Content uploaded by Stefan Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stefan Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz on Mar 29, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
89
P. Pashiardis (ed.), Modeling School Leadership across Europe: in Search of New Frontiers,
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-7290-8_5, © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
5.1 Introduction
As mentioned previously in this book, research has shown that school principals
infl uence student achievement mostly in an indirect manner, that is, through their
infl uence on a number of school climate variables. For the purposes of our project,
a number of school climate variables were selected from the international literature
and used as mediating variables between the principal’s leadership styles and
student achievement. These variables mainly concern the school’s functioning as a
system and the organizational conditions through which improved teaching and
learning occurs. The Pashiardis - Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework
(Pashiardis & Brauckmann, 2008 ) employs such a mediated effects model incorpo-
rating intervening variables at the school level. Thus, in this chapter, we will examine
a mediated effects model incorporating intervening variables at the school level in
order to explore school principals’ infl uence on student achievement. In this way,
we aim at identifying the mechanisms through which leadership influence
seeps through to student learning. Both the exploratory and the confi rmatory factor
analyses for the school climate variables pointed towards a model comprising seven
factors. The seven factors extracted were labeled as follows: Professional Develop-
ment Opportunities , Evaluation and Feedback , Teacher Commitment , Parental
Involvement , Teaching and Learning Practices , Student - Teacher Interactions , and
Student Expectations .
Chapter 5
Leadership Styles and School Climate
Variables of the Pashiardis-Brauckmann
Holistic Leadership Framework:
An Intimate Relationship?
Petros Pashiardis and Stefan Brauckmann
P. Pashiardis (*)
Educational Leadership, Center for Research and Training in Educational
Leadership and Policy (CERTELP) , Open University of Cyprus , Latsia,
P.O. Box 12794 , 2252 Nicosia , Cyprus
e-mail: p.pashiardis@ouc.ac.cy; www.ouc.ac.cy
S. Brauckmann
Center for Research on Educational Governance , German Institute for International
Educational Research , Warschauer Strasse 34-38 , D-10243 Berlin , Germany
e-mail: brauckmann@dipf.de
90
Specifi cally, Multiple Linear Regression Analysis, at the European level (including
all seven countries participating in the LISA project), was conducted in order to
examine whether the various leadership styles can explain variation in each of the
seven school climate variables included in the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic
Leadership Framework. The fi ve leadership styles were used as the independent
variables, whereas each school climate variable was entered as the dependent
variable. Therefore, this analysis sought to examine the degree to which school
leadership styles reliably predicted school climate variables.
These analyses were conducted with data from all teachers responding in the
seven countries at the European level. Each school climate variable was entered
individually as the dependent variable, and then, all school climate variables
were treated as a composite variable. Therefore, in the following sections of this
chapter, readers will be able to see how each of the seven school climate compo-
nents interacts and relates with the fi ve leadership styles in order to mediate student
achievement.
5.2 Exploratory and Confi rmatory Factor Analyses
Responses to the School Climate Variables Questionnaire items were scored in a
numerical scale from 1 to 5, in such a way that a higher score always represented a
higher degree of agreement with a statement. At this point, it should be reminded
that the responses to the school climate variables questionnaire came from the
teachers of the participating schools; they are the ones who replied to the question-
naires. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was chosen as the data reduction tech-
nique. Thus, the 47 questionnaire items were factor analyzed to assess which items
were intercorrelated and to establish internal reliability. After careful examination of
the factor loadings, a seven-factor solution involving 34 items with factor loadings
above .40 that explained 58.95 % of variance was produced. The factor solution
is presented in Table 5.1 .
The seven factors extracted were labeled as follows: (1) Professional Development
Opportunities, (2) Student Expectations, (3) Teacher Commitment to School,
(4) Evaluation and Feedback Practices, (5) Parental Involvement, (6) Teaching and
Learning Practices, and (7) Student-Teacher Interactions. The fi rst factor named
Professional Development Opportunities comprised seven items (with Cronbach’s
alpha = .86) representing practices that promote a climate for teacher professional
development (i.e., provision of suffi cient opportunities for professional training,
provision of necessary information to teachers in order to perform their duties, free
discussion of issues regarding teacher continuous improvement, motivating job at
the school, useful feedback received by teachers, and participation in decision-
making processes).
The second factor named S tudent Expectations comprised three items (with
Cronbach’s alpha = .70) representing practices that promote student personal
achievement orientation (i.e., interest in improving their academic performance,
P. Pashiardis and S. Brauckmann
91
participation in various European educational programs and competitions, and
noble competition which enhances their performance).
