The Conceptualization and Development of the Pashiardis–Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework

Abstract

In this chapter, an examination of the various theories developed on leadership, such as situational theories and transactional and transformational theories, is initially presented. Following, there is an examination of the main empirical findings about the effects of school leadership on student achievement. Finally, an in-depth presentation of the five leadership styles that school principals are likely to employ in their work is provided, as follows: (1) instructional style, (2) structuring style, (3) participative style, (4) entrepreneurial, and (5) personnel development style. Additionally, a more in-depth analysis of the most prominent school climate variables is presented, which includes a learning and orderly climate, personal achievement orientation, evaluation and feedback practices, teachers’ job satisfaction and commitment to the school, teacher-student interactions, students’ opportunity to learn, explicit teaching strategies, and parental involvement. In the end, a description is offered about how all these components are placed together in order to create the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework in its initial conceptualization.

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This chapter is intended to provide a review of the literature on the concept and evolution of leadership as well as present the main leadership dimensions and school climate variables which seem to influence student outcomes. The literature review is based on the acknowledgment that the investigation of the relationship between leadership and student learning is multilevel and complex in nature and, at the same time, that it is enacted primarily through mediating variables. This extensive review contributed finally to the development of the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework. For the development of this framework, it was assumed that a worldwide search of the current literature on leadership needs to take place, but at the same time, some of the main ideas need to be re-situated within the context of the European countries participating in the project.

2.1 Policy Expectations with Regard to Leadership

In this novel school environment of accountability, where various pressures and external challenges are identified, there is an increasing recognition of the importance of school leadership in supporting change and providing for educational quality. Voices and evidence pointing towards increased accountability are being heard in every corner of the planet. Stakeholders are increasingly becoming more aware and demanding with regard to the quality of education their children are receiving and demand for more explanations, especially when there is evidence of poor educational results. Of course, it is an indisputable fact that the teacher who enters a child’s classroom is the most important factor which is conducive to learning. At the same time, school leadership has been identified by a number of researchers as a key element in the effectiveness of school organizations (Brauckmann & Pashiardis, 2009; Gronn & Ribbins, 2003; Jacobson, 2011; Kythreotis & Pashiardis, 2006; Kythreotis, Pashiardis, & Kyriakides, 2010; Lashway, 2003; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Muijs, 2011; Mulford & Silins, 2011; Sammons, Day, & Ko, 2011; Seashore Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010). As a result, the various stakeholders have widened their expectations from school principals demanding higher academic results and performance standards (Weindling & Dimmock, 2006). However, leading the process towards increased effectiveness is not an easy task for any principal. According to Stevenson (2006), tensions arise where it is hard to respond effectively to societal expectations. In this context, it is important to reorient the role of the school leader and identify which forms or sets of leadership perceptions, behaviors, actions, and practices influence the core purpose of a school’s mission, which is student learning. These widening expectations from school leaders, coupled with the fact of more recent research which shows the importance of effective school leadership, have placed school leadership right in the epicenter of educational reforms worldwide.

2.2 Shapes of Leadership

The concept of “leadership” holds a central position in the various theories of management science as well in the daily operation of contemporary organizations. Many researchers have attempted to define the concept so that the phenomenon of leadership can be better understood. Although providing rich insights into the concept, there is no unique definition of leadership, which is broadly accepted (Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998; Hoy & Miskel, 2013; Witziers, Bosker, & Krüger, 2003).

Acknowledging the critical importance of leadership, a number of theorists and researchers analyzed and elaborated the meaning of leadership. For instance, Chemers (1997) maintains that leadership is a social influence process during which an individual manages to secure the assistance of others in order to accomplish a common goal. Moreover, Pashiardis (2004, p. 209) defines leadership as

the nexus of those behaviors used with others when trying to influence their own behaviors.

That is, a leader is the person, who influences through his/her behavior the behavior of the people in his/her group. In this way, he/she activates the organization members towards the accomplishment of a common vision. According to Hoy and Miskel (2008), what is common in most definitions is the enactment of

intentional influence over others to structure activities and relationships in a group or organization. (p. 419)

Debate however remains as to whether leadership is position based or diffused throughout the organization. One view supports the distinction between the responsibilities and functions of leaders and their followers (Yukl, 2002). An alternative view is that leadership is a property of the organization rather than the individual which can be shared among other members as well (Harris, 2006; Seashore Louis et al., 2010; Spillane, 2005). In any case, both approaches can benefit the efforts made to shed light on the complex concept of leadership.

Another fuzzy issue found in the literature concerns the relationship between the concepts of leadership, management, and administration. Indeed, the issue of distinguishing between the terms management and leadership and even administration has attracted the attention of many researchers of management science. As mentioned by Mullins (1994, p. 247),

formerly, these concepts were synonymous… nowadays though, some differences have been identified with respect to the behavior of the leader or manager towards the other parts of the organization.

According to Hoy and Miskel (2013), some view leadership as being fundamentally different from administration. On the one hand, administrators focus on stability and efficiency, while, on the other hand, leaders stress adaptive change and influence. In addition, Cuban (1988) views management as a function of maintenance of current organizational arrangements and leadership as a function of change. In both cases, administration and management are treated as identical constructs. Another position held by Mullins (1994) is that management can be taught, while leadership is a charisma and is mainly based on the individual’s personality. These two concepts remind us strongly of McGregor’s (1960) theory of X and Y. A manager is mainly possessed by the characteristics of theory X, while a leader is mainly possessed by the characteristics of theory Y. Concurrently, the two types of managers remind us of Gouldner’s (1957) theory of professional bureaucracy with locals and cosmopolitans. Managers possess the basic characteristics of the locals, while leaders possess the basic characteristics of the cosmopolitans. Furthermore, according to Gardner (2007), managers are more tightly attached to the organization than leaders, while the latter seem to have no organization attachment or commitment at all.

Pashiardis (2004) has also made a distinction between administration, management, and leadership (see Fig. 2.1). In his opinion, the term administration has to do with the daily, administrative execution of the everyday tasks to assist the bureaucratic functioning of the organization. That is why, he has coined the term administrivia (Pashiardis, 2001), which reflects the daily routine and mostly executive tasks performed by managerial officers without significant importance to the organization. The term administrivia combines administration with trivial. The term management has to do with the daily administration of the organization, but at the same time the leader provides direction to the organization within a time limit of a few months. There is also a political dimension to this concept, albeit small. The concept of leadership is like an umbrella term under which the previous two terms, both management and administration, fall. The term leadership encompasses the vision and long-term direction of the organization, within the next 3–5 years or even 10 years, thus providing strategic orientation to the organization. Through this reflection, Pashiardis considers the term “leadership” as being inclusive to the other two, and at the same time, he deems that a good leader has to be a good administrator and a good manager as well. The terms are complementary to each other, but none can reflect by itself what a contemporary leader ought to be doing. Moreover, the concept of leadership encompasses highly politicized actions and behaviors that are beyond the realm of administration and management, which demand much less “doses” of political astuteness. In essence, under the term leadership we imply the legacy after a leader is gone. Leaders ought to ask themselves “how do I want this organization to look like after I am gone?”

Fig. 2.1

The relationships between the terms leadership, management, and administration

It must be acknowledged that early research on leadership focused on the personal characteristics and traits of leaders. Trait theory is rooted in Aristotle, who believed that leadership is a gift that a person is born with. In this sense, the dimension of inheritance is attached to the concept of leadership. According to the theory, leaders are superior people with special traits which distinguish them from the rest of the population. Stogdill (1948) was one of the first to embark on research about trait and personality characteristics of leaders and even clustered these special characteristics into categories such as leaders’ intelligence, originality, judgment, achievement, sense of responsibility, persistence, aggressiveness, self-confidence, adaptability, humor, and socioeconomic status of the leader.

