Content uploaded by Wayne Russell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wayne Russell on Jan 15, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Leadership Styles, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Performance
in Accredited International and Internationalized Schools
by
Wayne Russell
A Dissertation Submitted to
School of Business and Management
at California Southern University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Doctor of Business Administration
California Southern University
2022
Date of Defense: July 26, 2022
Copyright Declaration
Copyrighting a document offers its originator a set of literary, artistic, and/or expressive rights
including exclusive distribution privileges.
However, receipt of a submitted and approved dissertation shall result in the inclusion and
publication of the document by the University Library at California Southern University. As
such, each student grants the University a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to
reproduce the student's work, in whole or in part, in electronic form to be posted in the
University Library database and made available to the general public at no charge. This does not
imply ownership of the copyright by the university; rather, this practice occurs to support
accreditation efforts, research communities, enhance intellectual inquiries, and disseminate
insights and findings.
The School of Business and Management at California Southern University requires dissertations
to be copyrighted via ProQuest’s registration service. ProQuest provides an efficient dissertation
archiving system registering the document with the Library and Congress. Further, ProQuest
allows the originator to retain the copyright as described at https://about.proquest.com/products-
services/dissertations/submitting-dissertation-proquest.html.
Copyright
I consent to the following:
• the inclusion and publication of the document by the University Library at California
Southern University, as stated;
• submitting and archiving the dissertation using ProQuest; as stated above; and
• acknowledge and understand my rights as a copyright holder under 17 U.S.C. §106
published at https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html.
July 26, 2022
Wayne Russell
Date
© 2022
Wayne Russell
Acknowledgments
Without the steadfast support of my wife, Misty, this dissertation would not have been
completed. Thank you, Dad and Mom, for your unwavering support during my international
education career. It has been an absolute joy working with my three committee members, Dr.
Cameron, Dr. Wirth, and Dr. Carter. Dean Hess, thank you for your support during data analysis.
To Dr. Thomas and Dr. Gregory, for your encouragement to pursue my doctorate. Dr. Semler,
Dr. Ridings, Dr. Tonn, Dr. Whitehead, Dr. Lee, and other Drs, for your encouragement to press
on. Tim Gingrich, for your enduring friendship and words of wisdom during the dissertation
process. Julie Pyle, for your support with data analysis. Dr. Cook, for being a role model and
showing kindness throughout my international education journey. Fellow California Southern
University DBA students, for your encouragement and motivation.
Abstract
The international and internationalized school sector has witnessed substantial growth over the
past two decades. There is a need to assess the organizational performance of this growing
sector. This quantitative study assessed the organizational performance of international and
internationalized schools in China, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates as well as the
leadership style of the heads of these schools and the job satisfaction of principals who report
directly to these heads. The study’s sample included 129 principals. Each principal completed a
survey that included three instruments and demographical questions. The Kruskal-Wallis
statistical test was used to analyze the relationships between variables. There were no
relationships between leadership styles and organizational performance (p > .180). However,
there was a relationship between the job satisfaction of principals and organizational
performance (p = .000030). Findings suggest that school boards and owners pay greater attention
to the job satisfaction of their principals than the leadership styles of their head of school. Also,
heads of school should seek to promote and maintain high levels of job satisfaction among their
principals.
iii
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
Background of the Problem .............................................................................................................. 1
Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................ 3
Purpose Statement ............................................................................................................................. 4
Research Questions ........................................................................................................................... 4
Hypotheses ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................................... 6
Operational Definitions .................................................................................................................... 7
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations ................................................................................. 9
Contribution to Practice or Stakeholder Groups ........................................................................... 12
Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 14
International Schools ...................................................................................................................... 14
Organizational Performance ........................................................................................................... 20
Job Satisfaction ............................................................................................................................... 28
Theoretical Framework................................................................................................................... 35
Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 45
Chapter 3: Methodology..................................................................................................................... 47
Research Design .............................................................................................................................. 47
Research Questions ......................................................................................................................... 48
Hypotheses ...................................................................................................................................... 49
Population and Sample ................................................................................................................... 50
Role of the Researcher .................................................................................................................... 52
Geographical or Virtual Location .................................................................................................. 52
Procedure ......................................................................................................................................... 52
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................................... 53
Data Collection................................................................................................................................ 56
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 57
Hypothesis Tests ............................................................................................................................. 58
Informed Consent Process and Ethical Concerns ......................................................................... 61
Trustworthiness of the Study.......................................................................................................... 62
Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 63
Chapter 4: Findings ............................................................................................................................ 64
General Description of Participants ............................................................................................... 64
Unit of Analysis and Measurement................................................................................................ 65
Sample Size ..................................................................................................................................... 65
Data Collection................................................................................................................................ 66
Results of Hypothesis Tests ........................................................................................................... 68
Outliers ............................................................................................................................................ 70
iv
Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 70
Chapter 5: Concluding the Study ....................................................................................................... 72
Summary of the Study .................................................................................................................... 72
Ethical Dimensions ......................................................................................................................... 72
Overview of the Population and Sampling Method...................................................................... 73
Limitations....................................................................................................................................... 73
Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 74
Reflection ........................................................................................................................................ 82
Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 82
Suggestions for Future Research.................................................................................................... 90
Concluding the Study ..................................................................................................................... 91
References ........................................................................................................................................... 92
Appendix A: Tables .......................................................................................................................... 119
Appendix B: Figures......................................................................................................................... 123
Appendix C: Instruments ................................................................................................................. 140
Appendix D: Consent Form ............................................................................................................. 145
Appendix E: Site Permissions .......................................................................................................... 148
Appendix F: IRB Approvals ............................................................................................................ 151
Appendix G: Permission to Use Questions in Delaney and Huselid’s Study ............................... 153
Appendix H: MLQ Licenses ............................................................................................................ 155
List of Tables
Table A1: Nine Leadership Factors ................................................................................................. 120
Table A2: Job Titles of Participants: Percentages .......................................................................... 120
Table A3: Participant’s Number of Years in Current Role: Percentages ...................................... 121
Table A4: Head of School’s Number of Years in Current Role at Current School: Percentages122
Table A5: Accreditation of Schools: Percentages .......................................................................... 122
List of Figures
Figure B1: Published Research Pieces Related to International Schools...................................... 124
Figure B2: Leadership Continuum from Transformational to Laissez-Faire Leadership ............ 125
Figure B3: Research Problem .......................................................................................................... 126
Figure B4: International School Industry Timeline ........................................................................ 127
Figure B5: Job Titles of Participants ............................................................................................... 129
Figure B6: Participant’s Number of Years in Current Role........................................................... 130
Figure B7: Head of School’s Number of Years in Current Role at Current School .................... 131
Figure B8: Accreditation of Schools ............................................................................................... 132
Figure B9: ”Quality of Services or Programs” Response Distribution ......................................... 133
Figure B10: ”Development of New Services or Programs” Response Distribution .................... 134
v
Figure B11: ”Ability to Attract Teachers and School Leaders” Response Distribution .............. 135
Figure B12: ”Ability to Retain Teachers and School Leaders” Response Distribution............... 136
Figure B13: ”Satisfaction of Parents” Response Distribution ....................................................... 137
Figure B14: ”Relations between Management and Other Employees” Response Distribution .. 138
Figure B15: ”Relations among Employees in General” Response Distribution .......................... 139
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
The international school industry has witnessed rapid growth over the past few decades.
This study explored a problem within the growing field of international schooling. This chapter
includes a statement of the problem and the background of the problem, a purpose statement,
seven research questions along with hypotheses, and the study’s conceptual framework.
Operational definitions, assumptions, limitations, and delimitations, and contributions to practice
and stakeholder groups are also included in this introductory chapter.
Background of the Problem
Bunnell (2016) writes that the “exponential growth of international schools. . . [is]. . . an
overlooked global educational development” (p. 543). Since 1995, the worldwide number of
international schools increased by over 1,000%. In 1995, there were around 1,000 international
schools (Hayden & Thompson, 1995) and in 2019 there were close to 10,000 international
schools (Machin, 2019). In 2020, there were over 11,000 international schools worldwide and
are projected to reach 16,000 by 2026 (Bunnell, 2019b; Lehman, 2020; Poole & Bunnell, 2020;
Watts & Richardson, 2020). Of the over 11,000 schools, half are in Asia (Watts & Richardson,
2020). The growth of international schools is largely spurred by the growth of internationally
mobile students (Cruz & Glass, 2020; International Organization for Migration, 2020;
Meneghella et al., 2019). China, followed by India, Germany, and South Korea, have the most
outbound international students (UNESCO, 2020). The U.S., followed by the U.K. and Australia,
have the most inbound international students (UNESCO, 2020). Parents enroll their children in
English-medium international schools to improve their university prospects in English-medium
countries such as the U.S., U.K., and Australia (Dos Santos, 2019). Although the international
2
schooling sector witnessed exponential growth, international schooling is a largely under-
researched area of education (Bunnell, 2019; Meneghella et al., 2019).
