Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Research Studies in Education
2013 January, Volume 2 Number 1, 41-54
© The Authors
Principal leadership style, school performance, and
principal effectiveness in Dubai schools
Ibrahim, Ali S.
Faculty of Education, United Arab Emirates University, UAE (ibrahim6@gmail.com)
Al-Taneiji, Shaikah
Faculty of Education, United Arab Emirates University, UAE (shaikaha@uaeu.ac.ae)
Received: 28 February 2012 Revised: 16 May 2012 Accepted: 28 May 2012
Available Online: 31 May 2012 DOI: 10.5861/ijrse.2012.86
ISSN: 2243-7703
Online ISSN: 2243-7711
Abstract
This study investigated whether a correlation exists between the principal’s leadership style
and both a) performance level and b) the principal’s effectiveness in schools in Dubai. It also
investigated whether the correlations change according to the principal’s gender, years of
experience, and the level of the school (primary, intermediate, and secondary). Data on
principals’ leadership styles and effectiveness were collected through Avolio and Bass’ (1995)
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) completed by teachers in 34 government
schools. Data on school performance were obtained from the 2010 Dubai Schools Inspection
Bureau report. The study found that the transformational leadership style was most frequently
employed, followed by the transactional style, and then the passive or avoidant style. The
study found a positive correlation between the principal leadership style and his/her
effectiveness, but found no correlation with school performance. Finally, principal style and
effectiveness differed according to the principal’s gender and the level of the school, but not
according to the principal’s years of experience. Findings of this study open a new area of
research on school principalship, performance, and effectiveness in the UAE.
Keywords: Principals; leadership styles; school performance; Dubai; UAE education
Ibrahim, A. S. & Al-Teneiji, S.
42 Consortia Academia Publishing
Principal leadership style, school performance, and principal effectiveness in Dubai
schools
1. Introduction
The variables associated with improved student achievement and more generally with improved school
performance have been a focus of research for many years. The general assumption is that the presence or
absence of effective school leaders, positive school climates, and positive attitudes of teachers can, directly or
indirectly, influence school performance and student achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Kruger, Witziers, &
Sleegers, 2007; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2004; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003). While the equation of
effective school leadership and improved school performance appears to be relatively simple and straightforward
in theory, in practice it is complex and unpredictable. Cotton (2003) argues that while it is evident that a
fundamental connection between the principal’s leadership style and school performance in terms of student
achievement exists, research on this relationship begins and ends with that concept.
Harris (2004) and Storey (2004) add that although the leadership field is replete with often largely
descriptive studies of effective leadership, these studies have rarely tracked or explored, with sufficient rigor, the
relationship between leadership and school performance. Harris (2004) states that
We do not know, for example, exactly what forms of leadership result in [high performing]
schools, across different school contexts, and in different types of schools. We do not know what
particular combination of experience, training, and professional development most benefits
leaders wishing to improve their schools. Of most concern is the fact that we have very few
studies that have explored the relationship between leadership and student learning outcomes in
any depth. The correlational nature of the research evidence that does exist inevitably masks the
exact patterning and nature of the relationship between leadership and enhanced student
learning (p. 4).
1.1 School Leadership Styles
Researchers have discerned a number of school leadership patterns or styles, the most commonly known
having been identified by renowned social scientist Kurt Lewin and his colleagues in 1939. These are
authoritarian or autocratic, democratic or participative, and laissez-faire or passive: the authoritarian leader
makes all decisions, independent of members’ input; the democratic leader welcomes team input and facilitates
group discussion and decision-making; and the laissez-faire leader allows the group complete freedom for
decision-making without participating himself/herself.
In 1967, Likert suggested another set of styles: exploitive authoritative, benevolent authoritative,
consultative, and participative. In exploitive authoritative style, the leader has low concern for people and uses
such methods as threats and punishments to achieve conformance. When an authoritative leader becomes
concerned for people, a benevolent authoritative leader emerges. The leader now uses rewards to encourage
appropriate performance and listens more to concerns, although what he/she hears is often limited to what
subordinates think that the leader wants to hear. In consultative style, the leader is making genuine efforts to
listen carefully to ideas; nevertheless, major decisions are still largely centrally made. At the participative level,
the leader engages people in decision-making; people across the organization are psychologically closer and
work well together at all levels.