The third factor named Teacher Commitment to School comprised seven items
(with Cronbach’s alpha = .84) representing teachers’ commitment to teaching and
learning practices (i.e., teachers have a clear understanding of what is expected from
Table 5.1 Exploratory factor analysis for the school climate variables questionnaire
Component
Professional
development
Teacher
commitment
Teacher
practices
Parental
involvement
Student–
teacher
interaction
Evaluation-
feedback
Student
expectations
Q2 .583
Q8 .645
Q9 .715
Q13 .624
Q21 .651
Q22 .722
Q23 .731
Q1 .581
Q4 .783
Q5 .725
Q10 .665
Q12 .446
Q19 .480
Q24 .615
Q11 .529
Q17 .452
Q31 .687
Q32 .775
Q33 .691
Q38 .689
Q6 .751
Q29 .505
Q41 .792
Q42 .780
Q45 .635
Q46 .736
Q47 .748
Q16 .451
Q25 .414
Q26 .777
Q27 .690
Q34 .726
Q35 .712
Q36 .680
Extraction method: principal component analysis
Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization
5 Leadership Styles and School Climate Variables…
92
them in their work; teachers are committed to achieving the school goals; teachers
are committed to maintaining high standards of discipline; teachers feel responsible
for the quality of their work; teachers have a clear perception of the school’s direction;
teachers have a strong emphasis on student learning; and teachers try to perform to
the maximum extent possible).
The fourth factor named Evaluation and Feedback Practices comprised three
items (with Cronbach’s alpha = .85) representing evaluation and assessment
practices (i.e., concrete feedback is given to staff on teaching and learning; valua-
tions of teaching are used for improvement and change; evaluations of teaching
meet external requirements).
The fi fth factor named Parental Involvement comprised four items (with
Cronbach’s alpha = .80) representing parents’ involvement in school settings (i.e.,
parents are actively involved in school affairs; there is frequent communication and
cooperation with parents; parents are actively involved in the governance of the
school; and parents are actively involved in the day-to-day operations of the school).
The sixth factor named Teaching and Learning Practices comprised six items
(with Cronbach’s alpha = .76) representing the learning climate (i.e., considerable
efforts are made to improve teaching practices; there is close alignment between
content taught and content tested; considerable efforts are made to improve student
outcomes; teachers explain and answer precisely to students’ questions; teachers
return promptly the graded tests and explain the expected answers; and a step-by-
step procedure is followed in teaching).
The seventh factor named Student - Teacher Interactions comprised four items
(with Cronbach’s alpha = .68) representing the interaction practices among teachers
and students (i.e., student progress is regularly monitored; students communicate
effectively with the staff; students feel comfortable to express their feelings,
problems, or concerns to their teachers; and teachers discuss on one-to-one basis
with their students about issues concerning their progress).
Following, Confi rmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed using Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM; EQS version 6.1). The model had an acceptable fi t to
the data, χ 2 (381, N = 1,304) = 1896.21, p < .001; CFI = .90; NNFI = .89; and RMSEA =
.055 (CI.90 = .053–.058). The model tested is presented in Fig. 5.1 .
5.3 Findings with Regard to School Climate Dimensions
5.3.1 Professional Development Opportunities
Initially, we examined which of the School Leadership Styles, if any, predicted
the provision of Professional Development Opportunities to teachers. The model
was signifi cant, accounting for 33 % of the dependent variable’s variance.
Responsible for this effect were the Instructional Style, the Participative Style,
the Personnel Development Style, all with a positive effect, and the Entrepreneurial
P. Pashiardis and S. Brauckmann
93
Style with a negative effect. The Structuring Style did not predict in a signifi cant
way the provision of Professional Development Opportunities. These fi ndings
suggest that when school leaders exhibit more of the Instructional Leadership
Style, then Professional Development Opportunities increase at the school level.
At this point, it should be noted that the Instructional Leadership Style includes
a clear defi nition of instructional objectives, monitoring and evaluating students
and teachers, setting high expectations, enabling the achievement of instructional
objectives, and stimulating instructional innovation. Similarly, if school leaders
exhibit more of the Participative Leadership Style, again, this has a positive effect
on Professional Development Opportunities at the school level. By Participative
Leadership Style, we mean participation in decision-making mechanisms
(formal and informal) for the teachers, fostering staff cooperation, brokering and
mediating between teachers, as well as promoting commitment. Finally, it seems
that the Personnel Development Style, which includes the provision of training
opportunities, the enhancement of self- effi cacy, and acknowledging and rewarding
teachers, also enhances the Professional Development Opportunities presented at
the school level.
Professional
Development
Teacher
Commitment
Evaluation-
Feedback
Q23
Q2
.
.
.
Q34
.
.
.
Q1
.
.
.
Q45
.
.
.
Q6
.
.
.
Q36
Q24
Q47
Q42
[Q2,Q8,Q9,Q13,Q21,Q22,Q23]
[Q34,Q35,Q36]
[Q1,Q4,Q5,Q10,Q12,Q19,Q24]
[Q45,Q46,Q47]
School
Climate
..
.
.
[Q6,Q29,Q41,Q42]
Q16
.
.
.
[Q16,Q25,Q26,Q27]
.79*
.69*
.78*
.90*
.65*
.50*
.65*
Q38
Q27
[Q11,Q17,Q31,Q32,Q33,Q38]
Student
Expectations
Parental
Involvement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Q42
*p<.05
Teaching and
Learning Pract
..
.
.
Student-Teacher
interaction
.
.
.
Q11
Fig. 5.1 School climate variables model
5 Leadership Styles and School Climate Variables…
94
However, when there is an increase in the Entrepreneurial Leadership Style, it
seems that there is a decrease in the provision of Professional Development
Opportunities. Through the Entrepreneurial Leadership Style, we mean increased
Parental Involvement, acquiring resources, coalition building, and a market orientation
of the school leader.
