained from the interviews with selected DPs.

Figure 1.

DPs’ perspectives on informal mentoring.

Based on DPs’ feedback, results have indicated that the school principals were acknowledged as a significant source of reference during the informal mentoring process (MS = 4.31; SD = 0.60). During the informal mentoring practice, DPs responded that their principals have shared with them much information on how to lead schools (MS = 4.23; SD = 0.61) which is relevant to DPs’ competencies and growth as aspiring principals. At the same time, DPs also provided feedback that they had received much support and assistance from their principals when they were facing problems and experiencing stress (MS = 4.20; SD = 0.66). Other support given to DPs by their principals are providing chances to make decisions (MS = 4.13; SD = 0.62), highly emphasising DPs’ leadership competencies (MS = 4.14; SD = 0.60), teaching related to instructional tasks, and learning how to make a decision (MS = 4.19: SD = 0.60). The least received support employed by principals during the informal mentoring is the element of guide DPs (MS = 4.12; SD = 0.64).

DPs’ Informal Mentoring Process

During the interview sessions, all interviewed DPs were asked to provide some insights on the informal guidance provided by their mentor principals. As a result, three primary themes emerged when DPs were describing the guidance provided by their mentor principals. The first theme emerged when DPs explained that principals always provide them with fruitful advice. Second, DPs also explained that their principals are their primary source of reference whenever DPs encounter any problems in school leadership. The third theme is the practice of distributed leadership.

Advising DPs

Based on the interview sessions, a majority of DPs highlighted that principals are their significant mentors who advise them in terms of knowledge and skills growth. This is because principals always provided them with fruitful advice and guidance on how to implement measures to lead the school effectively. As such, deputy principal 1 claimed that his principal always coached him on how to lead a school:

… We learned from our seniors. What we have been taught, we need to follow, then we will obtain good advice from our seniors. Based on my perception, all principals have their own characters, they have their own “aura.” To achieve the best, we must learn from our seniors which are our principals. They have wide experience. To be effective school leaders, we need to have wide experiences because it is pertinent to our leadership journeys [sic]. (DP1)

Likewise, another interviewed DP known as DP3 also mentioned that his principal acted as an effective mentor who guided and shared the practical aspects of how to lead their school. Through the advice provided by the principal, the DP obtained more knowledge and skills in preparation to become a principal in the future.

Yes, I agree. But to me not 100%. But I would say that he is my mentor. As a middle-level school leader, we need to follow our boss and they will show you many things on how to lead the school. DP3).

Source of Reference

In the case of another DP, he claimed that his principal was the main source of reference whenever he encountered problems. Therefore, in making many decisions and solving school problems, he will have discussed the relevant matter with his principal.

…although I’m the second person, we need support from the principal. When making a decision, we need the “green light” from him. All aspects must be discussed before obtaining consent from him. To me, he is a reliable resource person. He is my source of reference [sic]. (DP4)

Although DPs have limitations on making decisions that are still “in the hands” of the principal, the DPs interviewed felt satisfied with the informal guidance provided by the principals to improve DPs’ knowledge and skills on how to lead the school. From the interviews, a majority of DPs describe their principals as their mentors who provided them with fruitful knowledge and guidance on how to lead the school. As mentioned below in the transcripts;

I have learned a lot from my principals. They are well-experienced school leaders. As a person who is in the process of learning to be a school leader, I have to follow what I was advised. The principal is my mentor and even as a school leader, we need to build a good relationship with my existing and previous principals.

Distributed Leadership

Another DP admitted that his principal employed the practice of distributed leadership in ensuring the DPs were well-accustomed to leading tasks. Through this approach, the principal believed that his DPs would comprehend the knowledge and skills of leadership.

…my principal expected us to understand all tasks related to school leadership. Later, he asked us to learn from senior teachers who were in charge of aspects within the school leadership that we needed to know. He asked us to lead some of the school’s important tasks such as determining the instructional schedule and curricular leadership. When we face problems, we can ask him or the senior teachers who have wide experience in completing the relevant tasks. (DP5).

Lastly, in describing their relationship, the majority of the DPs emphasized that the relationship between their principals is considered pertinent and they need to build a good relationship with their principals. It is truly significant in determining the smooth operation of the school leadership.