The supply and demand for international schools has grown substantially in the greater
Asia region (Gardner-McTaggart, 2018; Khalil, 2019; Machin, 2017; Velarde & Ghani, 2019).
The greater Asia region includes Western Asia (the Middle East) through East Asia, South Asia,
and Southeast Asia (Machin, 2017). China has the most international schools, and the United
Arab Emirates has the most students enrolled in international schools (Bunnell, 2019b; Poole &
Bunnell, 2020). The growth in Asia has increased competition for student enrollment (Machin,
2017) as schools chase revenue gains (Lee & Wright, 2016). The growth in Asia is fueled by an
increasingly prosperous middle class, returning nationals, and the traditional expatriate
population (Gardner-McTaggart, 2018). A growing number of elite private schools, especially
from the U.K., are opening branch campuses in Asia (Bunnell et al., 2020).
International schools experienced several changes over the past few decades. They have
not only increased in number and geographical distribution, but in ownership and diversity of
style (Bunnell et al., 2016; Poole & Bunnell, 2020). Historically, most international schools were
not-for-profit institutions that catered to children of expatriate families (Bailey & Gibson, 2019).
However, the number of expatriate benefit packages are decreasing (Meneghella et al., 2019).
Recently, there has been a rapid increase in a new form of international schools: for-profit
international schools for wealthy, local families (Adams & Velarde, 2020; Bailey & Gibson,
2019; Bunnell, 2019b; Bunnell et al., 2016; Khalil, 2019; Kong et al., 2020; Meneghella et al.,
2019). This is particularly evident in China where a greater number of international schools are
meeting the demand of China’s new rich (Kong et al., 2020; Young, 2017). Of the 372,000
children enrolled in international schools in China, 66% are Chinese nationals enrolled in these
3
international Chinese-owned private schools (ISC Research, 2019a), or sometimes referred to as
Chinese internationalized Schools (DFNO, 2020). Since the Chinese government deregulated the
international school market in 2001, allowing foreign partners to hold majority shares (Kong et
al., 2020), for-profit international schools have become commercially attractive for owners and
investors (Kartika & Purba, 2018; Meneghella et al., 2019).
Problem Statement
A problem exists in the field of international schooling. There is a need to assess the
organizational performance of the growing number of international schools. Despite the use of
academic program performance measures by industry professionals to assess a school’s
performance, tangible financial measures and intangible subjective measures are needed to assess
the overall organizational performance of international schools. The inability of schools to
measure organizational performance negatively affects a school’s capacity to compete and create
sustainable competitive advantage. Furthermore, variables that impact organizational
performance in other fields need to be studied to determine if they also impact the organizational
performance of international schools. In other fields, leadership styles such as transformational
leadership positively effect organizational performance (Al Khajeh, 2018), while a transactional
leadership style is negatively associated to organizational performance (Ebrahimi et al., 2016).
Other variables such as job satisfaction also positively impact organizational performance in
other fields (Finanda Yogi Dwi, 2018; Pang & Lu, 2018). This study investigated the influence
of leadership styles and job satisfaction on the organizational performance of international
schools using quantitative research methods (see Figure B3).
4
Purpose Statement
The study’s purpose was to assess the organizational performance of international
schools in China, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as well as the leadership
style of the heads of these international schools and the job satisfaction of principals who report
directly to these heads. Whether or not there are any relationships between organizational
performance, leadership style, and job satisfaction of principals were determined. Quantitative
research methods were used in the study. A survey was shared with international school
principals in China, Hong Kong, and the UAE. The survey included questions to determine the
head of school’s leadership style (transformational, transactional, or passive/avoidant), the
principal’s level of job satisfaction, and the organizational performance of the school.
Research Questions
The research questions below were asked in this study:
Research Question 1: What is the relationship between a head of school’s
transformational leadership and a school’s organizational performance?
Research Question 2: What is the relationship between a head of school’s transactional
leadership and a school’s organizational performance?
Research Question 3: What is the relationship between a head of school’s
passive/avoidant leadership and a school’s organizational performance?
Research Question 4: What is the relationship between a principal’s job satisfaction and a
school’s organizational performance?
Research Question 5: If there is a relationship between a head of school’s
transformational leadership and a school’s organizational performance, is the relationship
mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction?
5
Research Question 6: If there is a relationship between a head of school’s transactional
leadership and a school’s organizational performance, is the relationship mediated by a
principal’s job satisfaction?
Research Question 7: If there is a relationship between a head of school’s
passive/avoidant leadership and a school’s organizational performance, is the relationship
mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction?
Hypotheses
The study tested the following hypotheses:
H01: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is the same across
categories of a head of school’s transformational leadership.
HA1: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is different across
categories of a head of school’s transformational leadership.
H02: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is the same across
categories of a head of school’s transactional leadership.
HA2: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is different across
categories of a head of school’s transactional leadership.
H03: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is the same across
categories of a head of school’s passive/avoidant leadership.
HA3: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is different across
categories of a head of school’s passive/avoidant leadership.
H04: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is the same across
categories of a principal’s job satisfaction.
6
HA4: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is different across
categories of a principal’s job satisfaction.
H05: The relationship between a head of school’s transformational leadership style and a
school’s organizational performance is not mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction.
HA5: The relationship between a head of school’s transformational leadership and a
school’s organizational performance is mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction.
H06: The relationship between a head of school’s transactional leadership and a school’s
organizational performance is not mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction.
HA6: The relationship between a head of school’s transactional leadership and a school’s
organizational performance is mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction.
H07: The relationship between a head of school’s passive/avoidant leadership and a
school’s organizational performance is not mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction.
HA7: The relationship between a head of school’s passive/avoidant leadership and a
school’s organizational performance is mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction.
Conceptual Framework
Similar to the work of Muterera et al. (2016), three concepts were examined in this study:
leadership styles, job satisfaction, and organizational performance. These concepts are
components of the framework presented in Figure B3. Studies show a significant and positive
association between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and organizational
performance (Abouraia & Othman, 2017; Para-González et al., 2018). Muterera et al. confirmed
their three hypotheses: (a) increased transformational leadership is linked with increased job
satisfaction; (b) increased transformational leadership is connected with increased organizational
performance, directly and mediated through job satisfaction; and (c) increased job satisfaction is
7
related with increased organizational performance. Unlike Muterera et al., the transactional
leadership and passive/avoidant leadership styles are also included in this study. Bass (1985)
plotted the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles on a single
continuum (see Figure B2). There is limited research in China on transformational leadership in
the school context (Liu, 2018). Liu states there is a demand in China for this type of school
leadership research.
Burg-Brown (2016) also found that leadership styles and employee satisfaction influence
organizational performance. Çakmak et al. (2015) conducted a meta-analysis to study the effect
that leadership has on job satisfaction. Their findings support their hypothesis that there is a
positive association between leadership and job satisfaction. Furthermore, Çakmak et al.’s
hypothesis that leadership style is a moderating variable between the outcome of leadership on
job satisfaction was confirmed.
Operational Definitions
Head of school. The head of school is the leader who reports directly to the school board
or owners (Roberts & Mancuso, 2014; Ting, 2019). This job title is sometimes called the
director, superintendent, executive director, etc. A head of school’s direct reports include
divisional school principals such as an elementary school principal and a high school principal
(Mancuso et al, 2010). A head of an international school is equivalent to a school district
superintendent or an independent school head.
International school. “A school that serves globally mobile parents, espouses a
specifically international mission or objective, or serves an aspirational middle or high class local
host country population” (Ting, 2019, p. 18).
8
Internationalized school. An internationalized school is a local private school with
programs such as bilingual education.
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is “mostly about how people feel about their jobs and
the various aspects of their work” (Muterera et al., 2016, p. 135). Employees who are satisfied
with their job in general may use some of the following words and phrases to describe what their
job is like most of the time: good, better than most, makes me content, excellent, and enjoyable.
Conversely, employees who are dissatisfied with their job in general may use words such as
undesirable, disagreeable, and poor (Brodke et al, 2009).
Organizational performance. Organizational performance (OP) can be measured with
both objective and subjective measures. Objective measures of OP include financial measures
such as return on assets (Singh et al., 2016). Subjective measures of OP include measures such as
job satisfaction and service quality (Singh et. al, 2016). Subjective measures of perceived
organizational performance were used in this study because most international schools do not
publish objective financial information.