As was expected, the Instructional, Participative, and Personnel Development
Styles were found to predict in a positive way the provision of Professional
Development Opportunities to teachers. One would also expect the Entrepreneurial
Style to have a positive infl uence on the Professional Development Opportunities,
as principals would probably be looking outside the school boundaries in order
to fi nd professional growth opportunities for their teachers. However, this style
was not perceived in this way by the teachers, since teachers might have in mind a
principal who devotes too much of his/her time on external relations and who is not
very much concerned about the internal state of teacher development within the
school. This fi nding is consistent with the results of the Leadership Questionnaire
presented in Chap. 4 .
In short, the Entrepreneurial Style is probably seen by teachers as exercised
at the expense of teachers’ professional growth, because the school leader is appar-
ently more concerned with looking outside the school, building alliances and
coalitions as opposed to providing professional growth opportunities for teachers.
Therefore, one could discern two competing and, at the same time, complementary
sets of leadership styles: an internal one consisting of the Instructional, Participative,
and Personnel Development Styles and an external one which includes the
Entrepreneurial Style. These results from the teachers (which emanated from
their responses to the school climate variables questionnaire) are in tune with what
the majority of school leaders mentioned in their interviews, citing that they very
much use those three styles in order to enhance the Professional Development
Opportunities of their teachers. Moreover, in England, the Instructional Style was
found to predict in a signifi cant and positive way each of the individual, as well as
the composite of the school climate variables. Therefore, with regard to the
Instructional Style , it can be argued that England is one of the more representative
cases of the aforementioned Europe-wide fi ndings.
In addition, with regard to the Personnel Development Leadership Style, it was
mentioned by another English school leader that “teachers are required contrac-
tually to take responsibility for their own professional development, thus they need
to demonstrate that they are analyzing their performance and seeking appropriate
professional development to address their needs.” Furthermore, in Slovenia, the Parti-
cipative Style predicted in a signifi cant and positive way Professional Development .
It seems that, within the Slovenian context, a participative approach to leadership
can promote a positive climate for teacher professional development in the sense
that school leaders’ cooperation with teachers has a developmental content and
approach which seems to be conducive to their growth as teachers.
P. Pashiardis and S. Brauckmann
95
5.3.2 Teacher Commitment
Then, we examined whether any leadership style predicted Teacher Commitment.
The model was signifi cant, accounting for 21 % of the dependent variable’s
variance. The variables responsible for this effect were the Instructional and
Structuring Styles. According to these fi ndings, when we have an increase in the
Instructional and the Structuring Styles, there is an increase in Teacher Commitment.
It seems that teachers enjoy working in an environment where there is clarity of
roles, responsibilities, and expectations and, at the same time, there is an emphasis
on teaching and learning; these two seem to increase their commitment to the school.
Again, when comparing the views of the teachers as expressed in the quantitative
part of the results with the views of the principals, it seems that the majority of
school principals also agree that through the Instructional and Structuring Styles,
there is increased Teacher Commitment. For example, a school principal in Norway
mentioned that the accomplishment of the instructional aims creates a very clear
feedback on how well the school is doing and, at the same time, to what extent the
school has achieved its main objectives. As the school leader explained, this, by
itself, creates a sense of commitment for the teachers because they can see that their
hard work has paid off. This remark is representative of what most principals
mentioned with regard to the Instructional Style and Teacher Commitment in the
seven countries participating in the LISA project. Moreover, a principal from
the Netherlands mentioned that classroom observation of teachers and conducting
student surveys (enabling 360° feedback) are another ways of knowing whether
the school has achieved its main objectives, thus indicating how the Instructional
Style is implemented in actual practice by gathering data from students and
teachers. As the principal continued, in turn, this information is used in order to
acknowledge and reward teachers. As was further mentioned, when teachers see
that their principals acknowledge and appreciate them and they get positive and
concrete feedback, they become more committed to their school.
With regard to the Structuring Style, creating a common vision was high on the
agenda of all participating principals, as well as providing clarity of rules and
regulations with a “human touch,” as mentioned by most of the principals par-
ticipating in the project. Principals echoed the sentiment that clarity of roles and
responsibilities was high on their agenda, thus enhancing teachers’ commitment to
the school. Moreover, principals mentioned that when there is clarity of roles and
duties, there are fewer confl icts and teachers feel that they belong to the school and
do not want to move. In fact, this clarity of roles and responsibilities helps create a
stable environment in which teachers enjoy to work; thus, their commitment is
enhanced. In sum, it seems that there was great congruence between the teachers’
responses on the School Climate Variables Questionnaire on the one hand and the
principals’ comments during the interviews on the other hand, with regard to what
infl uences Teacher Commitment.