Linking DPs’ Demographics With Informal Mentoring Practices

Both the t-test and ANOVA analyses were conducted to examine whether there were any significant differences based on the gender of the DPs. However, the results from both tests indicated that there were insignificant differences (Table 3). The t-test results, based on the gender of the DPs, were as follows: demonstrating (t = 0.011; p = .918), source of reference (t = 1.344; p = .247), sharing (t = 0.165; p = .285), receiving support (t = 0.000; p = .988), providing chances (t = 0.843; p = .359), emphasis on DP’s PD (t = 0.12; p = .912), and providing guidance (t = 0.018; p = .895). Similarly, the ANOVA results also showed insignificant differences based on the positions of the DPs: demonstrating [n = 318 (F = 0.822; p = .440)], source of reference [n = 318 (F = 1.065; p = .346)], sharing [n = 318 (F = 0.769; p = .464)], receiving support [n = 318 (F = 01.588; Sig = 0.206)], providing chances [n = 318 (F = 0.291; p = .748)], emphasis on DPs’ PD [n = 318 (F = 0.906; p = .405)], and providing guidance [n = 318 (F = 0.045; p = .956)]. Overall, there is no significant difference suggesting that both male and female DPs achieve similar results in the informal mentoring by DPs’ principals.

Table 3.

DPs’ Perspective on Informal Mentoring Based on Their Gender and Positions.

Informal mentoring constructs	Overall mean scores	Mean scores		t-Value	Sig	Mean scores				F-value	Sig
Informal mentoring constructs	Overall mean scores	Male (n = 126)	Female (n = 192)	t-Value	Sig	Admin (n = 140)	Students’ affairs (n = 116)	Extra-curricular (n = 54)	Evening (n = 8)	F-value	Sig
Demonstrating	4.19	4.12	4.17	0.011	.918	4.18	4.22	4.13	4.21	0.822	.440
Source of reference	4.31	4.29	4.32	1.344	.247	4.32	4.32	4.24	4.46	1.065	.346
Sharing	4.25	4.28	4.23	0.165	.685	4.23	4.28	4.24	4.28	0.769	.464
Receiving support	4.16	4.15	4.18	0.000	.988	4.18	4.18	4.08	4.33	1.588	.206
Provide chances to make decision	4.17	4.17	4.17	0.843	.359	4.21	4.13	4.12	4.37	0.291	.748
Emphasis on DPs’ PD	4.18	4.20	4.16	0.012	.912	4.20	4.19	4.09	4.16	0.906	.405
Providing guidance	4.12	4.13	4.11	0.018	.895	4.12	4.15	4.07	4.06	0.045	.956

Note. N = 318.

*p < .05.

To examine whether DPs’ demographics are a significant predictor of DPs’ informal mentoring, we employed logistic regression to examine the linkage between two variables. Table 4, below, indicates the findings when matching the DPs’ demographics (gender and positions) with the informal mentoring practices. Based on findings from the logistic regression results, data show that DPs’ gender is the significant predictor for their informal mentoring for the element of receiving support (β = 2.727; Wald = 4.615; OR (odds ratio) = 0.650; p = .032). Based on the results, the odds ratio (OR) is 0.650. This indicates that for each one-point decrease in the DPs’ change from male to female, the predicted odds decrease to 0.65 times. In relation to the DPs’ positions, three elements were identified concerning their roles in informal mentoring. These elements include “demonstrating” (β = 3.618; Wald = 5.276; OR = 0.027; p = .022), “sharing” (β = 3.295; Wald = 3.120; OR = 0.001; p = .037), and “guidance” (β = 4.172; Wald = 4.464; OR = 0.015; p = .035).

Table 4.

Logistic Regression Coefficients Based on DPs’ Mentoring With Their Gender and Positions.

Informal mentoring elements	DPs’ gender				DPs’ positions
Informal mentoring elements	β	Wald	Sig	Odds ratio	β	Wald	Sig	Odds ratio
Demonstrate	.783	1.058	.304	0.457	3.618	5.276	.022*	0.027
Source of reference	.395	0.253	.615	1.484	2.305	2.138	.144	0.100
Sharing	.540	0.689	.439	1.717	3.295	3.120	.037*	0.001
Receiving support	2.727	4.615	.032*	0.650	2.957	1.638	.201	19.201
Provide chances	.329	0.381	.537	1.390	.727	0.172	.678	0.483
DPs’ growth	.852	1.454.	.228	2.344	2.248	1.398	.237	9.473
Guidance	.257	0.197	.658	1.293	4.172	4.464	.035*	0.015

Note. N = 318.

p < .05.