Passive/avoidant leadership. Passive/avoidant leadership is a hands-off approach to
leadership (Tosunoglu & Ekmekci, 2016). It represents the absence of leadership (Usman et al.,
2020).
Principal and vice principal. A principal reports directly to the head of school
(Mancuso et al., 2010). The principal is also on the senior leadership team. A vice principal may
also be on the senior leadership team.
Transactional leadership. Transactional leadership emphasizes the exchanges that
happen between leaders and followers (Megheirkouni et al., 2018). There are two transactional
leadership factors: contingent reward and management-by-exception. Transactional leaders
9
provide positive reinforcement by exchanging rewards for follower effort and provide negative
reinforcement by giving followers corrective feedback and criticism (Raziq et al., 2018). Within
a school setting, the principal may receive a performance bonus if a certain percentage of
teachers within his or her division are retained from the previous school year.
Transformational leadership. “Transformational leadership occurs when leaders and
followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality” (Burns, 1978, back
cover). The transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant leadership model incorporates
nine factors (see Table A1). There are four transformational leadership factors: idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration.
Transformational leaders behave as role models through idealized influence, motivate and inspire
through inspirational motivation, stimulate innovation and creativity through intellectual
stimulation, and act as coaches and mentors through individualized consideration
(Alqatawenah, 2018).
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations
Assumptions
Assumptions are out of a researcher’s control. This study had seven assumptions: (a) the
research design was valid; (b) the instruments used in the survey were reliable; (c) the purpose of
the study and questions on the survey were well understood; (d) each survey was completed by
an active international school principal; (e) participants provided accurate, honest, and unbiased
answers on the survey; (f) participants were representative of the population under study i.e.,
international schools in China, Hong Kong, and the UAE; and (g) the study’s findings are of
value to international schools across East Asia, the Middle East, and beyond.
10
Limitations
Limitations are areas of weakness. One limitation was the length of the survey. There
were four sections on the survey: a series of questions to ascertain the head of school’s level of
transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant leadership, questions to gauge the job
satisfaction of the principal, questions related to the school’s organizational performance, and
general demographical questions about the school, principal, and head of school. An attempt was
made to reduce to length of the survey by only asking needed questions. For example, instead of
measuring multiple aspects of job satisfaction such as pay and supervision, a scale was used to
measure overall job satisfaction. Also, nine items on the MLQ instrument that measure outcomes
such as leader effectiveness were not included in the survey; this lowered the overall number of
questions on the survey. The testing effect was also a limitation; therefore, two versions of the
survey were created that arranged the survey sections in different orders. Another limitation was
the difficulty in accessing the entire sample of international school principals in the selected
geographical locations. Also, the reduced cooperation of busy school principals may have
impacted the response rate. Therefore, multiple communication attempts were made to
encourage heads of school to forward the survey to all of their principals.
The cross-sectional design of the study limits conclusions about causality. Cross-
sectional research “only postulates a causal link rather than [demonstrating] one” (Deschamps et
al., 2016, p. 208). An experimental or longitudinal design is needed to explore causation.
Another limitation may have occurred during data analysis if the analysis did not consider factors
which influence the job satisfaction of principals and/or the organizational performance of
international schools; this would require a qualitative research method, which was beyond the
scope of this study.
11
Barker (2020) noted several limitations in his study that were limitations in this study.
They include: The emotional and mental state of participants as they complete certain sections of
the survey such as questions related to job satisfaction; if responses to survey questions were
based on a specific incident instead of reflecting what participants feel in general; and the
dominance of a particular demographical factor.
Delimitations
Delimitations are areas a researcher can control. Studies find that self-reported measures
are less dependable than peer-reported measures (Deschamps et al., 2016). Therefore, instead of
asking a head of school to self-report his or her leadership style, principals assessed the
leadership style of their head of school. To narrow to scope of the study, only principals serving
at accredited international schools in China, Hong Kong, and the UAE counted as participants in
the study. The selection of international school principals at multiple sites and countries ensured
internal validity. Leadership styles, job satisfaction, and organizational performance may be
similar at international schools in other countries, but the findings of this study may not be
generalizable beyond of the international school sector in China, Hong Kong, and the UAE.
Quantitative instead of qualitative research methods were used to increase generalizability. To
increase the survey response rate, up to three personalized emails were sent. To increase the
likelihood of honest responses, the survey was anonymous and confidential.
12
Contribution to Practice or Stakeholder Groups
This study was significant as four areas intersect: international schools, leadership styles,
job satisfaction, and organizational performance. This study also benefited current and aspiring
heads of schools. Heads know which leadership styles are correlated with higher principal job
satisfaction and organizational performance. Moreover, if there is a relationship between higher
principal job satisfaction and organizational performance and transformational, transactional
and/or passive/avoidant leadership styles, school boards and school owners know what kind of
leadership style they should seek in future head of school candidates. Type C for-profit
international schools could potentially include knowledge and experience of organizational
performance metrics into the hiring process for both heads and principals. This is relevant if the
results of this study show that the job satisfaction of principals mediates the relationship between
the head’s leadership style and the school’s organizational performance. The study also
contributed to the limited amount of research related to international school leadership.
Summary
The competitive nature of several international school markets in the greater Asia region
justifies the need to assess international schools on their organizational performance. The study
sought to determine if there is a relationship between a head of school’s leadership style and the
organizational performance of an international school. If there was a relationship, the study also
intended to determine if the relationship was mediated by the job satisfaction of a principal. The
transformational leadership theory and its leadership style continuum shaped the foundation of
the study’s framework. The study used quantitative research methods, collecting data through a
survey and analyzing relationships between variables. The study contributed to the limited
amount of research on international school leadership.
13
Looking ahead, Chapter 2 reviews literature related to transformational leadership,
organizational performance, job satisfaction, and international schools. Chapter 3 focuses on the
methodology used in the study, describing the data collection process. Chapter 4 presents the
results of the study. Finally, Chapter 5 discusses the results, makes conclusions and offers
suggestions for future research.
14
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The number of international schools rapidly increased over the past few decades. This
growth within the international school sector created the need for organizational performance
measures. Also, whether there are any relationships between the leadership style of a head of an
international school and organizational performance remains undetermined.
This chapter begins with a review of recent literature on international schools. Then, the
topic of organizational performance is explored and linked to leadership and leadership styles.
Job satisfaction as both a measure of organizational performance and as an outcome of
leadership style is studied next. The chapter concludes with a review of literature related to the
study’s theoretical framework: transformational leadership.
International Schools
The industry in which this study takes place is the international school industry. It is
argued that the first international school was founded in 1866. This school, the London College
of the International Education Society, promoted cooperation between nations (Njie & Asimiran,
2018). The first school with international school in its title was the International School of
Geneva, founded in 1924. This school served diplomatic families and families from
organizations tied with the United Nations (Schippling, 2018). After World War 2, the number of
international schools steadily increased (Schippling, 2018). Further international school events
over the past 100 years are plotted on Figure B4.
The first international schools were mostly founded for ideological reasons. These
schools are referred to as Type B ideological international schools (Bunnell et al., 2016).
Ideological schools aim to contribute to international understanding, cooperation and peace
(James & Sheppard, 2014; Schippling, 2018). Today, a well-known group of these ideological
15
international schools are the United World Colleges consortium of schools. These schools seek
to “unite people, nations and cultures for peace and a sustainable future” (United World
Colleges, 2020, para. 1). Type B international schools usually operate as not-for-profit
organizations.
A pragmatic motive, migration, led to the founding of other international schools
(Schippling, 2018). These market-driven international schools (Bittencourt & Willetts, 2018;
James & Sheppard, 2014) are denoted as Type A traditional international schools (Bunnell et al.,
2016). Type A international schools cater for internationally mobile, expatriate families (Bunnell
et al., 2016). These schools usually operate as not-for-profit organizations.
A profit motive led to a new form of international schools (James & Sheppard, 2014).
These international schools are denoted as Type C non-traditional international schools (Bunnell
et al., 2016). Type C international schools are normally privately-owned and function as a for-
profit company. They occupy space in two fields: the economic and educational (Khalil, 2019).
Type C schools cater to wealthy local families. Today, local children occupy 80% of
international school seats (Bunnell et al., 2016; Ting, 2019).
Khalil’s (2019) case study describes a Type C international school in the Middle East
(Some of the features of this Type C international school can also be found in Type A and B
international schools). The school is accredited by the Council of International Schools (CIS) and
is a member of other international education organizations. It delivers a British style of education
(Most international schools deliver a British-based curriculum (Bunnell, 2019b). The school has
both overseas hired staff and locally hired staff. It has a high turnover of staff. The public
relations and marketing department at the school fulfill a vital role. The school markets its ability
to help graduating seniors secure admission to top ranking universities worldwide.