5 Leadership Styles and School Climate Variables…
96
5.3.3 Teaching and Learning Practices
Following, it was found that three of the leadership styles also predicted the school
climate variable of Teaching and Learning Practices. The model was again signifi cant,
explaining 10 % of the dependent variable’s variance. The leadership styles
responsible for this effect were the Instructional, the Entrepreneurial, and the
Structuring Styles. The fi ndings show that when we have an increase in the three
leadership styles mentioned above, then the Teaching and Learning Practices in
the school are improved. This fi nding again makes sense, as it indicates that the
more emphasis is placed on the quality of instruction that takes place at the school,
as well as the more inviting and open to parents the school becomes, then there is an
increased involvement of parents in the school’s affairs. Parents feel welcomed and
are given more space to get involved. This, in turn, probably adds some pressure on
teachers to improve the teaching and learning practices exercised at the school.
These results from the teachers’ responses on the questionnaire are in agreement
with the views of the school principals, as expressed during the interviews.
For instance, a principal from Italy stressed that principals always try to stimulate
instructional innovation and experimentations with regard to teaching practices
such as collecting data from internal students’ assessment and from international
surveys in which the school is involved in order to improve on their instructional
methods. Furthermore, teachers pay great attention to “new” learning tools (making
extensive use of the Internet and informal ways of sharing best practice knowledge
by participating in social networks such as Facebook) while trying to incorporate
them into their teaching methods; teachers, then, try to be innovative as well when
they know that the principal is encouraging them. Moreover, a principal from
the Netherlands stressed the fact that the schools there adhere to the rules of the
government and the ministry but, at the same time, overstep these rules without
hesitation when the needs of the school or its students require them to do so; there-
fore, the rules of the ministry are adjusted to the schools’ own situation and to the
students’ teaching and learning needs, thus establishing their own Structuring Style
when leading their school. These views were representative of other school
leaders participating in the LISA project. This is also a good example of Entre-
preneurial Leadership Style in action when the principal tries to adjust the external
environment (in this case the Ministry of Education) in order to suit the purposes of
the school and, in turn, trying to infl uence his/her environment. In this, she was
representative of most principals participating in the LISA study within the seven
European countries.
5.3.4 Parental Involvement
Parental Involvement was then entered as the dependent variable in the regression
analysis. The model was signifi cant, explaining 14 % of the dependent variable’s
variance. The leadership variables responsible for this effect were the Instructional
P. Pashiardis and S. Brauckmann
97
and the Entrepreneurial Styles. According to these fi ndings, when we have an
increase in the Instructional and in the Entrepreneurial Styles, we have an increase
in Parental Involvement.
Moreover, from the qualitative data (principals’ interviews), it seems that indeed
principals in the LISA study took extra steps in order to involve parents in the daily
and long-term affairs of their schools, thus exhibiting an Entrepreneurial Leadership
Style in action. For instance, in Hungary, school principals organize open days for
parents on different topics (such as drug abuse and talent grooming). In Slovenia,
parents are encouraged to participate in school projects and they are involved in
formal decision making (such as parents’ councils, school board meetings, and
parental meetings), thus, enhancing the instructional opportunities accorded to
students. In Germany (North Rhine-Westphalia
1 ) parents can collaborate in many
ways (such as afternoon working groups, cafeteria), they take an active role during
the Christmas bazaar, and they make suggestions for specifi c themes for parent
evenings. In this way, the bonding between the parents and the school is enhanced
for the benefi t of their children. In the Netherlands, school leaders mentioned a few
examples of Parental Involvement during the interviews, such as asking for their
opinions using parental satisfaction surveys with regard to school activities, inviting
stakeholders to think about and provide recommendations on matters concerning
the school (e.g., formulating and evaluating the strategic policy plan of the school),
having regular contacts with municipal authorities, and getting the neighborhood
and the parents of the pupils involved in its activities.
5.3.5 Student-Teacher Interactions
Additionally, we also examined whether any leadership style explained the variance
in Student-Teacher Interactions. The model was again signifi cant, explaining 10 %
of the dependent variable’s variance. The leadership styles responsible for this effect
were the Instructional and Structuring ones. According to these fi ndings, when there
is an increase in the Instructional and the Structuring Styles, Student-Teacher
Interactions increase as well.
With regard to Student-Teacher Interactions, it seems that school principals’ views
are again aligned with the teachers’ views. For instance, a principal from Germany
mentioned that establishing and following clear rules (e.g., Structuring Style) helped
enormously with having fairer and more honest interactions between students and
teachers. This is further enhanced, because there are house and school regulations
which are aligned. As was mentioned, the school has introduced a school contract,
which is signed by parents and pupils who are new to the school; this school
contract gives clear regulations about house rules (including a code of good behav-
ior). Thus, the school has formulated an education consensus (a contract for fairness
1 It should be noted that the responsibility for the school systems and schools in Germany rests within
the different Länder (provinces). For more information, the reader is directed to Döbert (
2007 ).
5 Leadership Styles and School Climate Variables…
98
in life), involving parents, pupils, and teachers. In this way, as school leaders men-
tioned, all stakeholders are committed to the school because they know that the
rules being enforced both at the school and at home are the result of a joint consen-
sus among everyone involved. Additionally, a principal from England stressed the
fact that rules about the code of conduct between students and teachers are widely
published in several places – in homework journals, in classrooms, in staff
handbooks, and on the website. In this way, the principal concluded that everyone is
informed and becomes aware of what is at stake with regard to the observance of rules and
regulations. Furthermore, behavior and sanctions policy applied was regularly
reviewed with staff. Again, this practice enhanced adherence to the rules, thus pro-
viding clarity and consistency to the relationships between students and teachers
and, therefore, exhibiting both the Instructional and the Structuring Styles in action.