Another set of school leadership styles was coined by Burns (1978): transactional leadership and
Principal leadership style, school performance, and principal effectiveness in Dubai schools
International Journal of Research Studies in Education 43
transformational leadership. These two styles have dominated scholarly debate as the major conceptual models
of school leadership since the early 1980s (Hallinger, 2003; Marks & Printy, 2003). Along with passive/avoidant
leadership, transactional and transformational leadership form a new paradigm for understanding both the lower
and higher order efforts of leadership styles. This paradigm builds on earlier sets of autocratic versus democratic
or directive versus participative leadership (Avolio & Bass, 2004).
Transformational leadership can be defined as increasing the interest of the staff to achieve higher
performance through developing the commitments and beliefs in the organization (Bass, 1985). It entails moving
people to a common vision by building trust and empowerment (Carlson, 1996). Transformational leaders are
motivating, influential, and proactive. They optimize people’s development and innovation and convince them to
strive for higher levels of achievement (Avolio & Bass, 2004). According to Burns (1978), transformational
leaders form a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders. As
articulated by Bass (1985), four factors characterize the behavior of transformational leaders: individual
consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence. Individual consideration
denotes giving personal attention to members who seem neglected. Intellectual stimulation focuses on enabling
members to think of old problems in new ways. Inspirational motivation is typified by communicating high
performance expectations. Finally, idealized influence emphasizes modeling behavior through exemplary
personal achievement, character, and conduct.
Transactional leadership, on the other hand, is based on the reciprocal exchange of duty and reward that are
controlled by the principal. Transactional leadership is defined by Avolio and Bass (2004) as setting up and
defining agreements or contracts to achieve specific work objectives, discovering individuals’ capabilities, and
specifying the compensation and rewards that can be expected upon successful completion of the tasks.
Transactional leaders focus on the basic needs of their staff (Bass, 1985), but they are not interested in providing
high level motivation, job satisfaction, or commitment. Bass and Avolio (1994) describe three forms of
transactional leadership: passive management-by-exception, active management-by-exception, and constructive
transactional. Passive management-by-exception involves setting standards but waiting for major problems to
occur before exerting leadership behavior. Leaders who demonstrate active management-by-exception pay
attention to issues that arise, set standards, and carefully monitor behavior. They believe that they should not take
risks or demonstrate initiative. A constructive transactional leader sets goals, clarifies desired outcomes,
exchanges rewards and recognition for accomplishments, suggests and consults, provides feedback, and gives
employees praise when it is deserved.
According to Bass (1985), transformational leaders are more likely to be proactive than reactive in their
thinking, and more creative, novel, and innovative in their ideas. Transactional leaders may be equally intelligent
but their focus is on how to keep the system for which they are responsible running—reacting to problems
generated by observed deviances, and looking to modify conditions as needed. Bass (1998) believes that every
leader displays practices of both styles to some extent. Although transformational and transactional leadership
are at opposite ends of the leadership continuum, he maintains that the two can be complementary (see also
Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000). The ideal leader would practice the transformational components more frequently
and the transactional components less frequently. Bass and Avolio (1994) embrace this “two-factor theory” of
leadership and believe that the two build on one another. The transactional components deal with the basic needs
of the organization, whereas the transformational practices encourage commitment and foster change.
It should be noted that by 1990 researchers were advocating transformational leadership and other forms of
leadership that were more consistent with evolving trends in educational reform, such as empowerment, shared
leadership, and organizational learning (Hallinger, 2003; see also Avolio, 1999; Bass 1997, 1998; Bass & Avolio,
1994; Leithwood, Begley, & Cousins, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Silins & Mulford, 2002). While this shift
from more managerial, or transactional, leadership to dispersed, or transformational, leadership was evident in
literature, it remains questionable as to whether these changes are evident in the practices of administrators.
Considering the realities of schools today, many school principals are doing their best to make it through any
Ibrahim, A. S. & Al-Teneiji, S.
44 Consortia Academia Publishing
given day just managing the diverse needs of the school community; the time necessary for a transformational
leader to build trust, commitment, interdependence, and empowerment of teachers and staff is not always
available. In some contexts, not every leader has the ability to convince their subordinates to make an effort to
perform at a high level. Transactional leaders, in contrast, do not dedicate much time to developing their
subordinates; instead, they wait until they either fail or succeed and then react.
1.2 Leadership Styles and School Performance
As stated above, while the correlation between school leadership and school performance appears to be
relatively simple and straightforward in theory, in practice it is inherently complex and unpredictable. Research
on this correlation gives mixed results. On the one hand, there are studies which confirm the existence of a
relationship between school leadership style and school performance. For example, Ubben and Hughes (1992)
found that principals could create a school climate that improves the productivity of both teachers and students
and that the leadership style of the principal can foster or restrict school effectiveness.