16
The institutional legitimacy of many Type C international schools is questioned (Bunnell
et al., 2016). A growing amount of Type C international schools pursue international
accreditation through organizations such as the Western Association of Schools and Colleges
(WASC), Middle States Association (MSA), and Council of International Schools (CIS) to help
legitimize their schools. Bunnell (2019a) points to 15 characteristics that give legitimacy to a
school that claims to be an international school. For example, foreign languages are offered,
flags are displayed around the school, and annual overseas trips are conducted.
International School Leadership
The organizational structure of an international school usually includes a head of school
that reports directly to the school owner or school board. The head of school position is also
called executive director, school director, headmaster, and more (Keller, 2015; Ting, 2019). The
most comparable position in U.S. schools to an international school head would be the district
superintendent or independent school head (Ting, 2019). Divisional principals report to the head
of school. Depending on the size of the school there could be up to four principals reporting to
the head of school. The principals and any assistant principals, and head of school and any
assistant heads of school are often referred to as the senior leadership team. Middle leadership
can include program coordinators, grade level leaders, and heads of departments.
Several researchers note a scarcity of research related to international school leadership
(Bailey & Gibson, 2019; Bunnell, 2019b; Gardner-McTaggart, 2018; Howling, 2017; Lee &
Walker, 2018). Bunnell (2019b) notes several features of recent international school leadership
research. First, most studies are qualitative; empirical studies are rare in the Asia-Pacific region.
Second, the qualitative studies revolve most around leadership styles. Instructional leadership is
discussed most, followed by distributed and transformational leadership. Third, many studies
17
take place in East Asia. Fourth, most of the literature involves Type A traditional not-for-profit
international schools. Finally, a sizable portion of the literature since the 1960s is focused on
negative aspects of international school leadership. Bunnell (2019b) calls for greater research
from a positive perspective which “scans the activities, processes, and strategies that school
leaders utilize to cope in the face of adversity” (Bunnell, 2019b, p. 10).
Recent studies focused on heads of international schools explore tenure (Palsha, 2017;
Ting, 2019) and leadership styles (Mancuso et al., 2010; Roberts & Mancuso, 2014). The
average term of an international school head is between 3.26 years and 4.86 years, compared to
12.6 years of independent school heads in the U.S. (Ting, 2019). The main reason a head of
school leaves an international school is related to owner or board relations (Keller, 2015). Palsha
(2017) found that a better relationship between a head of school and board members correlates
with longer tenure. When the relationship with the board is characterized by consistency,
communication, and alignment, job satisfaction of heads improve (Ting, 2019).
Head of school job advertisements were analyzed to find the type of leader international
school owners and school boards desire (Roberts & Mancuso, 2014). Most owners and boards
seek a managerial leadership style. There was also an increase in the need for transformational
leaders, especially leaders strong in individual consideration and intellectual stimulation.
Although managerial leaders are most sought after by boards and owners, international school
teachers want a head of school who practices transformational or distributed leadership (Bunnell,
2018). Roberts and Mancuso call for academic programs that train international school leaders to
increase their efforts on developing transformational leadership skills. Mancuso et al. (2010)
discovered that a head of school’s leadership style, more than a principal’s leadership style,
predicts teacher turnover. This finding is novel because principals typically spend more time
18
with teachers than heads of school. Mancuso et al. (2010) also highlight the value of
transformational leadership in the international school setting.
Recent studies focused on principals in international schools explore leadership styles
(Adams & Velarde, 2020; Howling, 2017; Langridge, 2016). The aim of Adams and Velarde’s
(2020) qualitative study was to identify the leadership styles of international school principals in
Malaysia. They found a “harmonious” (p. 10) interplay between instructional leadership and
transformational leadership. Howling (2017) conducted a qualitative study with international
school principals in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia to identify leadership styles. They found the
principals used a variety of leadership styles including learning-centered leadership (instructional
leadership), transformational leadership, and distributed leadership, thus calling for an integrated
style of leadership. Langridge (2016) also designed a qualitative study to explore the extent that
international school principals exhibit transformational leadership behaviors. Furthermore,
Langridge studied the association between transformational leadership behaviors and school
culture. The study took place in South East Asia. The researcher found that a principal who
practiced transformational leadership led a school with a more collaborative and positive culture.
Other recent literature focused on international school leadership include works related to
leadership intelligences (Calnin et al., 2018), change management (Morrison, 2018),
transformational leadership (Keung, 2011), distributed leadership (Burks, 2020), and cultural
intelligence (Keung, 2011). Calnin et al. (2018) describe seven leadership intelligences adopted
by the International Baccalaureate. Four of the seven leadership intelligences are linked to
transformational leadership: entrepreneurial intelligence, strategic intelligence with inspirational
motivation, relational intelligence with individual consideration, and reflective intelligence with
intellectual stimulation. Pedagogical intelligence is linked with instructional leadership.
19
One of the research questions in Morrison’s (2018) study was whether a sole leadership
style contributes to effecting change in the international school context. A democratic or
situational leadership style were perceived by international school leaders as being effective.
Several study results can be tied to aspects of transformational leadership. Creating a vision is
linked to inspirational motivation and developing human resource aspects relates to individual
consideration.
Keung (2011) examined the connections between cultural intelligence and
transformational leadership. Keung found a positive and significant association between cultural
intelligence and transformational leadership. Culturally intelligent international school leaders
display a greater number of transformational leadership behaviors. Gardner-McTaggart (2018)
systematically reviewed international school leadership literature. His main takeaway was
empowerment models of leadership such as transformational leadership and distributed
leadership are most effective in international schools.
The international school setting is a challenging leadership environment (Bunnell, 2018;
Keller, 2015; Gardner-McTaggart, 2018). Many of the challenges are related to managing
dualities. Keller (2015) note that heads of international schools manage both spatial and temporal
dualities. Instances of spatial dualities include local families and staff versus expatriate families
and staff, and upper campus versus lower campus. Instances of temporal dualities include the
“school’s history versus needed changes, senior staff versus rookies, graduating seniors versus
entering kindergarteners, and traditional education versus innovative education” (Keller, 2015, p.
905). Another duality for a head of school to manage is the desire for managerial leadership from
the board or owner and transformational leadership from teachers (Bunnell, 2018). Each of these
contrasting ideas and groups of constituencies are driven by different needs, desires, and
20
outcomes. Cravens (2018) lists several challenges facing international school leaders, including
high expectations, high staff mobility, competing priorities, and cultural diversity. Similarly,
Burks (2020) lists higher staff attrition and pressure to deliver high student performance
outcomes as challenges faced by international school leaders. A market-driven challenge for
international school heads is greater accountability for student enrollment numbers (Bailey &
Gibson, 2019). Bailey and Gibson’s (2019) multiple case study of international schools in
Malaysia uncovered six challenges for international school leaders: loneliness because
international schools lack leadership networks, transience due to turnover of students, teachers
and leaders, cultural differences, micro-management by school governance, business elements
such as marketing and finance, and managing student demographics such as nationality and
special education needs. Unlike school leaders in national contexts such as the U.S., challenges
such as student behavior management and lack of parental involvement are not challenges for
international school leaders (Bailey & Gibson, 2019).
Organizational Performance
Organizational performance is a dominant aspect of organizational and business research.
Organizational performance, or firm performance, often refers to an organization’s financial
performance, market performance, and shareholder performance (Herciu & Șerban, 2018; Singh
et al., 2016; Yaghoobi & Haddadi, 2016). The performance of an organization impacts its
profitability and sustainability (Singh et al., 2016; Taouab & Issor, 2019). Organizational
performance is often utilized as a dependent variable in studies (Singh et al., 2016; Taouab &
Issor, 2019). The popularity of its use as a dependent variable shows its importance as a measure
of organizational success.
21
In recent years, several studies used organizational performance as a dependent variable.
Farouk et al. (2016) studied the link between human resource management practices and
organizational performance. Human resource management practices were significantly and
positively related to organizational performance. In Hussinki et al.’s (2017) study, the
independent variables were intellectual capital and knowledge management, while organizational
performance was the dependent variable. The key finding was that organizations with high
intellectual capital and knowledge management outdo organizations with low intellectual capital
and knowledge management. Rajapathirana and Hui (2018) and Lee et al. (2017) sought to
determine the relationship between innovation and firm performance. Rajapathirana and Hui
discovered a significant and strong relationship between innovation and firm performance. Lee et
al. proved that innovation significantly impacts firm performance. Alatailat et al. (2019) studied
the impact of strategic thinking on organizational performance. They found strategic thinking
positively impacts organizational performance. Predictions believe organizational performance
will remain a dominant dependent variable in future studies.