For the “demonstrating” element, the odds ratio (OR) value is 0.027, indicating that the odds of a decrease are 0.027 times lower for each one-point decrease in the DPs’ positions. Regarding the “sharing” aspect, the OR value is 0.001, suggesting that for every one-point decrease in the DPs’ positions, the odds ratio predicts a decrease of 0.01. Finally, the “guidance” element has an OR of 0.015, indicating a decrease in DPs’ positions as well, with the odds ratio predicting a decrease of 0.01.

Discussion

The foremost intention of this study is to discover whether DPs have been informally guided or mentored by their principals during the initial phase of their professional development. Thus, to answer the research questions, 318 primary DPs were chosen to describe their relationship of trust with their principals while completing their tasks as the second person in the school hierarchy.

The first question focused on the acceptance of informal mentoring provided to the DPs by principals. Findings revealed that the majority of the DPs viewed this informal support positively believing that their principals have shared valuable information, knowledge, and skills necessary for effective school leadership and that their principals significantly assisted them in critical decision-making situations, especially during times of stress. Additionally, principals provided DPs with numerous opportunities to make decisions and take on leadership roles within the school. Based on this positive feedback from DPs, informal mentoring appears well-suited for schools to develop DPs’ knowledge and expertise by providing opportunities for problem-solving, building networks, winning the support of teachers and staff, managing stress, and making effective decisions for school development (Barnett et al., 2017; Searby et al., 2017; Sider, 2019; Thabethe, 2020).

Regarding the second research question, DPs indicated that their principals have guided them in two major ways: making effective decisions about the school and choosing effective leadership approaches. DPs frequently consulted their principals when facing difficulties in solving school problems and selecting the best leadership style. They learned various strategies and approaches to leading their schools from their principals, who possess extensive school-leadership knowledge and skills. DPs highlighted the significant role of principals as resource persons whenever they encountered complex problems or felt uncertain about effective leadership practices. In this context, DPs view informal mentoring as a meaningful way to access practical experience during their leadership journeys. Moreover, principals were identified as key individuals capable of guiding and mentoring DPs using immediate knowledge and skills (Marshall & Hooley, 2006). Sharing sessions were seen as an effective way for DPs to discuss and obtain their principals’ opinions on overcoming school problems (Boone, 2020; Thabethe, 2020; Williams, 2019).

During the interviews, DPs shared significant insights about principals’ school leadership methods. They mentioned frequently collaborating with their principals to make effective decisions for the school. There were instances when principals critiqued DPs as they learned to lead. DPs described their principals as using an informal teaching approach, monitoring teachers’ activities, engaging DPs in leadership tasks, and later providing feedback to improve results. They were also guided on effective communication with teachers and stakeholders. In problem-solving, DPs were coached using a phase-by-phase approach and advised to investigate a problem’s root causes before considering solutions.

Besides positive collaboration, principals used a distributed leadership approach to guide and mentor DPs when enhancing their knowledge and skills. In this practice, DPs were assigned specific leadership tasks related to administration, extracurricular activities, and student affairs. While fulfilling these tasks, DPs were expected to lead other teachers. This approach helps DPs acquire the skills and confidence needed to lead their schools when they become principals. When faced with challenges, DPs can seek assistance from their principals. In one school, a DP noted that his principal employed this approach by asking him to lead a program or task, after which the principal would assess his performance and provide feedback for improvement. Although principals offered numerous opportunities to guide and mentor DPs, the ultimate responsibility remains with the principal as the final decision-maker (J. Ho & Kang, 2022). This is significant because all DPs are still learning to lead and may not be ready to make effective final decisions.

Statistical analysis of DPs’ demographics reveals insignificant differences and associations concerning the informal mentoring approaches utilised by their principals. This suggests that DPs perceive their principals’ mentoring guidance to be similar, regardless of gender or position. We also aimed to determine whether DPs’ positions and gender could predict informal mentoring practices. The regression analysis indicates that DP gender has low predictive value for the level of support received from principals through informal mentoring. Hence, gender is an insignificant predictor for the other six elements of informal mentoring practice.

Contrary to expectations, DPs’ positions have influenced informal mentoring practices involving demonstration, sharing, and guidance by their principals. These findings support earlier discussions highlighting the impact of DP demographic factors on informal mentoring in schools. They suggest a diminished connection between DP positions and informal leadership mentoring practices. This decrease in predictive value may stem from senior DPs, who, despite needing guidance from principals, feel that their extensive experience lessens the impact of such guidance on their tasks. These findings align with previous research on DP positions (Delgado, 2016; Tahir et al., 2019), confirming that DPs encounter various pressures linked to their positions, particularly when interacting with their superiors, including principals.