Hallinger and Heck (1998) reviewed over 40 empirical studies conducted between 1980 and 1995 and
concluded that principals exercised a measurable and statistically significant, though small, indirect impact on
school effectiveness and student achievement. Similarly, Witziers, Bosker, and Kruger (2003) found that school
leadership does have a positive and noteworthy effect on student achievement and Waters, Marzano, and
McNulty (2004) reported that effective school leadership substantially increases student achievement. Using a
path analysis, Kruger, Witziers, and Sleegers (2007) found that school leaders indirectly influence student
outcomes and school culture. In the context of Cyprus, Kythreotis and Pashiardis (2006) found direct effects of
the principal’s leadership style on student achievement and Kythreotis, Pashiardis, and Kyriakides (2010)
reached the conclusion that “the principal human leadership frame affects student achievement” (p. 232). The
strong interpersonal relations in the Cyprus education system were a main reason for the significance of the
human leadership frame. Moreover, the small size of primary schools in Cyprus and the nature of primary
schools compared to secondary schools permit the development of strong interpersonal relations.
Research into leadership styles has found that women are slightly stronger in relationship-oriented
supportive styles, while men score higher in instructive and controlling styles (Fennell, 2005; Kruger 1996,
2008). Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and Van Engen (2003), for example, offered a quantitative synthesis of 45
studies on transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles, comparing women and men. They
found that women scored higher than men in transformational leadership and contingent reward, whereas men
scored higher than women in active and passive management-by-exception and on laissez-faire leadership.
Moreover, women produced considerably better outcomes than men on all of the three outcome measures that
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire investigated: the extra effort they inspired from subordinates, the
satisfaction that people expressed about their leadership, and their overall effectiveness in leading. Kythreotis
and Pashiardis (2006) also found that female school principals’ impact student achievement more than male
school principals. They argue that interpersonal relations constitute a more central point of reference of the
managerial style of women and allow them to exhibit a more democratic and participative style (see also
Coleman, 1998).
On the other hand, some studies found no relationship between school leadership styles and effectiveness of
schools. The purpose of Di Vincenzo’s (2008) research, for example, was to determine whether the practice of
transactional and transformational leadership behaviors consistently contribute to higher levels of student
achievement as reflected in the results of standardized tests. He found no statistically significant correlational
relationship between the leaders' attributes as determined by Kouzes and Posner’s Leadership Practices
Inventory (Kouzes, 2003) survey instrument and resultant student achievement as determined by standardized
test results. Using Bass and Avolio’s (1994) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Huffman (2003) found no
relationship between leadership styles (transformational, transactional and laissez-faire) and improved student
achievement. It was concluded, however, that transformational leadership was related to increased teacher
Principal leadership style, school performance, and principal effectiveness in Dubai schools
International Journal of Research Studies in Education 45
satisfaction, greater perception of principal effectiveness, and increased willingness on the part of teachers to
give extra effort. This conclusion was in line with Avolio’s (1999) finding that transformational leadership
generally generates greater follower effectiveness and satisfaction than transactional leadership, although
effective leaders certainly perform using the two styles.
The fact remains that transformational leadership focuses more on the relationship between leaders and
followers than on the educational work of school leadership. The quality of these relationships, as stated above,
is not unequivocally predictive of the quality of student outcomes. Instructional leadership goes beyond building
collegial teams, a loyal and cohesive staff, and sharing an inspirational vision to focus such relationships on
some very specific pedagogical work. In this context, Marks and Printy (2003) conducted a
qualitative-quantitative study of 24 schools in the United States and found that transformational leadership is a
necessary but insufficient condition for instructional leadership (with the focus of the principal on curricular and
instructional issues that directly affect student achievement (Cotton, 2003)). When transformational leadership
and instructional leadership coexist in an integrated form of leadership, the influence on school performance,
measured by the quality of its pedagogy and the achievement of its students, is substantial. Dumay (2003) also
found that the comparison between instructional and transformational leadership showed that the impact of the
former is three to four times that of the latter in terms of student achievement.
The problem with instructional leadership, however, is that in many schools the principal is not the
educational expert; principals often have less expertise than the teachers they supervise. Moreover, some
principals perceive their role to be administrative – as in the UAE – and, as such, they purposely distance
themselves from the classroom environment and leave pedagogical issues to teachers, master teachers, and
supervisors. This notion is further complicated by the fact that the principal’s authority is severely limited as
he/she occupies a middle management position. In many school systems, including in the UAE, the ultimate
authority exists with the senior administrators in the district or divisional office. Many school principals are so
engrossed in the managerial and administrative tasks of daily school life that they rarely have time to lead others
in the areas of teaching and learning.