Organizational performance research is not geographically limited. Recent organizational
performance studies took place in multiple countries, namely Jordan, the UAE, Indonesia, India,
Finland, Sri Lanka, South Korea, Malaysia, Croatia, the United States, and Brazil (Alatailat et
al., 2019; Bakotić, 2016; Dickel & Moura, 2016; Farouk et al., 2016; Herciu & Șerban, 2018;
Hussinki et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2017; Miah, 2018; Rajapathirana & Hui, 2018; Selvam et al.,
2016; Singh et al., 2017; Vij & Bedi, 2016). Also, organizational performance studies are not
limited to a few industries. Recent organizational performance research was conducted in various
sectors, namely banking, food, manufacturing, wholesale and retail, services, transportation and
storage, telecommunications, and insurance (Alatailat et al., 2019; Farouk et al., 2016; Hussinki
22
et al., 2017; Rajapathirana & Hui, 2018; Sondakh et al., 2017; Yaghoobi & Haddadi, 2016).
Herciu and Șerban (2018) conducted organizational performance research with 109 Fortune 500
companies.
There are multiple ways to measure organizational performance. Conventionally,
organizational performance is measured with objective financial measures such as return on
assets (Sethibe & Steyn, 2016; Sondakh et al., 2017). These objective measures are the “absolute
values of a firm’s actual performance” (Sethibe & Steyn, 2016, p. 4). However, some firms are
reluctant to make financial data publicly available as objective financial data may draw attention
to shortcomings within a company (Singh et al., 2016; Vij & Bedi, 2016). Some studies only
measure organizational performance with objective measures as informants “may seek to
overstate the performance of their organizations” when using subjective measures of
performance (Singh et al., 2016, p. 215). Bakotić (2016) used objective measures such as total
asset turnover, return on assets, and return on equity. Bakotić noted that a limitation of her study
was that only traditional financial indicators of organizational performance were used. She
concluded that this resulted in a narrow performance assessment and recommended that some
other “soft measures of organizational performance” are used in future studies (Bakotić, 2016, p.
127).
In recent years, organizational performance studies used subjective measures more
frequently (Crucke & Decramer, 2016; Dickel & Moura, 2016; Farouk et al., 2016;
Rajapathirana & Hui, 2018). Some research reflected that subjective measures of performance
are more frequently used than objective measures (Vij & Bedi, 2016). With subjective measures,
senior managers compare their company’s performance to the performance of the industry or to
immediate competitors (Al Khajeh, 2018; Hussinki et al., 2017; Sethibe & Steyn, 2016; Singh et
23
al., 2016; Vij & Bedi, 2016). Subjective measures of organizational performance are both valid
and positively correlated with objective measures (Hussinki et al., 2017, Singh et al., 2016; Vij &
Bedi, 2016). Vij and Bedi (2016) confirmed their hypothesis that subjective measures of business
performance can replace objective measures. It is clear that organizational performance can be
effectively gauged with both objective and subjective measures.
A limitation of some studies that use subjective measures to measure organizational
performance is that only a single informant from each organization completes the survey
(Hussinki et al., 2017; Vij & Bedi, 2016). This can result in common method bias (CMB).
Hussinki et al. (2017) reduced the risk of CMB by assuring respondent confidentiality as well as
ensuring the respondent is knowledgeable regarding organizational performance data. Jordan and
Troth (2019) discuss several procedural strategies to minimize CMB, including providing
participants with an accurate research information coversheet and set of instructions that explains
how the data will be used or how it will benefit them or their organization.
Singh, Darwish and Potocnik (2016) conducted an empirical study of subjective measures
of organizational performance as reported by managers. Managers rated their companies’
performance in comparison to their rivals on several attributes such as market share, sales
revenue, innovation, and profitability. The researchers confirmed the reliability and validity of
subjective measures of organizational performance. They noted that measuring organizational
performance with subjective measures may have limitations; namely, recall bias (a manager must
recall past information), rating inflation bias (a manager may be inclined to rate the performance
of his or her company more leniently), and recency bias (a manager is more likely to rate the
performance of his or her company based on data he or she observed close to the measurement
point).
24
Several models and tools are used to subjectively measure organizational performance.
Selvam et al.’s (2016) subjective model to measure firm performance includes eight aspects of
firm performance: profitability, market value, growth, employee satisfaction, customer
satisfaction, environmental performance, corporate governance performance, and social
performance. Another validated and reliable subjective survey that is often used to measure
organizational performance was developed by Delaney and Huselid (1996). Since 2016, several
studies used the survey, including studies by Alatailat et al. (2019), Andreeva and Garanina
(2016), Hussinki et al. (2017), Shanker et al. (2017), and Singh et al. (2019). Using a four-point
Likert scale, the survey asks senior managers to rate their organization’s performance as
compared to the performance of its competitors. To measure organizational performance, the
survey asks : How would you compare the organization’s performance over the past three years
to that of other organizations that do the same kind of work [in terms of]: Quality of products,
services, or programs? Development of new products, services, or programs? Ability to attract
essential employees? Ability to retain essential employees? Satisfaction of customers or clients?
Relations between management and other employees? Relations among employees in general?
(Delaney & Huselid, 1996).
25
Organizational Performance, Leadership and Leadership Styles
Studies find links between leadership, leadership styles, and organizational performance.
Leadership plays a central function in organizational success and failure (Susilo, 2018).
Almatrooshi et al. (2016) conducted a systematic review of literature to construct a conceptual
framework on the determinants that impact firm performance. The conceptual framework
concludes that leadership abilities are an important variable that directly impacts organizational
performance. The framework also shows that employee performance mediates the role between
leadership competencies and organizational performance. The researchers recommend that their
proposed framework is empirically assessed. Virgiawan and Riyanto (2020) concluded that
transformational leadership does not significantly influence employee performance.
Al Khajeh (2018) explored the relationship between six leadership styles and
organizational performance. Three of the six leadership styles are negatively related to
performance while three are positively related. Transactional leadership, charismatic leadership,
and bureaucratic leadership are negatively related with performance. Transformational
leadership, democratic leadership, and autocratic leadership are positively related with
performance.
Various studies found a connection between transformational leadership and
organizational performance (Arif and Akram, 2018; García-Morales et al., 2012). García-
Morales et al. (2012) discovered that transformational leadership positively influences
performance. In a study with manufacturing companies in Pakistan, Arif and Akram (2018)
tested three hypotheses. The first hypothesis that transformational leadership positively effects
organizational performance was accepted.
26
Orabi (2016) placed the organizational performance of banks in Jordan as the dependent
variable and five variables related to transformational leadership, including transformational
leadership overall, and the four components of transformational leadership as the independent
variables. Orabi chose to include the specific dimensions to determine whether some dimensions
play a greater role than others on organizational performance. The study discovered that
transformational leadership, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual
consideration is statistically noteworthy and positively related to organizational performance.
Though, organizational performance is not significantly influenced by idealized influence. Orabi
recommends that researchers examine why organizational performance is not impacted by
idealized influence.
Most studies that explore the association between transformational leadership and
organizational performance discover positive and significant relationships between the two
variables. One recent study did not find a significant link between transformational leadership
and organizational performance. Hambali and Idris (2020) determined in a study of religious-
based higher education institutions in Indonesia that the correlation between transformational
leadership and organizational performance was not substantial.
Studies that examine the link between transformational leadership and organizational
performance often study the influence of a mediating variable. Arif and Akram (2018) positioned
organizational innovation as a mediating variable between transformational leadership and
organizational performance. Their study accepted the hypothesis that organizational innovation
is a mediating variable between transformational leadership and performance. Alrowwad et al.
(2017) placed corporate social responsibility as a mediating variable between transformational
leadership and organizational performance. Alrowwad et al. found through their literature review
27
that leadership can influence organizational performance directly and indirectly. Although they
found that organizational performance is not directly impacted by transformational leadership,
they discovered that its effect is mediated by corporate social responsibility. Para-González et al.
(2018) accepted the hypothesis that human resource management practices mediate the
association between transformational leadership. Para-González et al. emphasized that causality
between the variables should be accepted with caution. The researchers recommend that
employee satisfaction is studied when transformational leadership is developed in an
organization. These recent studies show that transformational leadership can indirectly impact
organizational performance.