Implication for DPs’ Leadership Practice

Seemingly, there are two theories that DPs can apply while carrying out their duties arising from informal mentoring: collaborative leadership and distributed leadership. Collaborative school leadership encourages inclusive participation and holistic learning. This strategy allows individuals to take on leadership roles, helping to build their capacity to succeed (Woods & Roberts, 2019). Bush (2007) refers to collaborative leadership as participative leadership, emphasising similar principles and strategies. It focuses on nurturing leaders’ capabilities while promoting collective growth and learning using a concept known as “co-development” which utilises power-sharing to exercise leadership, fosters positive relationships that enhance relational well-being, and encourages empowerment and connection among individuals. Dialog facilitates exchanging ideas and exploring various viewpoints. Practicing collaborative leadership requires a transparent school culture, promotes information-sharing, and maintains honesty and mutual trust while welcoming diverse perspectives (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Mondal, 2020).

Distributed leadership is another model for DPs which allows them to understand and experience school leadership tasks, resulting in a sense of belonging and comprehensive understanding. Additionally, DPs learn how to confront challenges while leading their tasks. This approach enhances DPs’ professional growth and confidence in leading their future schools effectively (Barnett et al., 2017). In this model, school leadership tasks are shared, with everyone contributing their expertise (Gronn, 2002). Principals are more likely to encourage collaboration and sharing with their DPs, enabling everyone in schools to exercise their leadership role (Sun, 2011; Sun & Shoho, 2017). Grubb and Tredway (2010) suggested that principals need to foster a school climate where leadership is delegated, supports collaboration, and promotes equity and equality. This environment is conducive to DPs developing the leadership skills and knowledge necessary to become future principals.

Recommendations for Practice

As for the study’s practical implications, Boone (2020) suggests that education authorities should pair successful principals as mentors with deputy principals (DPs) to support them with leadership knowledge and skills. Thabethe (2020) recommends that principals conduct more school-based professional development programs to provide initial and informal professional development. This approach allows DPs to be continuously coached and mentored in practical methods of managing schools, thereby building their confidence and knowledge of school leadership.

To enhance DPs’ knowledge, principals should participate in effective courses or workshops on mentoring. After completing such courses, principals will be better equipped to support DPs with knowledge and skills in school leadership, using appropriate mentoring strategies to develop DPs’ potential as future principals. Most guidance from principals comes from personal experiences. This exposure enables principals to evaluate DPs’ performance and assess their suitability for future principal roles.

Supporting DPs as middle leaders through informal mentoring and school-based professional development programs can equip them with the knowledge and skills necessary for their ambitions. When mentoring DPs, principals should instruct them on evaluating and addressing school problems, beginning with analysing their root causes (Kavanagh, 2020). This method teaches DPs to solve problems effectively while minimising negative impacts on student development and school improvement. Middle leaders and DPs often encounter ethical dilemmas and moral judgment challenges, such as teachers not adhering to ethical standards (Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2020). Training in analysis, problem-solving, and decision-making processes, along with fostering higher-order thinking through mentoring and simulations, is essential for middle leaders, including DPs (Shapira-Lishchinsky et al., 2016).

Limitations and Future Research

The study has several limitations. First, it is based on responses from 318 DPs, which may not represent the views of DPs from different education systems or other DPs within Malaysia regarding their preferences for informal mentoring programs. Future research should involve a larger sample of DPs to produce more generalizable results and enhance the study’s validity. Second, future studies should include principals who act as mentors to DPs through informal mentoring. Principals’ assessments of DPs’ achievements and performance are crucial for providing honest feedback about their abilities, interests, and potential to lead schools. Third, it is recommended that this study be expanded through qualitative interviews with selected groups of both experienced and novice principals. This would allow for an in-depth exploration of the effectiveness of informal DP mentoring programs. Additionally, future research should consider employing quantitative statistical tests to examine the effects of informal mentoring on DPs’ job satisfaction, commitment, and overall well-being.