5.3.6 Evaluation and Feedback Practices
Another School Climate Variable, Evaluation and Feedback Practices, was also
entered as a dependent variable, based on the teachers’ responses. The regression
model was signifi cant, accounting for 25 % of the dependent variable’s variance.
The Instructional, Participative, and Personnel Development Styles were responsi-
ble for this effect. The fi ndings show that when we have an increase in Instructional
Leadership, Participative Leadership, and the Personnel Development Styles,
Evaluation and Feedback Practices also increase at the school level.
With reference to these fi ndings, the views of the teachers (on the questionnaire
responses) converge (to some extent) with the views of the principals with regard to
provision of feedback approaches and professional development especially towards
new teachers. According to school principals, teachers need and expect to be given
concrete feedback about specifi c aspects of their teaching quality in order to enhance
their instructional abilities. Furthermore, principals mentioned that their teachers
appreciated the provision of targeted in-service for professional growth (mainly on
aspects how to provide effective evaluation and feedback to students). However,
there is divergence of these views with regard to the degree of participation in
decision making around the school. In their interviews, principals seemed to believe
that the more participation from the teachers, the better; indeed, school leaders,
during their interviews, gave the impression that they believe that they are better and
more democratic leaders if they require more participation on behalf of the teachers
for decision making, thus, enhancing teachers’ feedback opportunities.
From the quantitative results, however, it seems that teachers do not want (and
probably do not expect) to be involved in every decision-making process nor do they
consider this involvement as a means conducive to their professional enhancement or
that this type of involvement results in more democratic governance at the school
level. It seems that principals should be cautious about too much participation;
probably, too much is as damaging as too little. This was particularly evident in
Italy, where it seems that teachers are not willing to take part in participative forms
P. Pashiardis and S. Brauckmann
99
of school management and that the more the principals try to involve them, the
more the teachers seem to react in a negative way (e.g., decreased commitment).
This is probably a consequence of the Italian system of educational governance
which favors a more centralized mode of decision making at the local/central
educational authorities. This assumption on behalf of the teachers probably makes
them assume that it is the principal’s duty to administer and lead the school and
not theirs. Therefore, the negativity expressed by school teachers towards the
Participative Style in Italy is probably rooted in the (traditionally) centralized school
administration of Italian schools. More discussion and explanations are provided in
Chap. 6 , where the Italian perspective is treated in more detail, by school principals
themselves.
5.3.7 Student Expectations
Leadership style also reliably predicted Student Expectations. The regression model
was again signifi cant, accounting for 9.4 % of the dependent variable’s variance.
The leadership styles responsible for this effect were the Instructional and Structuring
Styles. According to these fi ndings, when we have an increase in the Instructional
as well as in the Structuring Styles, Student Expectations increase as well. Indeed,
it seems that when the Structuring Style of leadership is more emphasized at the
school, there is more clarity about what to expect from students. In essence, through
the Structuring as well as through the Instructional Leadership Styles, school leaders
are able to provide guidance about what is expected, what the standards are, and,
therefore, what everybody in the school ought to be doing. In short, it seems that
when there is clarity of goals, rules, and regulations, then teachers feel clearer and
safer about what to expect from their students and of themselves as teachers.
It seems that the environment at the school level becomes more stable and condu-
cive to learning. Teachers know what the objectives are and are able to clearly trans-
mit them as student expectations. Moreover, when learning objectives also become
clearer, then teachers know what to teach and students know what they need to learn
and to what level of profi ciency.
5.3.8 School Climate as a Composite Variable
Finally, we examined whether any of the leadership styles predicted school climate
variables as a composite variable taken as a whole. The model was again signifi cant,
accounting for 31 % of the dependent variable’s variance. Responsible for this effect
were the Instructional, Structuring, and the Entrepreneurial Leadership Styles.
According to these fi ndings, when we have an increase in the Instructional as well
as in the Structuring and the Entrepreneurial Styles, we have an increase in the
School Climate taken as a whole.
5 Leadership Styles and School Climate Variables…
100
From the quantitative results (i.e., the teachers’ responses to the School Climate
Variables Questionnaire), we can suggest that providing structure, which means
clear rules and regulations that are consistently implemented, can help enhance
teachers’ expectations of their students by creating a climate which is conducive to
teaching and learning. The way the Structuring Style is treated in this piece of work
is that the school leader is concerned with the aspects of providing direction, clarity,
and coordination to the school. Indeed, there is ample research which has shown
that the principal’s vision positively affects their instructional and strategic behavior
(Kruger, Witziers, & Sleegers, 2007 ) and helps them focus on the goals as well
as increases their use of innovative and professional teaching practices (Barnett
& McCormick, 2004 ). The study of Waters, Marzano, and McNulty ( 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. Finally, according to Pashiardis ( 1998 ), effective
structuring leaders manage all school facilities effectively and supervise effi ciently
their maintenance to ensure clean, orderly, and safe buildings and grounds, thus
enhancing the school’s climate as a whole.