Organizational Performance and Job Satisfaction
Employee satisfaction, or job satisfaction, is used in multiple studies as both a subjective
measure of organizational performance (Selvam et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2016; Yaghoobi &
Haddadi, 2016) and as an independent variable when organizational performance is the
dependent variable (Miah, 2018; Vij & Bedi, 2016). Some studies discovered a positive
connection between job satisfaction and organizational performance while others did not find a
statistically significant connection between the two variables (Bakotić, 2016). In Miah’s (2018)
study of employees at private companies in Malaysia, a strong and positive relationship was
found between job satisfaction and organizational performance. Bakotić also found a positive
association between job satisfaction and organizational performance. Onyebu and Omotayo
(2017) conducted a study within a service industry because their literature review revealed that
employee satisfaction within the service industry is critical to organizational growth and success.
Onyebu and Omotayo found a positive relationship between employee job satisfaction and
organizational performance.
28
In several studies where organizational performance is the dependent variable, job
satisfaction functions as a mediating variable. Al-dalahmeh et al. (2018) studied the mediation
result of job satisfaction between employee engagement and organizational performance. They
found a stronger relationship between intrinsic job satisfaction and organizational performance
than between extrinsic job satisfaction and organizational performance. Al-dalahmeh et al. also
discovered that although there is an affirmative relationship between job satisfaction and
organizational performance, job satisfaction only partly mediates the relationship. They suggest
that future research examines job satisfaction as a moderating variable. Abu Khalaf et al.’s
(2019) study focused on reviewing literature on the mediating role of job satisfaction between
employee engagement and organizational performance. They determined that job satisfaction not
only affects employee performance but also organizational performance. This occurs because
satisfied employees are willing to solve problems, take responsibility, and conduct work beyond
their job descriptions. Kanyurhi and Bugandwa Mungu Akonkwa (2016) studied the mediating
role of job satisfaction between internal marketing and perceived organizational performance.
There was not a substantial association between job satisfaction and organizational performance.
Kanyurhi and Bugandwa Mungu Akonkwa acknowledge that this was an unexpected result and
conclude that job satisfaction and organizational performance is mediated by other variables such
as employee performance and employee commitment.
Job Satisfaction
There is not a universally accepted definition for job satisfaction (Liu & Bellibas, 2018).
Job satisfaction is an affective orientation towards one’s work (Ali, 2016; Liu & Bellibas, 2018).
It can also be an attitude, an internal state, and a feeling an employee has about their work (Ali,
2016; Sealy et al., 2016). Shen et al. (2018) writes that job satisfaction is “a construct of
29
judgement. . . rather than an emotion” (p. 277). Job satisfaction can represent the extent to which
workplace expectations are met (Ali, 2016; Torlak & Kuzey, 2019). Hariri et al. (2016) states
that a person is satisfied when his or her individual needs are fulfilled. Job satisfaction can
characterize a person’s level of contentment with the work he or she does (Torlak & Kuzey,
2019). Psychologist Edwin Locke’s definition of job satisfaction is commonly used in
organizational and business research. Locke (1976) described job satisfaction as “a pleasurable
or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (p.
1304).
There are several theories related to job satisfaction, including Maslow’s need hierarchy
theory, Herzberg’s two factor theory, Alderfer’s ERG theory, Vroom’s expectancy theory,
Porter-Lawler needs fulfilment theory, and Adam’s equity theory (Ali, 2016). Ali (2016)
reviewed each of these job satisfaction theories. According to Maslow’s theory, when employees
attain higher level needs, they report higher levels of job satisfaction. According to Herzberg’s
theory, the existence of motivational factors such as recognition and responsibility increase job
satisfaction and the absence of hygiene factors such as supervision decrease job satisfaction.
Alderfer’s theory aligns with Maslow’s theory, categorizing Maslow’s five needs into three
groups of needs. Vroom’s theory added that when one’s work reality matches expectations, job
satisfaction is achieved. Porter-Lawler further expanded Vroom’s theory by exploring the
association between motivation, satisfaction and performance. Adam’s theory emphasized that
the degree of equity supposed by an employee “plays a key part in work performance and
satisfaction” (Ali, 2016, p. 106). Herzberg’s two factor theory is applied in several recent job
satisfaction studies, including Sealy et al. (2016), Hodge (2020), and Sow et al. (2017).
30
There are several factors that influence job satisfaction. Salary, benefits and an
organization’s job promotion system influence job satisfaction (Ali, 2016; Shen et al., 2018). As
noted above, these factors are sometimes referred to as motivators (Shaikh et al., 2019).
Leadership quality, management styles and supervision also effect job satisfaction (Ali, 2016;
Aydogmus et al., 2016; Curcio, 2018, Kartika & Purba, 2018; Sealy et al., 2016). These factors
are called hygiene factors (Shaikh et al., 2019). The motivating factors potentially increase job
satisfaction, while the lack of the hygiene factors cause job dissatisfaction.
Job satisfaction is measured with several different instruments. Ali (2016) reviewed
several job satisfaction instruments. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) covers 20
facets related to extrinsic and intrinsic satisfaction. The Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), Job
Descriptive Index (JDI), and Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) each contain subscales that measure
aspects of job satisfaction such as salary, promotion, and supervision. The Job in General Scale
(JIG) measures overall job satisfaction instead of facets related to job satisfaction. The Michigan
Organizational Assessment Questionnaire has a three-question subscale to measure job
satisfaction, “which makes it ideal for use in a questionnaire that holds many scales” (Ali, 2016,
p. 104).
Job Satisfaction and International Schools
A few studies in recent years relate to job satisfaction within the international school
context. All these studies focused on the job satisfaction of teachers. Kartika and Purba (2018)
conducted a study with teachers at an Indonesian international school. The dependent variable
was turnover intention, the independent variable was job satisfaction, and the mediating variable
was affective commitment. The researchers used a revised 10-item JDI scale to measure job
satisfaction. The study revealed an insignificant direct association between job satisfaction and
31
turnover intention. Though, when mediated by affective commitment, the relationship was
significant. Limitations within the study included a small sample size, the inability to confirm
causal relationships between variables, and common method bias.
There is little research related to job satisfaction within the international school setting
(Yoshihara, 2018). The aim of Yoshihara’s study was to establish the factors that contribute to
teacher morale and effect job satisfaction within international schools. The results of the study
uncovered four themes surrounding teacher satisfaction and morale, namely 1. a positive
relationship with school leadership promotes morale, 2. disparities in benefits and salary affect
morale, 3. a supportive school encourages acclimation, and 4. integration into the local
community stimulates independence. A subtheme within the first theme was that supportive
leadership fosters trust and autonomy. Yoshihara confirmed that just as a school leader positively
affects a teacher’s job satisfaction when the teacher is working in his or her home country,
leadership also positively impacts teacher satisfaction within international schools.
Shen et al. (2018) designed a study in Malaysia to compare the job satisfaction level of
teachers at a private school with those at an international school. Shen et al. found that teachers
in the international school had significantly higher levels of job satisfaction than those in the
private school. A common factor that influenced job satisfaction levels was the salary of the
teachers.
Job Satisfaction and School Principals
There is little research related to the job satisfaction of school principals (Sealy et al.,
2016). Most of the job satisfaction research in the education field is focused on the job
satisfaction of teachers (Liu & Bellibas, 2018). Although teachers positively impact student
32
achievement, school principals are “an indispensable ingredient for school success” (Liu &
Bellibas, 2018, p. 15). There is a clear need for research focused on principal job satisfaction.
Liu and Bellibas (2018) studied the influence of several school factors on principal job
satisfaction across several countries. The school factors included mutual respect among staff
members, school safety, human and material resources, professional development, student
demographics, and organizational structure. Liu and Bellibas found that principals in countries
such as Australia and Chile reported higher degrees of job satisfaction than principals in
countries such as Japan, Italy and France. On average, principals in Europe and Asia had the
lowest level of job satisfaction.
Curcio (2018) conducted a qualitative case study to establish how the leadership
behaviors of directors at the school district office effect the job satisfaction of school principals.
Curcio found that when school district directors are responsive, supportive, and encouraging, a
higher degree of job satisfaction is fostered among school principals. The study recommends that
school principals are authentically recognized, rewarded and encouraged.
Job Satisfaction, Leadership and Leadership Styles
Studies related to leadership, leadership styles, and job satisfaction are conducted in
multiple industries, including the financial, healthcare, and education industries. Abouraia and
Othman (2017) conducted a study within the financial industry in Saudi Arabia. A significant
relationship was discovered between transformational leadership and job satisfaction. Forty-two
percent of the variation in job satisfaction was due to transformational leadership.