1.3 Dubai Schools Inspection
One aim of this study was to investigate whether a relationship existed between school performance and the
principal’s leadership style in Dubai schools. Data on school performance were obtained from the findings of
school assessment conducted by Dubai Schools Inspection Bureau (DSIB). The idea of monitoring and assessing
performance in Dubai schools began with the Dubai Education Council in 2005. One year later, the Knowledge
and Human Development Authority (KHDA) was created. Following this, Dubai Schools Inspection Bureau was
formed in 2007. Then, a framework for inspecting schools was developed during a series of pilot inspections in
April 2008. In October 2008, the DSIB inspected 189 schools out of 220 schools in Dubai (excluding Indian,
Pakistani, and Iranian schools, which were added to inspections from 2009 and onward). Teams of two to seven
inspectors visited all 189 schools for two to five days, depending on the number of students in the school. As a
result of the visits, schools were classified over four categories: unsatisfactory, acceptable, good, and outstanding
(DSIB, 2009).
In 2009, the DSIB inspected schools for the second time (including 23 private schools offering Indian and
Pakistani curricula) and conducted a series of follow-through inspections of the 22 schools rated unsatisfactory
in the previous year. In the second year of inspection, the DSIB used a similar, although not identical, framework
for inspection and assessed six areas: engaging and motivating students, teaching for effective learning,
assessing students’ achievement in key subjects, supporting and caring for students, leading schools to improve
students’ learning, and working together to improve schools (DSIB, 2010, pp. 10-11).
Not surprisingly, the re-inspection of schools within a period of a single year produced, in many respects,
similar outcomes to those generated in the first round of inspections (DSIB, 2010). In the third annual inspection,
Ibrahim, A. S. & Al-Teneiji, S.
46 Consortia Academia Publishing
the framework was developed to include seven areas: student attainment and progress, student personal and
social development, teaching and learning, curriculum, protecting and supporting students, leadership and
management, and the school’s overall performance (DSIB, 2011). This study used the DSIB assessment of
schools of the 2010 Annual Report, since it is the only detailed report that classified schools based on a
four-point scale of unsatisfactory, acceptable, good, and outstanding.
1.4 Problem of the Study
The above contradiction in research findings indicates a necessity for more studies that examine the possible
relationships between school leadership style, school performance, and school effectiveness. In addition, there is
scarcity of research on this issue in the Arab world, which is evident in the literature review that draws upon the
significant works in Western literature, but has found no work on the Gulf Arab principal’s leadership styles. In
the United Arab Emirates, the belief is that the school principal’s leadership style is connected to school
performance (as evidenced by higher academic achievement of students) and more generally to school
effectiveness. However, no previous study investigated this assumption; therefore, this study attempted to fill this
research gap.
1.5 Research Questions
The study answered the following questions:
1. What are the leadership styles of principals in Dubai schools?
2. What is the relationship between the principal’s leadership style and school performance?
3. What is the relationship between the principal’s leadership style and effectiveness?
4. Does the principal’s leadership style differ according to the principal’s gender, school level, and years
of experience?
5. Does the principal’s effectiveness differ according to the principal’s gender, school level, and years of
experience?
2. Research Methodology
This study is quantitative correlational in nature. In order to identify principals’ leadership styles in Dubai
schools, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) by Avolio and Bass (1995) was used. The 2010 Dubai
Schools Inspection Bureau report was utilized to identify the ranking of schools. Then, statistical analysis was
used to find whether a correlation existed between the principal’s leadership style and a) his or her effectiveness,
and b) the performance level of the school. Finally, statistical analysis was used to find whether the principal’s
leadership style and his/her effectiveness differed according to the principal’s gender, years of experience, and
school level (primary, intermediate, and secondary).
2.1 Instrument
The instrument used in this study was divided into two sections. The first included the demographic
information of the sample, such as school level, principal’s gender, and principal’s years of experience. The
second section is the most recent version (Form 5X) of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) by
Avolio and Bass (1995), translated into Arabic by the authors. The MLQ has been used extensively in field and
laboratory research to study transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant leadership styles. The
questionnaire contains 45 items of which the first 36 measure different kinds of leadership style and the last 9
items measure the principal’s effectiveness. The researchers changed the Arabic words ma3had and koliyah
(institute and college) in statements 34 and 43 to the word madrasah (school) so as to fit the context of the
Principal leadership style, school performance, and principal effectiveness in Dubai schools
International Journal of Research Studies in Education 47
current study. MLQ includes twenty statements that investigate four components of transformational leadership:
charismatic leadership or idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration. It also includes eight statements that investigate two components of transactional
leadership: contingent reward and active management-by-exception Finally, it contains eight items to assess
passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire or passive/avoidant leadership behaviors. The MLQ items
were assessed over a scale from 0 (never observed) to 4 (frequently observed). The internal reliability of the
MLQ for this current study was assessed using Cronbach's Alpha. The result was 0.95, which indicates that the
questionnaire was highly reliable.