Even more so, when school principals exhibit their Instructional Style, it also
helps increase the expectations for improved instructional practices at the school as
well. This leadership style has a strong focus on the improvement of the quality of
teaching and learning. According to Hallinger ( 2005 ), school principals lead through
building a learning mission and aligning teaching and learning activities with the
defi ned purposes. In addition, effective instructional leaders develop a climate of
high expectations for teaching and learning (Hallinger, 2005 ; Nettles & Herrington,
2007 ) and engage in monitoring and evaluation activities (Waters et al., 2003 ). Finally,
effective school leaders are constant stimulators of instructional innovation. According
to Waters et al., this “instructional optimizer role” adopted by school leaders contributes
to a further increase in student achievement, through the improvement of the school
climate conditions as a whole.
5.4 The Intimate Relation of Leadership Styles
and School Climate: A General Discussion
The results already presented shed some light on a number of issues related to the
scope of the LISA project. First, from a methodological point of view, it is impor-
tant to note that the central part of the initial Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic
Leadership Framework (the Leadership Radius) was strongly supported by the
exploratory and confi rmatory factor analyses that followed. More specifi cally, the
initial fi ve factors ( Instructional Style, Participative Style, Personnel Development
Style, Entrepreneurial Style, Structuring Style) clearly emerged in the Exploratory
Factor Analysis, thus establishing the validity of the model, as described in Chap.
4 .
In addition, the model became even more parsimonious by keeping 35 out of the 48
P. Pashiardis and S. Brauckmann
101
items included in the Leadership Styles Questionnaire. In turn, the Confi rmatory Factor
Analysis showed an acceptable fi t of this model to the data ( χ 2 (532, Ν = 1,287) =
2,121,47, ρ < .001; CFI = .94; NNFI = .94; RMSEA = .049, CI.90 = .047 – .051),
supporting directly our hypothesized theory of leadership styles, thus establishing
the validity of the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework within
the seven European countries participating in the LISA project.
Stemming from the above, we are now in a better position to establish relations
between the principals’ leadership styles and the school climate variables that were
investigated.
2 The School Climate Variables composite was found to be predicted
mainly by three of the leadership styles: the Instructional , the Structuring , and the
Entrepreneurial . The Instructional Style seems to be a core aspect of leadership that
promotes school conditions conducive to student learning. This is probably due to
the very content of this style that concerns the leadership of teaching and learning at
the school level. The Structuring Style provides a safe and orderly ground for the
development of positive school conditions with a vision since clear expectations and
procedures are communicated to teachers and students. Apparently, based on the
teachers’ responses, one can observe that the climate is improved at the school level
if the school leader exercises primarily the Instructional and Structuring Styles; this
fi nding makes good sense because it is through these leadership styles that school
leaders encourage instructional experimentation and high expectations. At the
same time, school leaders, through the Structuring Style, clearly delineate goals and
objectives to be achieved and therefore assist teachers in improving their teaching
practices by providing a vision and an aspiration with regard to where they want
their schools to be at.
Moreover, the Entrepreneurial Style was found to infl uence, in a positive way,
school conditions. As parents and the community are important stakeholders in
school affairs, it seems that their involvement improves the school’s functioning
either through a mechanism of external accountability or through their intervention
for continuous school improvement. Furthermore, it seems that the more Entrepre-
neurial the school leader is, the more improvement in school climate is found
inside the school. This fi nding indicates that the more a leader invites “outsiders”
(such as parents) inside the school, the more improvement there is in the teaching and
learning climate of the school; this is probably because of a “felt” increase in
pressure from the outside, with the result of improvement on the inside. We will
proceed with a more detailed discussion of the three leadership styles and their
relationship with the school climate, as it seems that these styles formulate the
“irreducible minimum” when school leaders exercise their authority at the
school level. It is therefore important to get into a more in-depth discussion
about how the Instructional, Structuring, and Entrepreneurial Leadership Styles
interact and operate at the school level in order to create the conditions for effective
2 Again, the reader should be cautioned that each participating country was represented by four
schools each which do not allow us to talk about Europe at large; however, we might be leading
towards a European perspective of certain leadership styles since these communalities are described
as trends across seven different school systems.
5 Leadership Styles and School Climate Variables…
102
teaching and learning to take place. At the same time, in this section, an effort is
made to connect the fi ndings of the LISA project with prior research.
5.4.1 The Instructional Style
As previously mentioned, at the European level (including all seven countries), it
was found, as expected, that the Instructional Style constitutes a core dimension of
leadership which is conducive to a healthy school climate and a smoother function-
ing of the school. Specifi cally, the Instructional Style predicted in a signifi cant way
each individual as well as the composite of the School Variables (i.e., Teacher
Commitment, Teaching and Learning Practices, Student-Teacher Interactions, and
Student Expectations, taken all together). The fact that the Instructional Style seems
to be considered, the foundation for school leadership in all seven countries of our
project is supported by the evidence gathered through the interviews process
with the participating school leaders in the LISA project. For instance, during the
personal interviews, English leaders mentioned that they use statistical analyses of
students’ results every year in order to set objectives to plan for improvement by
highlighting areas of underperformance, incorporating them into the development
plan for that year, and prioritizing funding for them. They further monitor teaching
and learning through (1) lesson observations carried out across the school, (2) by
conducting a parental survey, (3) through student forums, (4) by grading exercise
books, and (5) by monitoring student reports and exam results. In a similar fashion,
school leaders from Hungary and the Netherlands mentioned that when it comes
to stimulating instructional innovations, “the pupil’s knowledge brought from the
outside environment is used and connected with what takes place in classrooms.”