Conclusion

As a final word, this study has provided insights into the relationship between DPs and principals, focusing on trust and collaboration for the benefit of the school. The findings revealed the significant role of principals in preparing DPs with initial exposure and knowledge related to school leadership practice, which contributed to DPs’ confidence in pursuing future principal positions. Additionally, this study contributes to the literature by identifying how DPs are mentored and coached through informal professional development approaches cultivated by their principals.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Lokman Mohd Tahir

Statements and Declarations

References

Adams

Yoon Mooi

A. N.

Muniandy

(2020). Principal leadership preparation towards high-performing school leadership in Malaysia. Asian Education and Development Studies, 9(4), 425–439.

Alias

N. S.

Hamzah

M. I. M.

(2017). Sustainable leadership practice among school leaders in their continuous professional development [Paper presentation]. Paper presented at The Social Sciences Postgraduate International Seminar (SSPIS). School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia (pp. 760–766).

Allan

J. G.

Weaver

R. L.

(2014). Learning to lead: The professional development needs of assistant principals. NCPEA Education Leadership Review, 15(2), 14–32.

Arar

(2014). Deputy-principals in Arab schools in Israel. An era of reform. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(1), 96–113.

Armstrong

(2015). Listening to voices at the educational frontlines: New administrators’ experiences of the transition from teacher to vice-principal. Brock Education: A Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 24(2), 109–122.

Armstrong

D. E.

(2010). Rites of passage: Coercion, compliance, and complicity in the socialisation of new vice-principals. Teachers College Record, 111(12), 685–721.

Barnett

B. G.

Shoho

A. R.

Okilwa

N. S. A.

(2017). Assistant principals’ perceptions of meaningful mentoring and professional development opportunities. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 6(4), 285–301.

Barnett

B. G.

Shoho

A. R.

Oleszewski

A. M.

(2012). The job realities of beginning and experienced assistant principals. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(1), 92–128.

Bartholomew

S. K.

Delaney

G. M.

Orta

White

(2005). Assistant principals as instructional leaders. Principal Leadership, 5(9), 22–26.

10.

Bass

(2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications (4th ed.). The Free Press.

11.

Bassett

(2012). Developing middle level leaders in New Zealand secondary schools [Unpublished thesis for Master of Educational Leadership and Management, Unitec Institute of Technology].

12.

Beutel

Crosswell

Willis

Spooner-Lane

Curtis

Churchward

(2017). Preparing teachers to mentor beginning teachers: An Australian case study. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 6(3), 164–177.

13.

Boone

L. E.

(2020). Perceptions of the supports and professional development for and needed by novice school administrators in South-western Virginia [Unpublished EdD dissertation in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University].

14.

Brauckmann

Pashiardis

Ärlestig

(2020). Bringing context and educational leadership together: Fostering the professional development of school principals. Professional Development in Education, 49(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1747105

15.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

16.

Brundrett

Rhodes

(2013). Researching educational leadership and management: Methods and approaches. Sage.

17.

Bryant

D. A.

Wong

Y. L.

Adames

(2020). How middle leaders support in-service teachers’ on-site professional learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 100, 101530.

18.

Busch

S. D.

MacNeil

A. J.

Baraniuk

M. S.

(2012). Critical advice from practicing assistant principals for assistant principal preparation [Conference session]. Hawaii International Conference on Education, Honolulu, HI.

19.

Bush

(2007). Educational leadership and management: Theory, policy, and practice. South African Journal of Education, 27(3), 391–406.

20.

Bush

(2012). Authenticity in research: Reliability, validity and triangulation. In Briggs

Morrison

Coleman

(Eds.), Research methods in educational leadership and management (3rd ed., pp. 75–89). Sage.

21.

Calabrese

R. L.

Tucker-Ladd

P. R.

(1991). The principal and assistant principal: A mentoring relationship. NASSP Bulletin, 75(533), 67–74.

22.

Cansoy

Türkoğlu

M. E.

Balıkçı

(2021). What are the sources and negative effects of assistant principals’ work intensification? Sage Open, 11(3), 16.

23.

Chagger

Bischoff

(2012). The barriers that deputy head teachers in secondary schools’ face on their journey to headship. International Journal of Social Science and Education, 2(6), 54–66.

24.

Chao

G. T.

Walz

P. M.

Gardner

P. D.

(1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with non-mentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 25, 619–636.

25.

Cleophas

T. J.

Zwinderman

A. H.

(2016). SPSS for staters and 2nd levers. Springer.

26.

Cowin

K. M.

Gates

G. S.

Luckett

(2016). The relevance and promise of relational mentoring for school leadership: A conversation. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 5(3), 187–202.