2.2 Procedures and Sample
The Dubai Education Zone (DEZ) helped in selecting schools, and distributing, and collecting
questionnaires. A stratified representative sample was aimed for based on the school performance level in the
following manner: in each of the four levels of performance (unsatisfactory, acceptable, good, and outstanding),
as identified by the DSIB 2010 report, DEZ was asked to obtain completed questionnaires from ten (five male
and five female) public schools at each level. In each school, twenty teachers should have responded to the MLQ
referring to their principal’s leadership style and effectiveness. Thus, the sample would be 800 teachers. The
returned completed surveys comprised 490 from 34 schools with a response rate of 61.25%. The sample
consisted of 219 (44.7%) male teachers and 271 (55.3%) female teachers. The demographic information is
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Demographic Information of Schools
Number of schools Percentage
Gender
Male 14 41.2%
Female 20 58.8%
School Level
Kindergarten 2 5.9%
First Cycle (grades 1-5) 10 29.4%
Second Cycle (grades 6-9) 11 32.3%
Third Cycle (grades 10-12) 8 23.5%
Second & Third 3 8.9%
Principal’s Years of Experience
0-4 years 7 21.8%
5-9 years 5 15.6%
10-15 years 14 43.8%
More than 15 6 18.8%
Based on the DSIB report, sixteen schools participating in this study have been evaluated as acceptable, which is
the highest percentage (47%). The second category was good with twelve schools (35%), followed by five
schools (15%) as unacceptable, and the least common category, which was excellent, included only one school
(3%) from the sample.
3. Results
3.1 Question One
What are the leadership styles of principals in Dubai schools?
The first 36 questions of the MLQ were used to identify the leadership style of each principal of the
participating schools. These items were divided into three major scales: transformational (20 items),
Ibrahim, A. S. & Al-Teneiji, S.
48 Consortia Academia Publishing
transactional (8 items), and passive leadership (8 items) (Avolio & Bass, 1995). Two techniques were used to
conduct the analysis for this question. First, average means by scales were calculated by adding scores for all
responses of a scale's items and dividing them by the total number of responses for that item. Blank answers
were not included in the calculation. Results of this analysis are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Leadership Styles by Means
Leadership style
Means of sub-styles
Average Means
Passive or Avoidant Laissez-faire 0.93 1.088
Passive management-by-exception 1.25
Transactional Contingent reward 3.34 3.215
Active management-by-exception 3.09
Transformational Individualized influence (attributes) 3.49 3.303
Individualized influence (behaviors)
3.18
Inspirational motivation 3.53
Intellectual stimulation 3.21
Individualized consideration 3.10
Second, after reversing the negative items (those of passive and avoidant leadership), the total score of the
questionnaire ranged from 0 to 144 with an average of 72. This range was divided into the following four
categories: 0-36, 37-72, 73-108, and 109-144, which represent four sections that can be observed over a
continuum from ideal passive leadership to ideal transformational leadership. The wider the range of school
teachers’ responses, the more positive the attitudes and behaviors of the school principal, and the more he/she
leans toward the transformational leadership style. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3
School Principals’ Styles as Measured by the MLQ
Section N Percentage
0-36 2 0.4
37-72 26 5.3
73-108 117 24
109-144 342 70.2
As can be observed in Tables 2 and 3, the transformational leadership style was the most practiced style by
school principals. The second in rank is the transactional style of leadership, and last is the passive or avoidant
style.
3.2 Question Two
What is the relationship between the principal’s leadership style and school performance?
As mentioned above, the DSIB report allocated each school one of four ranked categories: unsatisfactory,
satisfactory, good, and outstanding. Also, the MLQ categorized principals of these schools into one of four
sections over the leadership continuum. To calculate the correlation between the two variables, a non-parametric
correlation procedure was used because both variables were measured at ordinal level. The Spearman's rho
correlation value between the two variables was .11 and it was significant at .05 level. However, there is a very
limited tendency for one variable to increase or decrease when the other increases or decreases. Therefore,
although this correlation value was statistically significant, practically it cannot be taken into account.