Generally, Stogdill’s research was inconclusive since no group of such characteristics was found to determine who can become a leader. That is, he did not find the “right” bodily size or the “right” intelligence quotient, so as to conclude with certainty that the person who was born with these traits could become a leader or that he/she holds greater potential to take over the leadership of an organization.

Then, the period of Contingency Models of Leadership followed, such as Fiedler’s Contingency Theory. Fiedler (1967) tried to find associations in leadership behavior especially between the leadership style and the situation in which the leader found him/herself. He defined leadership style as a motivation system which drives the leader to specific behaviors. Then, he acknowledged that the leader ought to have control of the situation, and as he mentioned, control over a situation is achieved by the atmosphere within the group and the power of the leader due to his/her position. What was needed in the end was effectiveness of the leader. According to Fiedler, effectiveness refers to the ability of the group to achieve its goals. Group effectiveness depends on the leadership style and the control the leader maintains over the situation.

Following, there were a number of theories which were called situational theories, that is, the leader’s effectiveness is dependent on the situation he/she is faced with. In essence, situational theories support that there is no “perfect” style of leadership, which anyone can employ at any time or anywhere, but that there are various leadership styles from which a leader can select according to the situation he/she is faced with. An ordinary model of situational leadership entails two axes (X and Y). On the X axis, the leader’s inclination for producing work is located (task orientation), while on the Y axis we can trace the leader’s inclination for human, interpersonal relations (human relations orientation).

The degree of the leader’s inclination towards tasks or interpersonal relations has to be examined in conjunction with the readiness (maturity) of the follower. The term readiness (maturity) does not imply the emotional, physical, or psychological maturity but the readiness and capacity of the follower to carry out a specific task. The main idea behind this concept is that the greater the level of maturity (readiness) of the follower, the less “instructional” and the less “emotional” or “appraising” an effective leader will have to be in the way he/she handles a follower. In essence, as the follower becomes more “professional” and more aware of the task that needs to be accomplished, he/she needs less guidance, while at the same time he does not need much praise in order to be able to work efficiently. These are the employees who (in fact) can work alone and only a fair amount of coordination is needed.

One of the most widely known situational theories (as described above), is the “Life Cycle” theory by Hersey and Blanchard (1988). On the basis of their theory, Hersey and Blanchard support that there is no best “leadership style” under any conditions. A good leader changes his/her approach (his/her style) according to the specific situation he/she is faced with as well as the readiness of the follower. For example, if the followers possess “low” readiness (e.g., new employees, principals, teachers, students), leaders need to be more directional in order to assist their followers to move to the next stage of readiness. That is, good leaders have to manage their followers according to the degree of the professional maturity and readiness that they possess. Thus, the newly appointed teachers who have just finished the university or their initial education need, based on this model, more guidance at the beginning, and therefore the leader has to be more directive and feeling—and slowly becoming more appraising, more “humane”—and decreasing his/her inclination towards the tasks to be performed because the teacher is getting more “mature” and is already at a higher stage of readiness. This is the stage when leaders act as the professional development resource person for their employees. The risk for this type of leadership is for the leader to be able to correctly diagnose the level of professional maturity of the employee and, at the same time, diagnose what the situation calls for and then act accordingly.

Much has also been written about the theories of transactional and transformational leadership. On the whole, transactional leaders motivate the members of the organization by exchanging rewards for work (Burns, 1978). These leaders identify the needs of the members of the organization and try to satisfy them in return for services rendered by their followers. According to Bass (1985), this is a form of a cost-benefit, economic approach to meet the followers’ needs in return for their services. On the contrary, transformational leadership promotes a strong emotional attachment of the followers to the leader (Bass). Transformational leaders talk about change and build a vision; they focus on the accomplishment of long-term goals and they reengineer the organization in order to keep up with their vision instead of fighting within the same organization. Within the framework of transformational leadership theory, the four Is which should be exhibited by contemporary leaders are provided, that is, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Atwater & Bass, 1994; Avolio, 1994; Hoy & Miskel, 2013). Following the debate about what school leaders do in order to have schools where students learn, the literature turns into school effects as its focal point about leadership. The main question became “what do leaders do and how do they act and behave in order to create schools with high student academic achievement?”

2.3 Effects of School Leadership on Student Achievement

Researchers in the area of educational leadership have attempted to identify links between educational leadership and educational effectiveness research. This phenomenon is mainly due to the perception that educational leaders, especially school principals, affect school effectiveness. However, the empirical literature shows that both the nature and the degree of principal impact continue to be a subject of debate (Pitner, 1988). Previous research on the effects of school leadership on students’ academic achievement has produced contradictory findings. On the one hand a number of studies found some effects (Cheng, 1994; Edmonds, 1979; Fuller, 1987; Kythreotis et al., 2010; Leithwood, Patten, & Jantzi, 2010; Levine & Lezotte, 1990; Mortimore, Sammons, Ecob, & Stoll, 1988; Mulford & Silins, 2011; Pashiardis, 1995, 1998, 2004; Reynolds & Cuttance, 1992; Rutter, Maugham, Mortimore, Ousten, & Smith, 1979; Sammons et al., 2011).

On the other hand, other studies found no statistically significant effects. For example, Hallinger and Heck (1996, 1998) reviewed more than 40 studies published about the principal’s role in school between 1980 and 1995. In 21 original studies they explored the relationship between educational leadership and student achievement. In nine studies no relationship was found. Six studies found mixed effects. In the remaining six studies a positive relationship was found. The general pattern of results drawn from these two reviews supports the belief that principals exercise a measurable, though indirect effect on school effectiveness and student achievement. On the contrary, the direct effects of principals’ leadership on student achievement seem to be very rare.

What is important to understand is that whatever the research method or context in which leadership research has been carried out, leadership is only second to teaching in order to have effective schools (Seashore Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010). Thus, school systems and schools need to understand that in order to have schools which teach and students who learn, we need to provide them with leaders who can lead and guide these processes.

Based on the main research trends of leadership effects, Hallinger and Heck (1998) as well as a number of other researchers (e.g., Clifford, Behrstock-Sherratt, & Fetters, 2012; Darling-Hammond, 2012; Kearney, 2010; Levacic, 2005; Pitner, 1988) discern three main causal models of leadership effects on student outcomes: the direct effects, the indirect effects, and the reciprocal effects models. A description of each of the three models is provided in conjunction with supporting evidence for their potential validation.

2.3.1 Model A: Direct Effects

The first model supports that leadership has a direct impact on student outcomes, adjusting for prior attainment. An extended model A includes antecedent variables, i.e., school context variables, which may affect student outcomes directly or affect leadership as well.

There is not much evidence supporting the validation of the direct effects model. According to Hallinger and Heck’s (1998) review already mentioned, direct effect studies mainly reported insignificant effects of leadership on student outcomes. Moreover, Witziers et al. (2003) conducted a quantitative meta-analysis of studies between 1986 and 1996 in order to estimate the direct effect size of educational leadership on student achievement. According to their results, school leadership on the whole has a positive and significant impact on student achievement. However, the effect sizes were very small. Furthermore, the direct effect of leadership on student achievement in secondary schools is absent, while the effect size in the context of the Netherlands is about zero. Also, when considering studies adopting a unidimensional concept of educational leadership, there was no positive nor significant effects related to student outcomes. When treated as a multidimensional construct, effect sizes were small but significant. Krüger, Witziers, and Sleegers (2007) also conducted another secondary analysis using the data from a study investigating differences between male and female secondary school principals in the Netherlands. The path analysis showed that instructional leadership and strategic educational leadership have no direct effect on student commitment. Finally, a meta-analysis of 70 studies since 1970 showed that a balanced framework of concrete leadership practices affects student achievement (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005). In fact, the results revealed 21 responsibilities which the leader must perform in order to raise student achievement.