27.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

28.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

(2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage.

29.

Delgado

C. J.

(2016). The impact of occupational stress on high school assistant principals [Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy in Education, Educational leadership dissertation, Oakland University].

30.

Dexter

Clement

Moraguez

Watson

(2020). (Inter)active learning tools and pedagogical strategies in educational leadership preparation. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 15(3), 173–191.

31.

Edwards-Groves

Grootenboer

Hardy

Rönnerman

(2019). Driving change from “the middle”: Middle leading for site based educational development. School Leadership and Management, 39(3–4), 315–333.

32.

Field

(Ed.). (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: And sex and drugs and rock “n” roll (4th ed.). Sage.

33.

Goldring

Rubin

Herrmann

(2021). The role of assistant principals: Evidence and insights for advancing school leadership. The Wallace Foundation.

34.

Greene

J. C.

(2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Jossey Bass.

35.

Gronn

(2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423–451.

36.

Grubb

W. N.

Tredway

(2010). Leading from the inside out: Expanded roles for teachers in equitable schools. Paradigm.

37.

Gurley

D. K.

Anast-May

Lee

H. T.

(2015). Developing instructional leaders through assistant principals’ academy: A partnership for success. Education and Urban Society, 42(2), 207–241.

38.

Hackmann

D. G.

Malin

J. R.

(2020). From dyad to network: The evolution of a mentoring relationship. Mentoring and Tutoring, 28(4), 498–515.

39.

Hair

J. F.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

Black

W. C.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis. Macmillan Publishing Company.

40.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2013). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage.

41.

Hallinger

Heck

R. H.

(2010). Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership make a difference in school improvement? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(6), 654–678.

42.

Harris

(2008). Distributed leadership in schools: Developing the leaders of tomorrow. Routledge.

43.

Harris

Jones

Adams

(2016). Qualified to lead? A comparative, contextual and cultural view of educational policy borrowing. Educational Researcher, 58(2), 166–178.

44.

Harris

Jones

M. S.

Adams

Perera

C. J.

Sharma

(2014). High-performing education systems in Asia: Leadership art meets implementation science. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(4), 861–869.

45.

Harris

Muijs

Crawford

(2003). Deputy and assistant heads: Building leadership potential. National College for School Leadership.

46.

Hausman

Nebeker

McCreary

Donaldson

(2002). The work life of the assistant principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(2), 136–157.

47.

Hilliard

A. T.

Newsome

S. S.

(2013). Value added: best practices for the utilisation of assistant principals’ skills and knowledge in schools. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 2nd quarter 10(2), 153–158.

48.

Hitt

D. H.

Tucker

P. D.

Young

M. D.

(2012). The professional pipeline for educational leadership. University Council of Educational Administration.

49.

Kang

(2022). Shaping the leadership configuration of principals and vice-principals: The principal socialising agent. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 52(4), 780–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221116208

50.

(2006). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. Chapman & Hall.

51.

Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB). (2014). NPQEL Generating Future Leaders: Enhancing Gems. Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB).

52.

Johnson

R. B.

Christensen

(2014). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches. Sage.

53.

Johnson

W. B.

(2016). On being a mentor: A guide for higher education faculty. Routledge.

54.

Jones

Adams

Hwee Joo

M. T.

Muniandy

Perera

C. J.

Harris

(2015). Contemporary challenges and changes: Principals’ leadership practices in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(3), 353–365.

55.

Kaiser

H. F.

(1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.

56.

Kalbfleisch

P. J.

(2002). Communication in mentoring relationship: A theory for enactment. Communication Theory, 12, 63–69.

57.

Kalbfleisch

P. J.

(2007). Mentoring enactment theory: Describing, explaining, and predicting communication in mentoring relationship. In Ragins

B. R.

Kram

K. E.

(Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research and practice (pp. 499–518). Sage.

58.

Kaplan

L. S.

Owings

W. A.

(1999). Assistant principals: The case for shared instructional leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 83(605), 80–94.

59.

Kavanagh

(2020). The professional development needs of appointed middle leaders in education and training board, post-primary schools [Unpublished Doctor of Education thesis, Dublin City University].

60.

Kim

H. Y.

(2019). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: The independent samples t-test. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 44(3), Article e26.

61.

Kram

K. E.

(1985a). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Scott Foresman.

62.