Moreover, another Dutch principal stressed that “a connection is made between the
education provided at the school and developments outside the school (especially
other school sectors),” thus relating the reality of the outside world to the reality of
the classroom. Similar comments were also made by the rest of the principals in the
participating countries.
From the aforementioned, it can be observed that indeed the Instructional
Leadership Style is present and very strongly evident in the schools which participated
in the LISA project. This fi nding is further corroborated by its congruence with
previous research that showed Instructional Leadership to be an essential constituent
of effective school leadership (e.g., Dinham, 2005 ; Hallinger, 2005 Leithwood &
Jantzi, 2006 ). Therefore, we can suggest (albeit with the limitations of our small
sample) that Instructional Leadership is of great importance to the European coun-
tries participating in this project and that it is a necessary component of European
school leadership taken as a whole. Indeed, special attention should probably be
granted to this leadership style since it comprises practices and behaviors that are
directly related to a school’s core mission, which is teaching and learning.
What is of particular importance is the fact that the Instructional Leadership
Style is evident in all seven countries, irrespective of context. That is, whether the
P. Pashiardis and S. Brauckmann
103
country’s educational system is more centralized or whether there are evaluation
and accountability mechanisms, the Instructional Style is present. Apparently, what
seems to matter to principals is the fact that the Instructional Leadership Style is
right at the heart of a school, and therefore, they apply and practice it irrespective of
outside forces in place. More specifi cally, in almost all of the countries participating
in the LISA project, the Instructional Leadership Style predicted in a positive way
the school climate variable of Evaluation and Feedback . This is probably because
the Instructional Leadership Style includes aspects of monitoring instructional
outcomes which seem to be refl ected on the general practices of evaluation and
feedback at the school level. Through this Evaluation and Feedback , teachers are
probably better able to gauge their performance and act accordingly or modify their
teaching behaviors so that their students become more successful. Moreover, we
should point to the fact that the Instructional Leadership Style is also concerned
with the provision of instructional guidance to teachers and their encouragement
towards experimentation with new teaching methods and can, therefore, be linked
to Professional Development in terms of the provision of useful instructional
feedback for their teachers’ further growth and development with regard to teaching
and learning practices.
Linked with the above, the Instructional Leadership Style also predicted in a
positive way the variable Teaching and Learning Practices . As mentioned previously,
the Instructional Leadership Style is related to the provision of instructional direction
to teachers as well as setting high expectations and monitoring and evaluating
students and teachers and stimulating instructional innovation. All of these
activities are likely to be refl ected in the teachers’ Teaching and Learning Practices .
If the principal conveys to the teachers his/her expectations regarding the pedagogical
aspects of their work, then teachers will be more likely and encouraged to act in a
way that promotes these expectations for the benefi t of their students.
Furthermore, among the two styles which appear most frequently to predict
Professional Development was the Instructional Leadership Style . Moreover ,
Student - Teacher Interactions were found to be infl uenced mainly by the Instructional
Leadership Style . The specifi c variable constitutes an aspect of the learning envi-
ronment that teachers need to create in order for effective teaching and learning
to take place. The Instructional Leadership Style might include this dimension in
the form of feedback provided to teachers and hence the positive effect on Student -
Teacher Interactions .
5.4.2 The Structuring Style
Apart from the Instructional Leadership Style , the fi ndings showed that the Structuring
Style can predict in a significant way most of the School Climate Variables
(i.e., Teacher Commitment , Teaching and Learning Practices , Student - Teacher
Interactions , and Student Expectations ) including the composite School Climate
Variables . This probably indicates that the principals’ behavior of providing
5 Leadership Styles and School Climate Variables…
104
direction and coordination within the school can further promote the effectiveness
of school operations. The fi nding that the Structuring Leadership Style was at the
center of every school leader’s behavior is also in accordance with previous research.
For instance, according to Waters et al. ( 2003 ), effective school leaders establish
standard procedures and routines in order to secure discipline and order in their
schools. Moreover, effective principals ensure that school rules are uniformly
observed by all students. These aspects of leadership were also found to be important
for the seven European countries participating in the project. More importantly,
with regard to Teacher Commitment , the leadership style that positively predicts this
variable in most of the countries is the Structuring Style . This can be interpreted
in that the provision of clear rules and procedures, as well as clear expectations,
creates a positive and orderly atmosphere for teachers to work in. Teachers have a
clearer understanding of what is expected from them and expend their efforts
towards the accomplishment of the school goals, as opposed to dealing with
disruptive student behavior. On the other hand, although previous research (e.g.,
Leithwood & Mascall,
2008 ) highlights the effect of participative forms of leader-
ship on Teacher Commitment, this was not the case for the teachers and principals
of the European countries participating in the project. In fact, teachers in the LISA
project seem to become more committed to their school when there is clarity of
vision and mission; moreover, teachers seem to be more committed when school
leaders are concerned with establishing and following clear rules and having a
distinct division of roles and responsibilities among staff – in short, having safe
and orderly conditions at the school with established routines probably makes
the European teachers who participated in the LISA project feel more committed
to their school.