Individual studies also inquire about the direct effects of leadership on student achievement. For example, Marks and Printy (2003) examined the impact of an integrated model of leadership on school performance. The underlying assumption for this research is that transformational and shared instructional leadership tasks are complementary. For this study, 24 USA restructured schools were selected (8 elementary, 8 middle, 8 high schools) for the analysis of data. The results showed that in schools with integrated leadership, authentic student achievement is higher. These results reflect the shared engagement of the administrator and teachers around matters of pedagogy, curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Another piece of research providing support to the direct effects model was performed by Kythreotis et al. (2010). The researchers conducted a multilevel analysis of data obtained from a sample of 22 primary schools in Cyprus. The analysis showed an effect of the principal’s human resource leadership frame (as described by Bolman & Deal, 1991) on student achievement both in Greek language and mathematics tests.

2.3.2 Model B: Mediated Effects

The mediated effects model asserts that leadership affects student outcomes through intervening variables such as school culture, organization, teacher norms, and practices in the classroom. Antecedent variables may also be included. Research has shown that school principals influence student achievement mostly in an indirect manner, that is, through their influence on a number of school variables (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Seashore Louis et al., 2010). These variables mainly concern the school functioning and the organizational conditions through which improved teaching and learning occurs. Research based on the indirect effects model reveals more effects on students and thus constitutes a more promising approach to shed light on leadership effects. Towards this direction, we need to

improve our understanding of the chain of variables, which are located between the principal and the organization and student outcomes. (Kruger et al., 2007, p. 2)

According to Mascall, Leithwood, Strauss, and Sacks (2008), the challenge is to identify the variables mediating leaders’ influence on students. At the moment, there is strong evidence that transformational leadership indirectly affects student results. For example, Ross and Gray (2006) found an indirect effect of transformational leadership on student achievement. Principal effects on achievement were mediated by collective teacher efficacy and teacher commitment to professional values. The researchers used path analysis from 205 elementary schools in Ontario. The strongest impact on achievement occurred through teacher commitment to school-community partnerships; this means that, by adopting a transformational leadership style, it is likely to have a positive effect on commitment to school-community partnerships through collective teacher efficacy. The indirect effect of transformational leadership on achievement was small but significant. It is also important to note that no statistically significant direct effect of leadership on achievement was found.

In addition, in a review of 32 empirical studies (both quantitative and qualitative) published between 1996 and 2005, Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) concluded that transformational leadership has a significant positive effect, primarily indirect, on both student achievement and engagement. The school climate variables comprise teacher commitment and job satisfaction at the individual level, while at the organizational level school culture, organizational learning, planning, and strategies for change were identified.

Similarly, the Leadership for Organizational Learning and Student Outcomes (LOLSO) study shows that transformational leadership, both positioned based (principal) and distributive (administrative team and teachers), is indirectly related to student outcomes (Mulford, 2003; Mulford & Silins, 2011). Organizational learning is the mediating variable between leadership and teacher work and then student outcomes.

Leadership practice also needs to be focused on improving learning and teaching practices. That is why much research addressed the indirect impact of instructional leadership on achievement. Hallinger and Heck (1996, 1998) studies found mixed or consistently positive effects of instructional leadership on student outcomes. Reviewing the research conducted since 1980, Hallinger (2005) concludes that instructional leadership in practice places the greatest focus on the dimensions of defining the school’s mission and improving the learning climate. O’Donnell and White (2005) investigated the relationship between instructional leadership and student achievement in public middle schools of Pennsylvania. Data were obtained from 325 middle level educators using Hallinger’s Principals Instructional Management Rating Scale. Achievement data from the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment was also included. The analysis showed that the teachers’ perceptions of their principal’s behavior in promoting the school learning climate had the largest explanatory power for predicting mathematics and reading scores. In addition, the multivariate regression analysis showed that the principals of schools with high SES who believe that they exhibit the behavior of defining the school mission influence reading achievement in a positive way. This finding further suggests that the school context plays an important role in the relationship between instructional leadership and student achievement.

That context is important goes without saying. This is exactly the reason why we should be knowledgeable about what research tells us in different settings, but we should not attempt to copy-paste policies and practices from one context right into another. Culture and indeed local values are an essential prerequisite to have in mind when creating new policies with regard to school leadership.

2.3.3 Model C: Reciprocal Effects

This is a dynamic model in which leadership affects school climate variables and student outcomes, but it is in turn affected by them. It can only be investigated by observing the long-term interactions between leadership, school climate variables, and student outcomes. The reciprocal effects model suggests that leaders adapt their thinking and behavior to the organization they work (Witziers et al., 2003).

The reciprocal effects model is rarer to find in leadership effect studies. In fact, Hallinger and Heck (1998) found no studies modeling reciprocal effects. However, it is interesting to note that Krüger et al. (2007) explored such a possibility in their study reaching the result that strategic leadership is influenced by student commitment, something that points to the usefulness of the reciprocal effects model. To sum up, in a recent article, Hallinger (2011) suggests that significant progress has been made towards the identification of the ways and means by which leadership impacts on learning (Hallinger).

2.4 The Factors that Lead to Conflicting Findings Among the Various Studies

What are the reasons that lead to the production of these conflicting findings? It seems that some important conceptual and methodological factors differentiate the results among the various studies and oftentimes, the results of leadership effect studies are contradictory and sometimes even conflicting with each other. First, there is no unique definition of the concept of a principal’s leadership, which is broadly accepted (Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998; Witziers et al., 2003). This, by itself, leads to results that do not make sense if the conceptualizations of the main factors involved are not similar. Second, there is no universal paradigm or theory for examining organizational behavior that is valid and accepted in all social or organizational contexts (Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998; Pashiardis, Thody, Papanaoum, & Johansson, 2003). Third, methodological issues and research design affect the findings of the various studies. For example, the use of longitudinal data permits the examination of the progress of student achievement (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). In addition, the presence or absence of either construct validity or generalizability or explicit measures of school performance as a dependent variable may lead to different findings (Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998). More specifically, the context from one country to the other plays an important role and may render some of the results as contradictory or noncomparable. Moreover, not everybody uses the same dependent variables as proof of effectiveness. Some studies use students’ academic achievement, whereas some other studies may use job satisfaction as a measure of effectiveness or students’ citizenship achievements. Finally, the use of statistical techniques such as structural equation modeling and multilevel analysis permits the examination of the complex relationships between a principal’s leadership and student achievement (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000; Witziers et al., 2003); however, not everybody is well versed in these techniques and their results are not easily accessible and interpretable to all.

Based on the limitations of a number of previous studies and the recommendations pointed by the aforementioned reviews, the design and execution of future studies about school leadership and student achievement should adopt a number of important conditions. Firstly, it is important to use the appropriate conceptual framework that ties the variables together (Hallinger, 2011; Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998). Secondly, it is also important to investigate the validity of various models of principals’ effects such as the direct effects model and the indirect effects model (Pitner, 1988). Thirdly, it is important to adopt the most appropriate methodology (Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998; Kythreotis & Pashiardis, 2006; Witziers et al., 2003). In view of the aforementioned, we constructed the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework (Pashiardis & Brauckmann, 2008) which was presented in Chap. 1 in order to have a common point of departure for the design of both studies described in this book. Thus, the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework became the point of departure for both the LISA as well as the Pro-LEAD studies. In order to make it easier for the reader to follow through the analyses of leadership styles and intermediate school-level variables, the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework is presented in this chapter as well but in greater detail with regard to its various components.

As was mentioned in Chap. 1, the research team decided to validate the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework in all eight countries in order to create this common foundation on which to further expand in current thinking in school leadership. In this way, we were able to make some comparisons across borders (albeit with great caution, due to our small sample), and at the same time, build on the results of the LISA study in order to extend it with the Pro-LEAD study, using the framework as the common denominator (Fig. 2.2).