Kram

K. E.

(1985b). Improving the mentoring process. Training and Development Journal, 39, 40–43.

63.

Krejcie

R. V.

Morgan

D. W.

(1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607–610.

64.

Kwan

Walker

(2008). Deputy-principalship in Hong Kong: Aspirations, competencies and satisfaction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(1), 73–97.

65.

Lamm

K. W.

Sapp

L. R.

Lamm

A. J.

Randall

(2020). A longitudinal evaluation of conflict management capacity building efforts in higher education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(3), 75–85.

66.

Lapointe

É.

Vandenberghe

. (2017). Supervisory mentoring and employee affective commitment and turnover: The critical role of contextual factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 98–107.

67.

Leech

N. L.

Barrett

K. C.

Morgan

G. A.

(Eds.). (2011). IBM SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation (4th ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

68.

S. C.

Poon

A. Y. K.

Lai

T. K. H.

Tam

S. T. C.

(2021). Does middle leadership matter? Evidence from a study of system-wide reform on English language curriculum. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 24(2), 226–243.

69.

Liang

Wang

(2019). Analysis of t-test misuses and SPSS operations in medical research papers. Burns & Trauma, 7, 31.

70.

Lillejord

Børte

(2020). Middle leaders and the teaching profession: Building intelligent accountability from within. Journal of Educational Change, 21(1), 83–107.

71.

Marshall

Hooley

R. M.

(2006). The assistant principal: Leadership choices and challenge. Corwin Press.

72.

Marshall

Phelps Davidson

(2016). As assistant principals enter their careers: A case for providing support. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 5(3), 272–278.

73.

Ministry of Education, Malaysia. (2013). Malaysian educational blueprint 2013-2025. Pre-school to post-secondary education. Ministry of Education, Malaysia.

74.

Mitchell

Armstrong

Hands

(2017). “Oh, is that my job?” Role vulnerability in the vice-principalship. International Studies in Educational Administration, 45(1), 3–18.

75.

Mondal

(2020). Collaborative leadership and its impact on school improvement: A critical analysis. International Journal of Current Research in Education, Culture and Society, 4(2), 32–41.

76.

Morgan

T. L.

(2018). Assistant principals’ perceptions of the principalship. International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, 13(10), 1–20.

77.

Morse

J. M.

(1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40(2), 120–123.

78.

Mujis

(2010). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. Sage.

79.

Niewenhuizen

Brooks

J. S.

(2013). The assistant principal’s duties, training, and challenges: From color-blind to a critical race perspective. In Brooks

J. S.

Arnold

N. W.

(Eds.), Antiracist school leadership: Toward equity in education for America’s students (pp. 185–210). Information Age.

80.

Odhiambo

G. O.

(2014). Squeezed? The role, purpose and development of middle leaders in schools [Conference session]. Speaking Back Through Research’ the Joint AARE-NZARE Conference (Vol. 30). Queensland University of Technology.

81.

Oleszewski

Shoho

Barnett

(2012). The development of assistant principals: A literature review. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(3), 264–286.

82.

Oplatka

(2010). The legacy of educational administration. Peter Lang.

83.

Petrides

Jimes

Karaglani

(2014). Assistant principal leadership development: A narrative capture study. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(2), 173–192.

84.

Petridou

Nicolaidou

Karagiorgi

(2017). Exploring the impact of professional development and professional practice on school leaders’ self-efficacy: A quasi-experimental study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(1), 56–73.

85.

Pont

Nusche

Moorman

(Eds.). (2008). Improving school leadership, Volume 1: Policy and practice. OECD.

86.

Ragins

B. R.

Cotton

J. L.

(1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 529–550.

87.

Reyes-Guerra

Barnett

B. G.

(2017). Field experiences in educational leadership development: where theory meets practice. In Young

M. D.

Crow

G. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of school leaders (2nd ed., pp. 229–261). Routledge.

88.

Rhodes

Fletcher

(2013). Coaching and mentoring for self-efficacious leadership in schools. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 2(1), 47–63.

89.

Robinson

O. C.

(2023). Probing in qualitative research interviews: Theory and practice. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 20(3), 382–397.

90.

Said

(2016). Strategy in handling the administrative stress through the Islamic approaches among DP [Unpublished Master project. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia].

91.

Santacrose

D. M.

(2016). A mixed-methods study on the perceived role of novice assistant principals and the essence of their lived experience [Unpublished EdD dissertation, The Faculty of the College of Education, Florida Gulf Coast University].