Principal leadership style, school performance, and principal effectiveness in Dubai schools
International Journal of Research Studies in Education 49
3.3 Question Three
What is the relationship between the principal’s leadership style and effectiveness?
Principals’ effectiveness was measured by the last nine items of the MLQ. The relationship was estimated by
calculating the correlation coefficient between the total score of each school on the MLQ (36 items) and the total
score of each school on the principals’ effectiveness scale (9 items). The Pearson correlation value was .88 and it
was statistically significant at .05. This high correlation indicates that there is a strong and positive relationship
between leadership style and principals’ effectiveness. In other words, the more school principals’ attitudes and
behaviors move toward the fourth section of the leadership continuum (transformational leadership), the more
teachers will perceive that their principals are effective.
3.4 Question Four
Does the principal’s leadership style differ according to the principal’s gender, school level, and years of
experience?
To answer this question, an independent t-test was conducted to compare the two genders, and two ANOVA
tests were conducted to compare the school levels and the principal’s years of experience separately. The t-test
results are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Comparing Leadership Styles by Gender
Gender Mean SD
Male 110.38 20.09
Female 117.86 22.59
The mean and standard deviation of leadership styles of female principals were higher than those of male
principals. The mean difference between the two genders was statistically significant as assessed by the
independent t-test (t = -3.83, P <. 01). The results of ANOVA tests to compare over school levels and the
principal’s years of experience are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5
Comparing Leadership Styles by School Levels and Principal’s Years of Experience
School level Mean SD
Principal’s years of
experience
Mean SD
Kindergarten 129.71 11.09 0-4 years 115.76 18.26
First 119.79 17.21 5-9 years 109.57 25.17
Second 112.86 22.28 10-14 years 117.83 17.06
Third 115.00 17.64 More than 14 111.42 24.16
Second & Third 89.47 31.20
The values of the means of the five school levels indicate that there are differences in the leadership styles.
This observation was supported by the ANOVA result, which was statistically significant (F
(4, 485)
= 20.87, P
< .01). As for the principal’s years of experience, there were also differences in leadership styles among the four
levels of experience, as could be seen from the above table, however, these differences were not statistically
significant (F
(3, 439)
= 2.67, P = .05).
3.5 Question Five
Does the principal’s effectiveness differ according to the principal’s gender, school level, and years of
Ibrahim, A. S. & Al-Teneiji, S.
50 Consortia Academia Publishing
experience?
To answer this question, an independent t-test and two ANOVA tests were conducted.
Table 6
Comparing School Effectiveness by Gender
Gender Mean SD
Male 29.84 6.44
Female 31.73 6.41
As can be observed from Table 6, the mean value of the effectiveness of female principals was slightly
higher than that of male principals. The mean difference between the two genders was statistically significant as
assessed by the independent t-test (t = -3.23, P < .01). To compare by school level and the principal’s years of
experience, two ANOVA tests were conducted separately and the results were summarized in Table 7.
Table 7
Comparing Principal Effectiveness by School Level and Principal’s Years of Experience
School level Mean SD Teaching Experience Mean SD
Kindergarten 34.30 2.72 0-4 years 31.17 5.45
First Cycle 32.39 5.25 5-9 years 30.08 6.58
Second Cycle 30.07 7.12 10-14 years 31.86 5.52
Third Cycle 31.44 4.76 More than 14 30.13 7.58
Second & Third 24.35 9.22
The means of principals’ effectiveness over the five school levels are different. These differences were found
to be statistically significant (F(4, 485) = 16.10, P <.01)). As for the principal’s years of experience, there were
also differences in leadership styles among the four levels of experience as could be seen from the above table,
however, these differences were not statistically significant (F(3, 439) = 1.62, P = .184).
4. Discussion
Avolio and Bass (1995) argue that the MLQ is not designed to encourage the labeling of leaders. Rather, it is
more appropriate to identify a leader or group of leaders with such terms as “more transformational” or “less
transactional” (p. 113). The results of this study found that principals in 34 government schools in Dubai are
more transformational than transactional or avoidant in their leadership attitudes and behaviors. This result is in
alignment with what Al-Taneiji (2006) found in her study on Model Schools in the city of Al Ain, UAE. The
result is indicative of the current reforms undertaken by the Ministry of Education’s DSIB. Since the DSIB
started conducting its annual assessment in 2008, school principals have made efforts to transform their schools
to meet the performance standards set by the Bureau. In addition, Dubai has witnessed an enormous influx of
teachers and consultants from the West who bring considerable expertise and who may have helped in adopting
transformational approaches of leadership.