Fig. 2.2

The Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework

As was already mentioned, the framework entails five leadership styles that school principals are likely to employ in their work. In our case, as was previously mentioned, a leadership style is defined as

the nexus of all those behaviors and practices that school principals use in order to influence the behavior of others. (Pashiardis, 2004, p. 209)

Therefore, across the leadership radius five styles may be distinguished which are as follows: (1) instructional style, (2) structuring style, (3) participative style, (4) entrepreneurial style, and (5) personnel development style. Each leadership style consists of specific behaviors, actions, or practices which are likely to be exhibited by school principals. A more in-depth and detailed examination of these leadership styles as well as the school level intermediate variables is presented in the following pages of this chapter. It should be stressed on the outset that the Leadership Radius (middle column in red on the figure depicting the framework) is the epicenter of the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework. By Leadership Radius we mean all that a school leader does in order to create a well-functioning school which is able to accomplish its mission. This Leadership Radius consists of the five main styles through which the leader exercises his/her influence within the school boundaries. However, it should be noted that the sum of the five styles does not equal the Leadership Radius; this concept is more than the sum of its parts and it really revolves around the leader’s personality and moral purpose in order to make this complex concept operational. Moreover, the five styles partially overlap and are congenial to each other when in full motion and operation. This Leadership Radius is what we came to call the “Leadership Cocktail Mix.”

In the framework, however, it is also acknowledged that school leaders do not operate in a vacuum. On the contrary, their actions greatly depend on their perceptions of the particular context in which they work, that is, how they (the school leaders) interpret the external environment and legal framework which relate to their practices. The context, as we define it, is divided into two main levels, the system-level variables and the school-level variables. It should be noted, however, that school leaders are both influenced and they themselves also influence the context in which they operate. This is why the two arrows on the diagram connecting the Leadership Radius with the Context point in both directions.

Furthermore, we were interested in investigating Intermediate School Climate Variables through which school leaders affect the final student outcomes. Some of the most prominent school climate variables found in the literature include a learning and orderly climate, personal achievement orientation, evaluation and feedback practices, teachers’ job satisfaction and commitment to the school, teacher-student interactions, students’ opportunity to learn, explicit teaching strategies, and parental involvement.

These variables which operate at the school level are hypothesized to be influenced by the foregoing leadership styles and in turn to affect school outcomes. Therefore, what follows is an in-depth description of the five leadership styles as well as an analysis of how these styles have an impact on the Intermediate School Climate Variables (or school climate variables) in order to enhance student achievement and other desirable school outcomes.

2.5 The Leadership Radius and School Climate Variables Development

2.5.1 Instructional Style and Its Relationship to Teaching and Learning Practices

Instructional leadership is a term that has been derived from the effective schools research, primarily in the USA. This leadership style has a strong focus on the improvement of the quality of teaching and learning. Within the framework of this generic notion, different conceptualizations with regard to the construct have been developed (Hallinger, 2000, 2011). Our conceptualization of instructional leadership entails the following actions and behaviors that a school leader ought to exhibit: defining instructional objectives, setting high expectations, monitoring and evaluating students and teachers, enabling achievement of instructional objectives, and stimulating instructional innovation.

There is a vast amount of evidence with regard to the effectiveness of the foregoing instructional leadership dimensions and indicators (Seashore Louis et al., 2010). Firstly, Dinham (2005) investigated the principal’s role in producing outstanding educational outcomes in years 7–10 in 38 secondary, government schools in New South Wales, Australia. One of the findings of the case studies was that effective principals clarify the core purpose of schooling, that is, teaching and learning. This is also supported by Hallinger and Heck’s (1998) review which showed that the “definition of the school mission” (and consequently the definition of the instructional objectives) is one of the main components of instructional leadership. This initial review has been corroborated by findings from another more recent review, where Hallinger (2005) concludes that instructional leadership (in practice) places the greatest focus on the dimensions of shaping the school’s mission and creating a positive learning environment. Findings revealed that effective school principals lead through building a learning mission and aligning teaching and learning activities with the defined purposes.

In addition, effective school leaders seem to hold high expectations from teachers and students. In the aforementioned review of instructional leadership, Hallinger (2005) highlights that instructional leaders develop a climate of high expectations for teaching and learning. Similarly, in another review of the direct effects of leadership on student achievement, Nettles and Herrington (2007) identify high expectations for student performance as a primary constituent of effective schools. Mulford and Silins (2003, 2011) also conclude that high expectations from students and staff (under the notion of transformational leadership) affect student outcomes through organizational learning and the teachers’ work. The specific result has emerged from a longitudinal project in Australia named LOLSO, (Leadership for Organizational Learning and Student Outcomes) which combined both quantitative and qualitative research methods.

A number of researchers also maintain that monitoring and evaluation are primary constituents of an effective instructional leader. Evaluation is an important element affecting the complex life of schools (Daley & Kim, 2010; Danielson, 2011; Marshall, 2012; Papay, 2012; Peterson, 2004). It is important to realize that from the day we are born till the end of our lives, we go through a series of evaluations and judgments both at the personal and at the professional levels. It is also a fact that these evaluations sometimes aim at improving us and at other times aim at ranking and providing us with professional rewards. Therefore, evaluation can be defined as the process through which information and data are collected in order to reach decisions concerning purposes of improvement or accountability. With regard to the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework, evaluation and feedback practices are used to denote the two aforementioned purposes of evaluation. This variable entails items such as whether concrete feedback is given to staff with regard to teaching and learning or whether evaluations of teaching are used for improvement and change, or in order to meet external requirements or both functions of evaluation.

Moreover, it is accepted by a variety of stakeholders that the principal holds a key role in evaluation. Southworth (2002), in a qualitative study of successful leadership in small primary schools in England, found that monitoring teacher and student performance was one of the primary strategies utilized by the heads in order to improve the quality of teaching and learning. In addition, in a qualitative study of 49 Cypriot primary school principals nominated as effective by school inspectors, it was revealed that effective principals seem to be knowledgeable about learning and instructional problems around the school and well informed about the students’ progress (Pashiardis, 1998). They all exhibited a personal feeling of responsibility for school results and were aware of the impact the school could have on their students. In addition, in a meta-analysis of 19 studies, it was shown that planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and the curriculum make a strong impact on student outcomes (Robinson, 2007). This leadership dimension involves the support and evaluation of teaching through regular classroom observations and the provision of relevant feedback to teachers as well as the direct coordination and review of the curriculum so that it is aligned to school goals. Witziers et al. (2003) also found that the leadership behaviors of supervision, evaluation, and monitoring have a small but significant effect on student outcomes. This has been one of their findings in a quantitative meta-analysis of studies between 1986 and 1996 which attempted to estimate the direct effect size of educational leadership on student achievement.

Furthermore, the principal’s role in enabling the achievement of instructional objectives is also of great importance. One of the practices adopted by instructional school leaders entails the dialogue with teachers in order to promote reflection on teaching and learning. In an exploratory study, conducted by Blase and Blase (2002), an open questionnaire was sent to 890 teachers in order to investigate their perception of the characteristics and effects of instructional school leadership. The inductive analysis of the data identified that talking to teachers in order to promote reflection constitutes a major area of instructional leadership. To this effect, five primary strategies were adopted:

• 1. Making suggestions

• 2. Giving feedback

• 3. Modeling

• 4. Using inquiry and soliciting advice and opinions about instructional matters

• 5. Giving praise

The effects of these behaviors were to enhance teacher self-reflection, innovation and creativity, risk taking, motivation, satisfaction, self-esteem, efficacy, and sense of security. Research further shows that school leaders can have an effect on the Teaching and Learning Practices that take place in their schools. Teachers have always held a central role in successful schools. In fact, research shows that effective teaching constitutes the strongest indicator of student learning when controlling for student background characteristics. Much research has shown that the instructional behaviors and practices of teachers result in higher student learning gains (e.g., Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008; de Jong, Westerhof, & Kruiter, 2004; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Muijs & Reynolds, 2000; Stronge, Ward, Tucker, & Hindman, 2007). For the purposes of the LISA Project, the variable of Teaching and Learning Practices mainly concerns items representing efforts to improve teaching practices and student outcomes, a close alignment between content taught and content tested, the provision of explanations and precise answers to students’ questions, the prompt return of the graded tests and explanation of the expected answers, and a step-by-step procedure in teaching. The variable of Teaching and Learning Practices is basically defined at the school level rather than at the classroom level for the purposes of the LISA Project. This is because individual practices are aggregated at the school level, thus providing an indication of the general school practices with regard to teaching and learning approaches.