Choi et al. (2016) studied the influence of transformational leadership on the job
satisfaction of nurses in Malaysia. They hypothesized that transformational leadership positively
influences job satisfaction. Choi et al. found that transformational leadership positively
33
influences job satisfaction. They also discovered that empowerment mediates the association
between transformational leadership and job satisfaction. Sow et al. (2017) sought “to find not
only a mere statistical correlation [but] also a causal relationship” (p. 2) between leadership style
and job satisfaction of healthcare workers in the United States. To examine the causal
relationship, they used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. Sow et al. discovered that
transformational leadership was a statistically substantial predictor of job satisfaction.
Aydogmus et al. (2016) examined the “processes by which followers’ perceptions of their
leaders as more transformational precipitate their influence on job satisfaction” (p. 82). The
study took place in Turkey’s information technology sector. They hypothesized that supposed
transformational leadership is positively related with job satisfaction. The results show that when
employees identify their leaders as more transformational, degrees of job satisfaction increase.
The researchers acknowledged several limitations. They recommend that future research uses
longitudinal research designs to infer causality among variables and highlight the potential threat
of common method variance as data was collected from a sole source (i.e., followers).
Some recent studies are conducted in the school setting around leadership, leadership
styles and job satisfaction. A study in Indonesia explored how the leadership styles and decision-
making styles of principals forecast teacher satisfaction (Hariri et al., 2016). Transformational
leadership and rational decision-making lead to the “largest unique contribution to teacher job
satisfaction” (Hariri et al., 2016, p. 52). They also discovered that laissez-faire leadership
decreased teacher job satisfaction. Hariri et al. concluded that their findings in Indonesia, a
collective Asian culture, were largely congruent with findings in individualistic Western
cultures.
34
A systematic review of literature was conducted related to a principal’s or school
administrator’s leadership behaviors or styles and teacher job satisfaction (Cansoy, 2019). After
eliminating irrelevant, recurring, and studies that used improper methodology, 27 studies were
examined. In 14 of the 27 studies, the transformational leadership behaviors of school principals
were positively and considerably related to teacher job satisfaction. One study revealed no
relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction. Six studies showed that
transformational leadership was a strong predictor of job satisfaction. All four dimensions of
transformational leadership promote teachers’ job satisfaction. This study filled a gap in the
research with a focus on the job satisfaction of principals.
Hodge (2020) carried out a qualitative case study with school superintendents in
California. Fifteen themes emerged from their research with regards to superintendent
transformational leadership and its positive influence on the job satisfaction of school principals.
The 15 themes are: be overt about values in daily actions, be visible and accessible, be
consistent, collaborate visioning within a framework, align principal autonomy, communicate
extensively, encourage principal initiatives, communicate strategically, listen, learn, and manage
success, share competencies, share leadership, show care, use public forums for praise, give one-
on-one praise, and connect on a heart level.
Torlak and Kuzey (2019) conducted a study in private colleges and universities in
Pakistan. They concluded that both transactional leadership and transformational leadership are
needed to guide educational institutes towards success. Torlak and Kuzey recommend that
educational leaders begin with transactional leadership and adopt transformational leadership
once the transactional leadership style is mastered. Management by expectation, idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration had a
35
positive statistically significant impact on job satisfaction whereas contingent reward had a
negative but not statistically significant influence on job satisfaction (Torlak and Kuzey, 2019).
Theoretical Framework
This study’s framework centers on the study of leadership and specifically on the theory
and model of transformational leadership. Leadership is “a process of guiding the behavior of
other individuals towards [the] accomplishment of some goal” (Strukan et al., 2017, p. 435).
Multiple waves of leadership research and theory occurred over the past 70 years. Lord et al.
(2017) classified three broad leadership research and theory waves. The first wave focused on
behavioral leadership approaches. This wave moved leadership research away from traits
towards understanding and measuring the behaviors of leaders. The next wave of leadership
theory and research “brought the study of rater cognitive processes and leadership perceptions to
center-stage in the leadership field” (Lord et al., 2017, p. 440). This wave recognized that ratings
of a leader’s behavior reflects rater processes and perceptions. During the third wave of
leadership theory and research, a large body of research focused on transformational leadership.
Transformational leadership is explained as “an ideal leadership style” (Hansbrough & Schyns,
2018, p. 19).
James Downton in 1973 was the first person to compare and contrast transformational
leadership and transactional leadership (Avolio & Bass, 2004). However, Downton’s ideas only
took hold through the work of James MacGregor Burns in 1978. Burns (1978) explored the
transactional and transformational leadership of political leaders. Bass (1985) extended and
developed Burns’s conceptualization of transformational leadership. Bass extended
transformational leadership to the business world and developed a multi-dimensional view and
added a measurement technique (Chaubey et al., 2019). In 1991, Bass and Avolio proposed the
36
full-range leadership theory that included transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire
leadership (Antonakis et al., 2003). Bass and Avolio acknowledged that their full range of
leadership theory is not intended to include all possible leadership constructs (Antonakis et al.,
2003). The theory includes leadership styles that move from highly avoidant to highly
inspirational and idealized.
Transactional leadership centers largely on the exchanges between followers and leaders.
Contingent reward, management-by-exception-active, and management-by-exception-passive are
dimensions of transactional leadership. Contingent reward is the most effective dimension of
transactional leadership (Xenikou, 2017). Contingent reward exchanges effort for specific
rewards. An example of exchanging effort for a specific reward is a parent’s approval for his for
her child achieving good grades (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Transactional leaders explain
requirements and specify compensation (Bass, 1990). A transactional leader often fails because
he or she lacks the resources to deliver on promised rewards, therefore tarnishing his or her
reputation (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Within the confines of transactional leadership, followers
“may take short-cuts to complete the exchange of reward for compliance” (Bass & Avolio, 1990,
p. 240).
Management-by-exception is not as effective as contingent reward and often encourages
a culture of mediocrity (Bass, 1990). Passive management-by-exception (MBE-P) is particularly
damaging as it lacks a focus on continuous improvement. MBE-P is characterized by the adage,
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” (Bass, 1990). The active form of management-by-exception
(MBE-A) is more proactive than MBE-P. Through MBE-A, the transactional leader actively
monitors for mistakes, deviances, and errors and then takes corrective actions (Bass, 1990; Bass
et al., 2003). A leadership style that is closely associated with the passive form of MBE is
37
laissez-faire leadership. The laissez-faire leader avoids making decisions (Bass, 1990). Laissez-
faire leadership is in essence the nonexistence of leadership.
Transactional leadership is not the opposite of transformational leadership.
Transformational leadership is also not an alternate to transactional leadership (Xenikou, 2017);
it enhances transactional leadership (Avolio & Bass, 2004). This view contrasts to Burns’s belief
that transformational leadership and transactional leadership are on opposite ends of a continuum
(Judge & Piccolo, 2004). When appropriate, transformational leaders can be transactional.
Effective leaders practice both transformational and transactional leadership but in different
amounts (Avolio et al., 1999; Xenikou, 2017). Strukan et al. (2017) recommends that it is best
for leaders to use elements of both transformational and transactional leadership. They are
complementary forms of leadership (Xenikou, 2017).
While transactional leaders lead others to anticipated performance levels,
transformational leaders encourage others to perform beyond expectations (Avolio & Bass,
2004). The transformational leadership process increases the self-efficacy and confidence of
followers. Transformational leadership enables followers to develop to their complete potential
(Strukan et al., 2017). Transformational leaders “stir their employees to look beyond their own
self-interest for the good of the group [or organization]” (Bass, 1990, p. 21). They elevate the
“morale, motivation, and morale” of followers (Bass, 1999, p. 9).
Transformational leadership is developmentally oriented. It is broadly about leaders
transforming followers as well as a process in which people change themselves (Alvesson &
Kärreman, 2016; Strukan et al., 2017). Transformational leaders develop followers into leaders
(Avolio & Bass, 2004). Transformational leadership is not only for senior executives but for
employees throughout an organization (Hater & Bass, 1988).
38
Transformational leadership contains four dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Avolio & Bass, 2004).
Through idealized influence or charisma, followers view transformational leaders in an idealized
way (Avolio & Bass, 2004); transformational leaders become examples for their followers
(Strukan et al., 2017). Followers trust their leader and wish to identify with him or her. A
charismatic leader who is driven by his or her own self-centered agenda is “often set up as an
idol, not idealized” (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 30). Through inspirational motivation,
transformational leaders communicate shared goals, providing a motivating and exciting vision
of what is possible (Buil et al., 2019). High expectations are set for followers (Strukan et al.,
2017). Through intellectual stimulation, followers think about old problems in novel ways. They
are encouraged to be creative and innovative (Strukan et al., 2017). Transformational leaders
view a threat as an opportunity to improve (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Followers are also moved to
question the status quo and to “question their own beliefs, assumptions, and values” (Avolio &
Bass, 2004, p. 30). Through individualized consideration, transformational leaders treat each
individual uniquely and they work to assign tasks on an individual basis (Avolio & Bass, 2004).