The study also found that the principal’s leadership style is correlated with how teachers perceive him/her to
be an effective leader. This is expected since the more a principal employs the transformational forms of
leadership (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration), the more he or she is seen to be effective by teachers. In fact, the last nine items of the MLQ
(those that assess principal effectiveness) bear similarity with the four forms of transformational leadership.
Furthermore, the study found that principal leadership style is not correlated with school performance
according to the DSIB standards. It should be noted that the inspectors focused on six areas; one of them is
student attainment and progress. DSIB school performance standards, thus, covered a much larger spectrum of
Principal leadership style, school performance, and principal effectiveness in Dubai schools
International Journal of Research Studies in Education 51
activities than just how the school performed in terms of student attainment. This fact might have affected the
results. However, the result is in concurrence with previous research (Di Vincenzo, 2008; Huffman, 2003;
Kouzes, 2003), which found no correlation between the principal’s leadership style and school performance.
While this study did not prove a correlation between the principal’s leadership style and school performance,
we should consider the fact that research on transformational and transactional leadership in relation to student
achievement or school performance has produced important results. In an answer to the question, “do principals
who display transformational leadership have school staff with higher levels of job satisfaction and higher
performing schools?”, Griffith (2003) found that the principal’s transformational leadership showed a strong,
positive, and significant relation to the school staff job satisfaction, which in turn showed a moderate, positive
and significant relation to the school achievement progress. Thus, schools in which principals were perceived as
transformational leaders had school staff that were more satisfied with their jobs and had greater achievement
progress. Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) also found substantial effects of transformational leadership on student
engagement. It is concluded that transformational leadership might have positive influences beyond increasing
student attainment—it may lead to more satisfied and committed teachers who could subsequently influence
student learning and school performance, in general.
The study found that female principals are more effective and transformational in their approach than male
principals. This finding is in agreement with previous research (Al-Taneiji, 2006; Coleman, 1998; Fennell, 2005;
Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and Van Engen, 2003; Kruger 1996). Female principals in the UAE were able to
create more transformational atmospheres in their schools and have been able to practice more interpersonal
relations and, thus, were seen as more effective than their male counterparts. Moreover, the transformational
leadership style is more frequently practiced in kindergartens and cycle 1 schools (grades 1-5) than in
intermediate and secondary schools. This is expected in the UAE since principals, teachers, students, and parents
take education more seriously during later stages of schooling. Due to the importance ascribed by parents to
those later stages and the increasing resistance to change, principals might not have as much freedom for
transformational practices as at other levels of schools.
The study found that schools with female principals had better performance than schools with male
principals. This might be understandable in light of the fact that female principals are more likely to consider and
implement changes to meet performance standards. In fact, the performance of female principals is higher than
that of male principals in the UAE (KHDA, 2010). This could be because female principals take a more serious
approach than male principals and, thus, might have tried - more than male principals - to raise the level of their
schools based on assessment standards. The nature of the education system in the UAE explains why
kindergartens and cycle 1 schools performed better than other school levels. In those levels, managing teaching,
learning, and students might not be as difficult as in other levels. In addition, there are a greater number of
female teachers working at these levels than male teachers.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Dubai school principals exhibited more transformational than transactional leadership attitudes and
behaviors. However, these results were not correlated to the performance levels of schools as assessed by the
Dubai Schools Inspections Bureau. This finding supports previous research. The researchers postulate that in
order for improved school performance (as seen through student achievement) to take place, school principals
should not depend solely on being transformative leaders; they should become instructional leaders and work
closely with teachers. In fact, the work of teachers is more directly related to student learning and achievement
than the work of principals. Principals spend more time with teachers – providing direction and guidance,
assessing and providing needed resources, and observing and evaluating performance – than with students. Thus,
principal behaviors more directly affect teachers’ satisfaction, commitment to work, and working relations with
one another and, accordingly, principal leadership styles have stronger relations to outcomes associated with
teachers than with students. Therefore, building on transformational leadership alone will not create the
Ibrahim, A. S. & Al-Teneiji, S.
52 Consortia Academia Publishing
necessary influence to improve student achievement - it should be combined with instructional leadership.
Dubai educational policymakers should exert more efforts to strengthen transformational and instructional
leadership in schools if improvement of school performance and student attainment is to be achieved.