5.4.3 The Entrepreneurial Style
Parental Involvement was found in most cases to be explained in a positive way by
the Entrepreneurial Leadership Style . This fi nding may be corroborated by the
principals’ actions that promote the creation and fostering of a close and construc-
tive cooperation with the external community. The parents are among those groups
of external stakeholders that principals keep frequent communication with. The
direct result of this contact is to have an active involvement of the parents in school
affairs. Another interpretation about the reasons that the Entrepreneurial Style
seems to be so important for the successful functioning of the school could be that
organizations and enterprises from the community put pressure on the school for
higher student outcomes, which the school tries to reach through the enhanced
engagement of parents in their children’s learning. Similarly, Harris and Chapman
(
2002 ) concluded that school principals who had implemented successful school
improvement programs had broken down the barriers between the school and the
community and sought to engage parents in school life. Furthermore, the variable of
P. Pashiardis and S. Brauckmann
105
Student Expectations was most often found to be predicted by the Entrepreneurial
Leadership Style , either positively or negatively. In the case of a positive prediction,
we can argue that the close contact of the principal with the community and the
parents can raise the expectations that teachers have for their students. This can be
achieved through pressure enacted by the parents for their children’s learning as
well as through the community’s expectations of the future human capital who will
work for its further development. In the case of a negative prediction, it seems that
Student Expectations are lower in countries where the Entrepreneurial Style is more
frequently enacted by the principal. This might be due to the fact that the school
leader is probably spending more time looking outside the school than monitoring
what is going on inside the school. In any case, what these fi ndings probably tell
us is that this specifi c leadership style is rather contextual and its application should
be more closely connected with regard to the external (and more immediate)
environment that the schools are operating in.
5.5 Concluding Remarks with Regard to the “Magic
Triangle” (Instructional, Structuring,
Entrepreneurial Styles)
In conclusion, within their own cultural and governance structural constraints,
principals in the seven participating countries in the LISA project fi nd a way
(through the application of different leadership styles) to promote aspects central to
the school climate and the smooth functioning of their schools, thus infl uencing
student achievement in an important, albeit indirect way. Apart from the Instructional
Leadership Style which forms the baseline of effective school leadership across
Europe, it is becoming increasingly more evident that there is no best cocktail mix
of leadership styles which can predict school climate variables. This study has just
provided some additional evidence to the largely held assumption that when it
comes to leadership, the “one-size-fi ts-all” approach does not (and probably should
not) work. However, what also seems to be true is that the Instructional , Structuring ,
and Entrepreneurial Styles of leadership, or what can be called the “Magic Triangle,”
are essential components of this “leadership cocktail mix” irrespective of context.
In turn, what also seems to be true is that the other two remaining leadership styles
from the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework, the Participative
and Personnel Development Styles , are more situational and contextual in nature.
In essence, it seems that we have some of the ingredients in order for school leaders
to become more successful in their schools, but we do not have the right dosage.
As mentioned elsewhere in this book, the right dosage or amount of each leadership
style will probably remain the personal secret of every effective school leader, who
creates it bearing in mind the context (as described in this piece of research), as well
as his/her own moral purpose.
5 Leadership Styles and School Climate Variables…
106
References
Barnett, K., & McCormick, J. (2004). Leadership and individual principal-teacher relationships in
schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40 (3), 406–434.
Dinham, S. (2005). Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes. Journal of
Educational Administration, 43 (4), 338–356.
Döbert, H. (2007). Germany. In H. Döbert, W. Hörner, B. Kop, & W. Mitter (Eds.), Educational
systems in Europe (pp. 299–325). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses
to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4 , 221–239.
Harris, A., & Chapman, C. (2002). Effective leadership in schools facing challenging circumstances .
London: NCSL.
Kruger, M. L., Witziers, B., & Sleegers, P. (2007). The impact of school leadership on school level
factors: Validation of a causal model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18 (1),
1–20.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform:
Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 17 (2), 201–227.
Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (4), 529–561.
Nettles, S. M., & Herrington, C. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of school
leadership on student achievement: The implications for school improvement policy. Peabody
Journal of Education, 82 (4), 724–736.
Pashiardis, P. (1998). Researching the characteristics of effective primary school principals in
Cyprus. A qualitative approach. Educational Management & Administration, 26 (2), 117–130.
Pashiardis, P., & Brauckmann, S. (2008, November 13–15). Introduction to the LISA framework
from a social system ’ s perspective . Paper presented during the LISA conference, Budapest,
Hungary.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research
tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement . Denver, CO: Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning.
P. Pashiardis and S. Brauckmann