Additionally, effective leaders are constant stimulators of instructional innovation. According to Waters et al. (2003), the “optimizer role” adopted by school leaders contributes to an increase in student achievement. This dimension refers to the principal inspiring and leading new and challenging innovations in the teaching strategies they employ. Other researchers also point to the effectiveness of this leadership practice (e.g., Barnett & McCormick, 2004; Blase & Blase, 2002; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). Instructional innovation is tightly coupled with teachers’ and school leaders’ high expectations from their students. Student expectations represent practices that promote student personal achievement orientation. For the LISA Project purposes, student expectations are interpreted as teacher expectations about their students since it is the teachers’ perceptions that are utilized in order to mobilize students towards the enhancement of their performance. Specifically, the items of this variable include teachers’ expectations about their students’ interest in improving their academic performance, their participation in various educational programs and competitions, and the conduct of a noble competition which enhances their performance.

Thus, in effective schools, there are high expectations about learning, irrespective of the social, cultural, or other individual differences among students. Teacher expectations about students concern “a positive attitude in which teachers try to get the best out of all students, also the less capable ones” (Scheerens, 2008, p. 22). According to Muijs and Reynolds (2000), teachers emphasize the positive in each child and transmit these positive expectations to the children. Such expectations are operationalized in terms of the learning opportunities provided to students and the affective and learning climate created in the classroom (Pashiardi, 2000; Rubie-Davies, Hatties, & Hamilton, 2006). Teachers believe that all students can learn and try to respond to their individual needs by working towards the fulfillment of the school goals. More emphasis is also given to higher-order learning goals (analysis, critical thinking, problem solving), thus creating a challenging environment for children to learn. If negative expectations are formed by teachers, then it is likely that they will give their students less attention and expose them to less-than-challenging tasks.

2.5.2 Structuring Style and Its Relationship to Student–Teacher Interactions

The structuring style of leadership concerns the aspects of providing direction and coordination to the school unit. A first component of this domain concerns the creation and communication of a clear vision and mission for the school. Kouzes and Posner (2007, p. 65) posit that exemplary leaders have a clear picture of the future which pulls them forward. In a sense, they

“live their lives backwards” seeing pictures of the outcomes before even starting their project.

Research has shown that the principal’s vision affects the processes and outcomes of effective schools. In a secondary analysis using path modeling, Kruger et al. (2007) found that the principals’ vision has an impact on their instructional and strategic behavior. Moreover, Barnett and McCormick (2004), in a combined multilevel and structural modeling analysis, concluded that the principals’ vision has a direct effect on being better focused on the tasks and goals at hand, as well as excellence in teaching. This vision provided direction and purpose to the school and instigated teachers to adopt innovative and professional teaching practices. With regard to student learning, Witziers et al. (2003) concluded that the leadership behavior of defining and communicating mission is positively related to student outcomes. Nevertheless, the effect size was found to be small. Mulford and Silins (2003, 2011) also found that the communication of a vision and relevant goals to students and staff (within the framework of transformational leadership) affects student outcomes through organizational learning and the teachers’ work. Furthermore, Dinham’s (2005) findings showed that effective school leaders build a long-term agenda and vision rather than short-term goals. These principals see the “big picture” and communicate this to the staff through high and clear expectations.

The establishment of an orderly and friendly environment is considered another important constituent of the structuring style of school leadership. More specifically, Dinham (2005) found that effective principals place high emphasis on the creation of a pleasant physical environment in the school. The creation of such pleasant environment also has to do with relationships between students and teachers and the quality of the interactions that take place at the school level. Student-Teacher Interactions constitute an important dimension of the social climate of the school. This variable is defined as the communication patterns and the relationship in general between teachers and students regarding their progress or other personal issues. The items comprising this variable include the monitoring of the student progress, the effective communication between students and staff, students feeling comfortable to express their feelings, problems or concerns to their teachers, and teachers discussing on one-to-one basis with their students about issues concerning their progress. Of course, school leaders can have a large impact on the creation and sustainability of such interactions (Pashiardi, 2000).

Additionally, over the last 20 years much research has been conducted on the importance of teacher-student relationships in determining the quality of students’ motivation and learning experiences (Davies, 2003). In a meta-analysis synthesizing 119 studies from 1984 to 2004, it was shown that positive teacher-student relationships had a strong positive correlation with student outcomes (Cornelius-White, 2007). Moreover, in a review of research dealing with this topic, Davies (p. 209) concludes that

through their nurturing and responsiveness to students’ needs teachers serve to provide a foundation from which children can learn about their academic and social surroundings.

The quality of teacher-student relationships influences children’s motivation to explore and regulate their social, emotional, and cognitive skills. Students appreciate the support that their relationships with teachers can provide to them but also the ability of the latter to build their academic efficacy. According to Glover and Law (2004, p. 331),

there is a need for a teacher-student ethos marked by caring, mutual loyalty, and the recognition of the needs of the individual.

Associations between teacher-student interactions and affective outcomes are more consistent than studies investigating the relationship with cognitive outcomes (den Brok, Brekelmans, & Wubbels, 2004). In their study (den Brok et al.) investigating the influence of the interpersonal behavior of secondary education teachers on student outcomes, it was shown that the dimensions of influence and proximity were positively related to both cognitive (Physics and English as a Foreign Language) and affective (subject-specific motivation) outcomes. However, the findings showed that effect sizes were larger for the affective outcomes. In Korea, students from 12 secondary schools were asked to assess the interpersonal behavior of their science teachers (Kim, Fisher, & Fraser, 2000). Multiple regression analyses showed that the scales of Friendly/Helping and Student Responsibility/Freedom were positively and independently associated with attitude towards science, whereas the scales of Uncertain and Strict Behavior were negatively and independently associated with attitude. This means that a more positive attitude towards science was exhibited where students perceived their teachers as being more helping and friendly and providing them more responsibility and freedom.

Furthermore, Pashiardis’ (1995) findings indicate that one of the most important areas of leadership effectiveness related to ensuring that school rules are uniformly observed and that consequences of misconduct are applied equitably to all students. The study of Waters et al. (2003) also indicates that the leadership responsibility of establishing standard procedures and routines, in order to secure order and discipline, is positively associated with an increase in student achievement. Similarly, Dinham’s findings (2005) suggest that effective principals apply policy and guidelines in a consistent manner. Moreover, they initiate clear structures and well-defined responsibilities.

Finally, effective leaders utilize the rules and boundaries of the system in a creative manner and use their available organizational discretion to manage efficiently administrative constraints. They often act as “ground breakers,” support new approaches, and encourage staff to leave their “comfort zones.” In this context, they welcome new ideas, experiment and risk time, money, and failure in order to give a try to the proposed initiatives (Dinham, 2005). Similarly, in a study by Pashiardis (1998), all effective principals indicated that they were willing to take risks if they felt that it was for the improvement of their school, the teachers, and the students. They all had ideas which differed from those of the Ministry and went ahead and implemented some of them, which is a great risk, especially in a highly centralized system such as the one in Cyprus.