Quantitative and qualitative research should be conducted on the scale and in the manner that instructional
leadership is practiced in Dubai schools. Further, researchers and practitioners should not only be investigating
the general or collective impact of leadership styles but also identifying specific leadership attitudes and
practices that have stronger impacts on school performance, student achievement, and teacher satisfaction and
commitment to work. They should move beyond a general focus on the impact of leadership to examining and
increasing the frequency of those practices that make larger positive impacts on teachers and students.
Acknowledgement: This research has been supported by an Internal Grant from the United Arab Emirates
University. Grant #: 01-02-11-201
6. References:
Al-Taneiji, S. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher learning in model schools. Journal of Faculty of
Education UAEU, 23, 21-36.
Avolio, B., & Bass, B. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire (third edition manual and sampler set).
MindGarden, Inc.
Avolio, B. & Bass, B. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire instrument (leader and rater form and scoring
guide) (English and Arabic versions). Mind Garden, Inc.
Avolio, B. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Bass, B. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and
national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.2.130>
Bass, B. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Associates.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1994) (eds.). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Carlson, R. (1996). Reframing and reform: Perspectives on organization, leadership, and school change. White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Coleman, M. (1998). The management style of female head-teachers. Educational Management and
Administration, 24(2), 163-164.
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Di Vincenzo, R. (2008). School leadership and its relation to school performance. Unpublished Dissertation:
University of Phoenix. ProQuest, 3323345.
Dumay, X. (2009). Origins and consequences of school organizational culture for student achievement.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(4), 523-555.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X09335873>
Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C., & Van Engen, M.L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and
laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing men and women. Psychological Bulletin, 129,
569-591. <
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569>
Principal leadership style, school performance, and principal effectiveness in Dubai schools
International Journal of Research Studies in Education 53
Griffith, J. (2003). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover,
and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 333-356.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230410534667>
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-351.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000122005>
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0924345980090203>
Harris, A. (2004). Editorial: School leadership and school improvement: A simple and complex relationship,
School Leadership and Management, 24(1), 3-5. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1363243042000172778>
Huffman, N. (2003). The relationship of principal leadership style and student achievement in
low-socioeconomic schools. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University. ProQuest 3113852.
DSIB (Dubai Schools Inspection Bureau). (2009). Inspection Handbook 2009-2010. Government of Dubai and
KDHA. Dubai.
DSIB (2010). Annual Report 2010. Government of Dubai and KDHA. Dubai.
DSIB (2011). Inspection Handbook 2010-2011. Government of Dubai and KDHA. Dubai.
Fennell, H. (2005). Living leadership in an era of change. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(2),
145–165. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360312042000270487>
KHDA (Knowledge and Human Development Authority). (2010). Dubai finds out how much its 15-year-olds
know. Retrieved from http://www.ameinfo.com/250976.html
Kouzes, J. (2003). The leadership practices inventory (LPI): Self-instrument (3rd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Kruger, M. (1996). Gender issues in school headship: quality versus power? European Journal of Education,
31(4), 447–461.
Kruger, M., Witziers, B., & Sleegers, P. (2007). The impact of school leader variables on school level factors:
Validation of a causal model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(1), 1-20.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09243450600797638>
Kythreotis, A., & Pashiardis, P. (2006). Exploring leadership role in school effectiveness and the validation of
models of principals’ effects on students’ achievement. Paper presented at the Commonwealth Council
for Educational Administration and Management (CCEAM) Conference 2006 “Recreating Linkages
between Theory and Praxis in Educational Leadership”, Nicosia: Cyprus.
Kythreotis, A., Pashiardis, P., & Kyriakides, K. (2010). The influence of school leadership styles and culture on
students’ achievement in Cyprus primary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(2),
218-240. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578231011027860>
Leithwood, J., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and
student engagement. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-129.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230010320064>
Leithwood, K., Begley, P., & Cousins, J. (1994). Developing expert leadership for future schools. London:
Falmer.
Lewin, K., Lippit, R., & White, R. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social
climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-301.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1939.9713366>
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational
and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03253412>
Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Leadership and school results. Second International Handbook of Educational
Leadership and Administration (pp. 561-612). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
<
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0375-9_21>
Ibrahim, A. S. & Al-Teneiji, S.
54 Consortia Academia Publishing
Storey, A. (2004). The problem of distributed leadership in schools. School Leadership and Management, 24(3),
249-265. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1363243042000266918>
Ubben, G., & Hughes, L. (1992). The principal: Creative leadership for effective schools. Meedham Heights,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Waters. T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership that sparks learning. Educational Leadership, 61(1),
48-52.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R., & Kruger, M. (2003). Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive
search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398-425.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03253411>