92.

Saunders

Sim

Kingstone

Baker

Waterfield

Bartlam

Burroughs

Jinks

(2017). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907.

93.

Searby

Browne-Ferrigno

Wang

C. H.

(2017). Assistant principals: their readiness as instructional leaders. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 16(3), 397–430.

94.

Service

Dalgic

G. E.

Thornton

(2016). Implications of a shadowing/mentoring programme for aspiring principals. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 5(3), 253–271.

95.

Shakir

(2021). An exploration of the mentoring experiences of elementary assistant principals provided by elementary principals within one large urban school district [Unpublished EdD dissertation in Educational Leadership, Bagwell College of Education, Kennesaw State University].

96.

Shapira-Lishchinsky

(2020). Proposing a new model for long-term learning among mid-level school leaders: Toward enhancing organizational learning via simulation training. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(9), 1375–1386. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2019-0296

97.

Shapira-Lishchinsky

Glanz

Shaer

(2016). Team-based simulations: Towards developing ethical guidelines among USA and Israeli teachers in Jewish schools. Religion & Education, 111(5), 555–574.

98.

Sider

(2019). Peer coaching in a school in Cairo, Egypt: Implementation, barriers, and pathways to effective adoption. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 8(1), 37–51.

99.

Stockemer

(2019). Quantitate methods for the social sciences: A practical introduction with SPSS and Stata. Springer.

100.

Sun

(2011). Shared instructional leadership as assistant principals in an accountability-oriented environment. In Shoho

Barnett

Tooms

(Eds.), Examining the assistant principalship: New puzzles and perennial challenges for the 21st century (pp. 153–180). Information Age.

101.

Sun

Shoho

A. R.

(2017). Assistant principals’ perceptions of value added to school success. Journal of School Leadership, 27(4), 456–490.

102.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2014). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.

103.

Tahir

Musah

M. B.

Panatik

S. A.

Ali

M. F.

Said

M. N. H.

(2019). Primary school leadership in Malaysia: The experience of stress among deputy heads. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(5), 785–814.

104.

Tai

M. K.

Kareem

(2018). Headteacher change leadership competency: A study in Malaysian primary schools. Professional Development in Education, 46(2), 292–305.

105.

Thabethe

L. M.

(2020). Deputy principals’ understanding and experiences of their leadership roles [Unpublished Master of Education dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal].

106.

Thurlings

Evers

A. T.

Vermeulen

(2015). Toward a model of explaining teachers’ innovative behavior: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 85(3), 430–471.

107.

Varney

(2012). Humanistic mentoring. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 45(3), 127−131.

108.

Weisburd

D. L.

Britt

(2014). Statistics in criminal justice. Springer Science+Business Media.

109.

Williams

R. B.

Jr. (2019). Exploring the perceptions of secondary assistant principals toward their development as instructional leaders [Unpublished EdD dissertation, Department of Leadership, School Counseling, & Sports Management, College of Education and Human Sciences. The University of North Florida].

110.

Willis

Churchward

Beutel

Spooner-Lane

Crosswell

Curtis

(2019). Mentors for beginning teachers as middle leaders: The messy work of re-contextualising. School Leadership and Management, 39(3–4), 334–351.

111.

Woods

P. A.

Roberts

(2019). Developing collaborative school leadership: A catalyst to support reflection and action. Centre for Educational Leadership, School of Education, University of Hertfordshire.

112.

Yaskom

M. J.

(2013). The analysis of training needs for special education deputy heads [Unpublished Master of Education (Educational Administration) project paper. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia].

113.

Young

(2011, July 10). Assistant principals: Empowerment, demographics and retention in Texas [Paper presentation]. BELMAS Annual International Conference, Wybston Lakes.

Learning From Principals: Exploring Malaysian Primary Deputy Principals’ Informal Mentoring Experiences

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Theoretical Perspective

Informal Professional Development Approaches in Schools

DPs’ Mentoring in Schools

Methodology

Design

Participants

Instrumentation

Data Collection Procedure

Data Analysis

Findings

Factor Structure of Items

DPs’ Feedback on Their Informal Mentoring With Principals

DPs’ Informal Mentoring Process

Advising DPs

Source of Reference

Distributed Leadership

Linking DPs’ Demographics With Informal Mentoring Practices

Discussion

Implication for DPs’ Leadership Practice

Recommendations for Practice

Limitations and Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Statements and Declarations

References