2.5.3 Participative Style and Its Relationship to Teacher Commitment

The participative style of school leadership is also considered to have an impact on school processes and outcomes. This term recognizes that leaders can organize their management activities through others in many different ways according to their own preferences, the types of people with whom they are working, and the culture of the organizations in which they work. The term “mediated” used by Pashiardis et al. (2003) includes concepts which can be found in other Education Management texts described as distributed leadership, team leadership, delegation, followership, and servant leadership. In our book the term participative leadership is being used, implying that more participatory approaches to leadership and governance will lead to more informed decisions and more willingness in implementation.

If leaders are to adopt a participative approach to leadership, they need to extend their power to involve all members of the staff (Bezzina, 2001). According to Pashiardis (1994), teachers need to feel they have more to offer to the school than just teaching autonomously within their classroom. Principals should be ready to open up spaces for more initiatives and invite staff to participate in the formulation of educational policy (Georgiou, Papayianni, Savvides, & Pashiardis, 2001). They should be flexible enough to encourage teachers to participate in problem solving and be responsible for widely shared decision-making. Similarly, Riley and MacBeath (1998) claim that the effective leaders are those who share their leadership and turn to the advantages of their staff’s specialization and leading skills. In this way, they develop a professional community where all stakeholders take an active part in school life. Moreover, “principals who share leadership responsibilities with others would be less subject to burnout than principal

‘heroes’ who attempt the challenges and complexities of leadership alone. (Hallinger, 2003, p. 345)

Finally, Seashore Louis et al. (2010) found that high-performing schools have “fatter” or “thicker” decision-making structures, not simply “flatter” ones, and leadership in these schools is more “intense.” Moreover, they found that school personnel rarely attributed leadership behaviors and influences to a single person.

Much empirical evidence points to the importance of participative decision-making. To this effect, Pashiardis (1995) found that elementary school principals in Cyprus consider their active involvement in decision-making and team building as the most important component of leadership effectiveness. Furthermore, Bogler’s (2001) study revealed that the participative style of decision-making adopted by school leaders has a positive, indirect effect on teachers’ satisfaction. This has been the result of a quantitative piece of research conducted in Israeli schools with a number of 745 teachers as respondents. Furthermore, Mulford and Silins (2003, 2011), within the LOLSO project, reached the conclusion that effective school principals promote administrative team leadership and teacher leadership which in turn affect student outcomes through the mediating effects of organizational learning and the teachers’ work. According to them, “success is more likely where people act rather than always reacting, are empowered, involved in decision making through a transparent, facilitative and supportive structure, and are trusted, respected and encouraged” (p. 186). As a result, the members of the school develop greater commitment to accomplish organizational goals (Leithwood, Jantzi, Earl, Watson, Levin, & Fullan, 2004).

Fostering staff cooperation is also considered as an important aspect of participative leadership behavior. According to elementary school principals in Cyprus, the most important area of leadership effectiveness is fostering collegiality and team building among staff and encouraging their active involvement in decision-making (Pashiardis, 1995). Indeed, in a qualitative study of 49 primary school principals nominated as effective by school inspectors, Pashiardis (1998) found that the principals build collaboration with teachers in planning school activities. Finally, according to the study of Southworth (2002), principals who were in the lead of school success orchestrated teacher and staff collaboration. The improvement of performance heavily relied on the teamwork of teachers who shared common goals and functioned in a climate of professional openness.

Furthermore, in a piece of research utilizing multilevel modeling, in a sample of 22 primary schools in Cyprus, teacher commitment was found to affect academic emphasis in the classroom, while both variables were found to be positively associated with student achievement in mathematics and Greek language (Kythreotis & Pashiardis, 2006; Kythreotis et al., 2010). With regard to this aspect of participative leadership, Yu, Leithwood, and Jantzi (2002) inquired about the effects of transformational leadership on teachers’ commitment to change using a sample of 107 primary schools in Hong Kong. Linear regression analyses indicated that transformational leadership explains about 11 % of the variance in teachers’ commitment, with the greatest effect being on teachers’ context beliefs. Most of the variation in teacher commitment was explained by the dimensions of developing a widely shared vision for the school, and building consensus about school goals and priorities.

Teacher commitment constitutes an important aspect of the performance and quality of school personnel. Teachers face a great deal of complexity and tension in schools, and therefore, it is important to keep them engaged and enthusiastic about what they do. Commitment as used in the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework is defined as the loyalty and dedication of the teachers in fulfilling the aims and goals of their school. The items of this variable comprise of the teachers’ clear understanding of what is expected of them in their work, a clear perception of the school’s direction, their commitment to achieving the school goals and maintaining high standards of discipline, and teachers feeling responsible for the quality of their work and trying to perform to the maximum extent possible as well as placing a strong emphasis on student learning.

In a comparative study in Australia and the USA, members of the school community (teachers, parents, students, principals) were asked to identify the most critical factors that make schools to be effective (Townsend, 1997). In both countries, the most supported element was “dedicated and qualified staff.” Kythreotis and Pashiardis (2006), in a multilevel study of leadership effects on student achievement, found that commitment to the school had a positive effect on academic emphasis in the classroom. Teacher commitment was also positively associated with increased student achievement in the Greek language (Kythreotis et al., 2010).

Moreover, a significant body of research shows that teacher commitment is associated with transformational leadership practices. In such a study, Ross and Gray (2006) examined the effects of transformational leadership on teacher commitment to organizational values. Data from 218 elementary schools in Ontario, Canada, were used. The structural equation modeling analysis provided evidence to a model in which transformational leadership had direct effects on teacher commitment and indirect effects through collective teacher efficacy. The greatest direct and combined effects of transformational leadership were on the teachers’ commitment to the school mission, while the greatest indirect effect concerned the commitment to community partnerships.

Leithwood, Jantzi, and Fernandez (1994) found a stronger effect of transformational leadership on teacher commitment in Canada. In a similar study, Geijsel, Sleegers, Leithwood, and Jantzi (2003) examined the effects of transformational leadership on teacher commitment and extra effort towards school reform using two approximately comparable datasets from samples of Canadian and Dutch teachers. In both countries, the results showed moderate effects of transformational leadership on teachers’ commitment to change with the effects being greater for context beliefs. Context beliefs were mostly influenced by the leadership dimensions of vision building and intellectual stimulation. The findings arising from the aforementioned studies show that while the same relationships may remain stable across different cultural contexts, the magnitude of leadership effects may vary.

Teacher commitment is a key element in securing teacher retention, especially among newly appointed teachers. To this effect, Weiss (1999) investigated whether there is a relationship between perceived workplace conditions and career choice commitment of first-year teachers in the USA. Hierarchical regression showed that supportive school leadership was among the strongest variables associated with first-year teachers’ feeling of commitment to teaching and their field. When school leaders

communicate their expectations clearly, enforce student rules of conduct and support teachers in doing so, provide instructional or management guidance and necessary materials, and when teachers are evaluated fairly and recognized for a job well done, first year teachers are more inclined to have high morale, to be committed to their career choice and to fully anticipate that they will stay in teaching. (p. 865)

Moreover, findings showed that school principals who incorporated teacher participation in decision-making were more likely to influence novice teachers’ enthusiasm about their work. In conclusion, all these findings suggest that we need to adopt a new content for school leadership, one that will be able to replace hierarchical structures (Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor, 2003) and involve more lateral forms of leadership, where teachers and other stakeholders will possess a central part in school management issues (Harris, 2006). Promoting teacher commitment is certainly a core leadership practice to this endeavor (Seashore Louis et al., 2010).

2.5.4 Entrepreneurial Style and Its Relationship to Parental Involvement

External changes such as greater competition between schools, privatization, and accountability for academic results have widened the expectations of the role of the school leader (Weindling & Dimmock, 2006). Governments and local stakeholders exert greater pressures upon school leaders. Communities are questioning school programs, policies, and procedures. Parents are demanding greater participation in school programs and even in school administration and the day-to-day running of the schools. Legislators are demanding more widespread results and higher student achievement and performance standards. Within this context, it is important that principals incorporate an entrepreneurial dimension to the set of their adopted practices. As Leithwood (2001) points out,

school leaders implementing market solutions in truly competitive environments need marketing and entrepreneurial skills. (p. 222)

A first element of the entrepreneurial style of leadership concerns the involvement of the community and especially the parents in school affairs. Taking into account the complex nature of a school’s mission, it is imperative that schools activate the parents to get their support. Schools are social systems where various stakeholders communicate with each other and are generally closely interdependent. The parents constitute one group of stakeholders that contribute to such kind of interaction. Strengthening parent-school partnerships is an especially important area for policy makers since research has shown that family factors are critical in improving student achievement (Seashore Louis et al., 2010). According to Sanders (2001), when schools, families, and communities work collaboratively as partners, the students reap most of the benefits. These partnerships may create a safe school environment, enhance parenting skills, encourage the provision of welfare services, improve academic achievement, as well as contribute to the accomplishment of a number of other school goals (Sanders, 1996, 2001).

With regard to the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework, parental involvement mostly concerns aspects entailed in the involvement of parents in school decision-making processes, encouraging constructive and frequent two-way communication between the family and school regarding school programs and their children’s progress and orchestrating volunteerism in programs, events, and activities organized by the school. Specifically, the items in the questionnaire for school climate variables included aspects of how frequent the communication and cooperation with parents was and the parents’ active involvement in schools’ affairs, including the governance and the day-to-day operations of the school.

Furthermore, Epstein (1995) maintains that students from all educational levels do better at school and have more positive attitudes towards education as well as higher academic expectations, when their parents are informed about the school life of their children. Parental involvement effects are long term and relate not only to student achievement (Jeynes, 2007) but also to other indicators of children’s adjustment (Fan & Chen, 2001; Hong & Ho, 2005). A study by Sanders and Simon (1999) indicated that most schools participating in the National Network of Partnership Schools improved through parental participation, student achievement, attendance, and behavior. In an action research project in a specific primary school of Cyprus, parents worked with their children in class (Kyriakides, 2005). At the end of the implementation of this policy, as well as 6 months later, students of the experimental school had higher achievement in language, mathematics, and the social sciences. The findings indicate that the parents could support their children even in subjects in which parents were not confident about, such as maths. Additionally, parents reported that their visits in the classroom have improved their communication with the teacher as well as the behavior of their children at home. Both students and parents developed positive attitudes towards partnership policies and in fact expressed their desire to continue working in this way during the next school year as well.

2.5.5 Personnel Development Style and Its Relationship to Professional Development Opportunities

Developing school personnel constitutes another major area through which school leaders can influence school performance outcomes. Indeed, according to Harris, Day, and Hadfield (2003), effective head teachers develop the school through developing others. Youngs and King (2002) assert that one of the ways

principals shape school conditions and teaching practices through their beliefs and actions regarding teacher professional development. (p. 644)

In this effort, they provide intellectual stimulation and individual support to the staff as well as appropriate models of best practice (Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006). Thus, organizational members’ capacities are influenced by their direct experiences with those in leadership posts.

A number of researchers point to the above direction based on empirical evidence that their studies have yielded. For example, Printy (2008) conducted a study on the influence of high school principals on the learning of science and mathematics teachers. The results showed that principals shape opportunities for teachers to learn in communities of practice. In addition, in a qualitative research in two suburban Flemish elementary schools, one group of teachers maintained that the school leader creates a culture of professional development

by passing through relevant information, by allowing teachers to participate in in-service training, by buying relevant professional journals, by discussing interesting innovations at meetings. (Clement & Vandenberghe, 2001, p. 47)

The interaction between the school leader and teachers is dominated by the creation of learning opportunities and learning space for teachers which foster a collegial climate for the development of learning experiences. Similarly, Youngs and King (2002), in a qualitative study of urban elementary schools, reached the conclusion that effective principals can build school capacity through the creation of structures that promote the professional development of teachers, either by connecting them to external expertise or helping them drive internal reforms. Harris et al. (2003) also conducted a qualitative research investigating the teachers’ perspectives on effective school leadership in 12 cases. The results showed that the teachers appreciated the head teachers’ commitment to staff development. According to them, the head teachers provided them with leadership opportunities within the school and supported their external training. In the study of Blase and Blase (2002), the promotion of professional growth was identified as a major area of effective principals albeit under the concept of instructional leadership. The strategies used by principals in order to promote teachers’ professional growth were as follows:

• 1. Emphasizing the study of teaching and learning

• 2. Supporting collaboration among educators

• 3. Developing coaching relationships among educators

• 4. Encouraging and supporting redesign of programs

• 5. Applying the principles of adult learning, growth, and development to staff development

• 6. Implementing action research to inform instructional decision-making

The effects of these leadership behaviors were an increase in teacher reflective behavior, planning, motivation, self-esteem, efficacy, innovation and creativity, and risk taking. With regard to the LISA Project and the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework, the variable of Professional Development Opportunities represents practices that promote a climate for teacher professional development as defined by Duke (1990) and Fishman, Marx, Best, and Tal (2003). The items included in this variable concern the provision of sufficient opportunities for professional training, the provision of necessary information and useful feedback to teachers in order to perform their duties, and free discussion of issues regarding teacher continuous improvement, finding their job at the school motivating, undertaking initiatives and responsibilities, and participating in decision-making processes. Overall, this variable concerns the intellectual stimulation and empowerment of teachers as reflective practitioners.

Moreover, Bredeson and Johansson (2000) provide a comprehensive framework of how principals affect teachers’ learning and development. Their research was based on documentary analysis regarding school principals and teacher professional development, two focus group interviews with principals, as well as 48 structured interviews with teachers, principals, and other school leaders. Findings indicated that there are four areas of principals’ influence on teacher professional development. Firstly, school principals influence professional development by taking on the role of an instructional leader and learner. They are committed to learning themselves and comprehend the association between teacher development and student learning. They have expert knowledge and skills in learning and instruction and provide training opportunities to address the diverse needs of teachers.

Secondly, school principals create a supportive learning environment for teachers to improve their professional practice. They articulate and communicate high expectations for teacher learning and foster constructive and reflective dialogue around their professional development. Furthermore, they provide financial support and empower their teachers to take risks and experiment with new ideas and practices. Moreover, they handle all the managerial and organizational tasks needed to create and maintain a successful learning community.

Thirdly, they are directly involved with teachers in the design, delivery, and planning of the content of professional development. To this effect, they align professional needs with school goals and student needs in collaboration with teachers. Fourthly, principals assess the professional development outcomes of teachers. They support teachers in setting professional development goals and provide feedback on their learning outcomes. To this end, they initiate processes for the systematic collection and analysis of data on teacher professional development outcomes. Finally, Bredeson and Johansson (2000, p. 390) clarify that “teachers are autonomous professionals responsible for and in control of their own learning… the role of the school principal is to encourage, nurture and support teacher learning, not to be the gatekeepers or governors of teacher professional development.”

Staff development also entails practices of acknowledging and rewarding exemplary performance. According to Kouzes and Posner (2007), recognition of performance builds “a strong sense of collective identity and community spirit that can carry a group through extraordinarily tough times” (p. 69). In the study of Harris et al. (2003), the teachers viewed staff development as “a means of rewarding staff, re-motivating others and at times keeping busy those who need to be occupied” (p. 74). Moreover, according to Pashiardis’ findings (1998), effective leaders find innovative ways to reward teachers because they believe that rewards are an important motivator for people to act. This has also been a result of the meta-analysis of Waters et al. (2003). According to their piece of research, the leadership responsibility which relates to the acknowledgment and rewarding of individual accomplishments is positively correlated to an increase in student achievement.

In addition, school leaders should always take into account the importance of the beliefs of the teachers in any attempt for improvement. According to Bandura (1977, 1986) such systems of beliefs are likely to have an impact on the regulation of their thinking, emotions, and behavior. Central to this form of self-regulation is the sense of self-efficacy of teachers. Self-efficacy is defined as “an individual’s overall judgment of his or her perceived capacity for performing a task” (Hoy & Miskel, 2008, p. 157). Teacher efficacy or self-efficacy is positively related to their instructional practice (Hartnett, 1995), the use of democratic processes in classroom management (Hoy, Tarter, & Bliss, 1990), student achievement in literacy and maths (Schunk, 1991), as well as student efficacy and motivation (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989; Savvides & Pashiardis, 2008).

In a number of studies, the school principal’s behavior was deemed important in enhancing the self-efficacy of teachers. For example, Hipp (1996) investigated the relationship between the leading behavior of principals and teachers’ efficacy, in ten middle schools, utilizing a mixed-methods approach. The conclusion of the first quantitative phase was that school principals influence teacher efficacy by employing some forms of transformational leadership behaviors (i.e., modeling behavior, providing contingent rewards, inspiring group purpose). The qualitative phase which followed identified eight additional leadership behaviors which influence teacher efficacy: providing personal and professional support, promoting teacher empowerment and decision-making, managing student behavior, promoting a positive climate for success, fostering teamwork and collaboration, encouraging innovation and continuous growth, believing in staff and students, and inspiring caring and respectful relationships. Also, Coladarci and Breton (1991) found that special education teachers who appreciated supervision more highly stated higher levels of self-efficacy. On the other hand, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2007), in a survey of 225 teachers, found no empirical support of leadership influences on their self-efficacy beliefs.

2.5.6 Creating a Usable “Leadership Cocktail Mix”

After the completion of the research on the various components of the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework, we began putting it together so as to begin telling our story of the puzzle which is called school leadership. As mentioned previously, the framework emanated from a thorough review of the literature on school leadership, educational governance, and school effectiveness over the last few decades. Firstly it should be reminded that in this project, leadership is treated as a multilevel and multidimensional construct which may affect school and student variables but it is also likely to be influenced by contextual variables. In any case, the center of the framework, as previously mentioned, became what we called the Leadership Radius (middle red color). This is the action area of the school leader, as the central figure within the school. Based on the extensive review of the literature, we hypothesized that school leaders perform their high duties through five main styles of leadership as follows: (1) instructional style, (2) structuring style, (3) participative style, (4) entrepreneurial style, and (5) personnel development style. Each leadership style consists of specific behaviors and practices which are likely to be exhibited by school principals. However, it is implied that the specific behaviors and actions exist not just as they are perceived to be exercised by school leaders but also as they are perceived by teachers and other kinds of personnel working at the school, as well as students and parents and other stakeholders (both internal and external to the school).

Therefore, in this framework it is acknowledged that school leaders do not operate in a vacuum. On the contrary, their actions greatly depend on their perceptions of the particular context in which they work. In essence, what we are assuming is that the way in which school leaders interpret their external environment and legal framework and how it relates to their practices is an important concept encapsulated within the framework. Thus, the exercised styles or the “styles-in-use” are both as perceived by the school leaders and how they are perceived by other employees at the school. Through these styles, school leaders try to administer, manage, and lead their schools both in the short term and in the long term and further down, bearing in mind the strategic goals and orientations of the school. These styles constitute the main vehicle through which school leaders act and exhibit their public behavior. The five leadership styles are not discrete, but rather there is a degree of overlap among them, and thus, “hybrid” styles begin to emerge as well.

Now, going backwards, to the left column (orange and yellow), one can see the context variables. Those variables are hypothesized to have an impact on how school leaders act, and at the same time, they are impacted (to some extent) by the school leaders. Therefore, there are two double-sided arrows which point in both directions, implying that school leaders affect the context in which they operate and they are also affected by this context themselves. It is a reciprocal relationship which seems to operate just like osmosis. Depending on how the leaders perceive their context and environment, they can have an impact and change it and at the same time they can change their mix of leadership styles in order to accommodate the specific context in which they operate. In order to achieve this, they allow some influence from the outside into the Leadership Radius, and, at the same time, they allow some influence from the inside towards the context in which the school is situated (meaning both the systemic and the local contexts).

In more concrete terms, the proposed framework depicts the interplay between the school leaders (the Leadership Radius as shown in the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Framework) and the context in which they operate. More specifically, the main interest lies in examining the leaders’ perceptions of their context and how this interplay produces the best “cocktail mix” of effective leadership behaviors and practices. For example, is it a 20 % of the instructional style and a 50 % of the participative one that a leader has to adopt in order to be best effective within a particular context? And then, which specific behaviors and practices make up these percentages for each style?

The context, as we define it, is divided into two main levels: (1) system-level variables which include Patterns of Centralization and Decentralization as well as Patterns of Evaluation and Accountability Arrangements in each individual country and (2) school-level variables which consist of variables pertaining to the characteristics of the school as well as demographic information about the students and teachers. The working hypotheses here are multiple and complex. For instance, the degree to which an educational system is centralized or decentralized has an impact on the extent to which school leaders exercise their authority and their styles. It also has an impact on the school leaders’ perception of their powers and the environment. Thus, the context can be inhibiting or permitting depending on the situation at hand, and therefore, school leaders will act differently depending on the permissiveness of their environment.

Then, the extent to which an education system has evaluation and accountability mechanisms in place may have an impact on how school leaders exercise their powers and how they lead their schools. Indeed school leaders act differently depending on whether they are totally accountable about their actions or inactions and depending on whether they will be evaluated every year or every 3 years or none at all. Further, depending on the kind of evaluation, whether it is summative or formative or both, school leaders are usually inclined to act and behave differently. These are aspects of context which may have a direct bearing on how school leaders operate at the school level.

Finally, school leaders are better informed if they are aware of the demographics of their schools and act accordingly. Different leadership styles and qualities are expected in a school whose ethnic composition is very diverse; different sets of actions are probably required of an elementary school or a middle school or a high school. Further, depending on where the school is situated (urban, suburban, or rural), different constituents may have different demands of school leaders as well as different sets of expectations. However, school leaders do not have much leverage to change or to act on these last school-level variables. These are given: where their school is located, its student composition, etc. On the other hand, the previously mentioned patterns of centralization and evaluation can be changed and can be impacted on.

Then, the column to the right of the Leadership Radius (green color) depicts the main Intermediate School Climate Variables which we found in the literature review (Clifford, Menon, Gangi, Condon, & Hornung, 2012; Kythreotis & Pashiardis, 2006; Pashiardi, 2000). These are the variables through which school leaders can usually mediate and have an indirect effect on what happens to their students. Therefore, these are considered the most prominent school climate variables which include a learning and orderly climate, personal achievement orientation, evaluation and feedback practices, teachers’ job satisfaction and commitment to the school, teacher-student interactions, students’ opportunity to learn, explicit teaching strategies, and parental involvement.

The last column depicts desired dependent variables or outcomes at the school level. These outcomes indicate what is most important for school leaders: have my actions and behaviors had an impact on what my students have achieved? That is, did we have an influence on what kind of citizens they become and with what kind of academic achievements? Are these the kinds of persons whom society needs and wants from our schools? This is the final measure of one’s impact and influence at the school level. With the above, we have completed the presentation of the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework, which became the guiding theoretical framework for the analyses that were attempted during the course of implementation for both pieces of research, that is, the LISA as well as the Pro-LEAD projects.