Individual needs and aspirations are carefully considered (Strukan et al., 2017; Xenikou, 2017).
There is a focus on one-to-one relationships through mentoring and coaching. Exclusive use of
one of the dimensions of transformational leadership leads to poor outcomes. For example,
followers of a leader, who exclusively uses intellectual stimulation, report higher levels of
burnout (Bass & Avolio, 1990). It is important that transformational leaders increase their skills
in using all four of the transformational leadership dimensions.
The environment in which a leader leads often dictates whether a leader is more
transformational or more transactional. Transformational leaders normally arise in times of
39
“growth, change, and crisis” (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 33). Transformational leadership is
closely related with change-oriented leadership (Deschamps et al., 2016; Li et al., 2017). It is
well-matched with dynamic external environments whereas transactional leadership is more
suitable for stable and predictable environments (Baškarada et al., 2017). Transformational
leaders perform better in innovative environments (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Xie et al., 2018).
Transformational leadership and transactional leadership are both “conducive to
organizational effectiveness” (Xenikou, 2017). Several meta-analyses conclude that
transformational leadership has the strongest positive influence on outcomes such as
effectiveness and satisfaction (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Although the contingent reward dimension
of transactional leadership has a lower impact, it is still positive and significant (Xenikou, 2017).
Laissez-faire leadership and passive management-by-exception is negatively related with
effectiveness and satisfaction.
In addition to transformational leadership having a positive and significant impact on
organizational performance and job satisfaction, as described earlier, it also impacts other
organizational and employee aspects. For example, there is a positive association between
transformational leadership and employee creativity (Chaubey et al., 2019). Transformational
leadership directly forecasts job performance (Buil et al., 2019).) Transformational leadership
correlates strongly with all aspects of organizational justice (Deschamps et al., 2016).
Transformational leadership nurtures an organizational culture of innovation and change
(Xenikou, 2017).
Transformational Leadership Versus Other Leadership Styles
The popularity of transformational leadership is evidenced by the quantity of recent
literature on transformational leadership as compared to other leadership styles. A search on
40
California Southern University Library’s subscription to EBSCO’s Business Source Premier
database on November 15, 2020, found 407 peer-reviewed articles published since 2016 that
contain the phrase “transformational leadership” in their titles. Similarly, the search located 222,
156, 122, 22, and eight articles on ethical leadership, authentic leadership, servant leadership,
charismatic leadership, and visionary leadership, respectively.
Although transformational leadership and charismatic leadership are different theories,
the idealized influence dimension of transformational leadership is closely tied to the theory of
charismatic leadership. Waldman et al. (1988) hypothesized that charismatic leadership
augments transactional leadership’s contingent reward dimension. Their results show that
contingent reward is positively related with charisma. Leader effectiveness increases when
leaders go beyond transactional and contingent reward leadership. The primary difference
between transformational leaders and charismatic leaders is that transformational leaders enable
followers to act (Yukl, 1999). Charismatic leaders emphasize that radical change “can only be
accomplished if followers put their trust in the leader’s unique expertise” (Yukl, 1999, p. 301).
Authentic leadership and transformational leadership are similar. Authentic leadership
can include aspects of transformational leadership (Avolio et al., 2004). Both authentic and
transformational leadership create and sustain high degrees of follower job satisfaction
(Rodriguez et al., 2017). Some studies show that transformational leadership outperforms
authentic leadership in several outcomes including job satisfaction (Banks et al., 2016). Hoch et
al. (2016) found evidence of empirical redundancy between transformational and authentic
leadership. Beyond the effects of transformational leadership, authentic leadership has marginal
utility (Rodriguez et al., 2017).
41
Since its conceptualization by Robert Greenleaf in 1970, servant leadership is a popular
area of research and practice. Servant leadership and transformational leadership are more
distinct than alike (Hoch et al. 2016). The association between servant leadership and
transformational leadership is significantly lower than the association between authentic
leadership and transformational leadership (Hoch et al. 2016). A major difference between
servant leadership and transformational leadership is that “servant leaders focus on their
followers’ well-being, while transformational leaders tend to focus more on organizational
goals” (Andersen, 2018, p. 763). Like research on transformational leadership, research on
servant leadership reveals that it is positively associated with job satisfaction and organizational
performance (Eva et al., 2019).
Transformational Leadership in Cross-Cultural Contexts
The model, theory, and measurement of transformational leadership originated in the
individualistic culture of the U.S. However, transformational leadership may be “more applicable
in the collectivist societies of Japan, China, Korea, and elsewhere in East Asia” (Avolio & Bass,
2004, p. 44). Individualistic cultures motivate employees to satisfy their own self-interests
whereas employees in collective cultures develop a stronger attachment to the interests of their
organizations (Jung & Avolio, 1999). Jung and Avolio (1999) accepted their hypothesis that “the
performance of collectivists will be higher [when] working with a transformational leader than
with a transactional leader” (p. 210). Employees in East Asian countries are served best with a
transformational leader.
Transformational leadership is the most-researched leadership style in Western and
Chinese contexts (Sun et al., 2017). Bass (1997) describes how studies in the U.S. and several
other countries universally confirmed three transformational leadership propositions. Firstly, a
42
hierarchy of correlations among transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership and
outcomes in effectiveness, effort, and satisfaction was verified in the U.S., India, Spain,
Singapore, Japan, China, Austria, and several other countries. The second proposition that
transformational leadership adds to transactional leadership (the augmentation effect) was
demonstrated in the U.S., Canada, India, the Dominican Republic, and Singapore. The third
proposition that whatever the country, “when people think about leadership, their prototypes and
ideals are transformational” (Bass, 1997, p. 135) was proved in the U.S., Canada, South Africa,
Sweden, Spain, Italy, Israel, Austria, and in other countries. Recent studies focused on
transformational leadership reveal positive results in several countries, including Spain (Buil et
al., 2019), Canada (Deschamps et al., 2016), China (Li et al., 2017; Li & Liu, 2020; Liu, 2018;
Sun et al., 2017), the U.S. (Netto, 2020; Sun et al, 2017), Australia (Baškarada et al., 2017),
Bosnia and Herzegovina (Strukan et al., 2017), Indonesia (Virgiawan & Riyanto, 2020),
Germany (Niessen et al., 2017), and India (Chaubey et al., 2019).
Recently, an increasing number of transformational leadership studies are conducted in
China (Sun et al., 2017). Findings in China closely match findings in the U.S. Studies in China
also found that transformational leadership is positively linked to job satisfaction (Avolio &
Bass, 2004). Sun et al.’s (2017) systematic review concluded that setting direction and
developing people were the most powerful transformational leadership practices in both the U.S.
and China. Also, a leaders’ own qualities, contextual factors, and follower characteristics predict
the use of transformational leadership (Sun et al., 2017).
A systematic review of transformational leadership studies in China that were published
between 2005 and 2015 examined 198 empirical Chinese studies (Liu, 2018). Liu’s work
revealed several key findings. First, although Chinese researchers use at least four different
43
theories of transformational leadership, Bass’s 1985 theory is the most popular. Second, Bass’s
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) showed good validity and reliability in the Chinese
context. Third, Chinese researchers studied the effectiveness of transformational leadership on
several individual and organizational variables. For example, 18 of the 198 empirical studies
showed a strong association between transformational leadership and job satisfaction. Seven of
the 198 studies revealed that transformational leadership significantly influenced organizational
performance. In comparison to international literature, research on the “effect of transformational
leadership on organizational variables is limited in China” (Liu, 2018, p. 394). Last, Liu did not
find a lot of research in China on transformational school leadership. He states that this type of
research within the education field is in demand in China.
Crede et al. (2019) used the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior
Effectiveness (GLOBE) cultural dimensions to test three competing cultural propositions. The
least support was discovered for the proposition that transformational leadership and follower
performance is invariant across cultures. Some support was found for the proposition that
transformational leadership and follower performance will be “strongest in countries in which
[the] national culture is congruent with transformational leadership” (Crede et al., 2019, p. 142).
The strongest support was found for the proposition that transformational leadership and
follower performance will be greatest in countries in which the national culture is incongruent
with transformational leadership. Therefore, transformational leadership is most effective when
“it is in line with some cultural values and practices while challenging other cultural values and
practices” (Crede et al., 2019, p. 151). Transformational leadership seems to be more effective in
developing countries, such as China, than in the U.S. and Europe.
44
Transformational Leadership and Education
Recent studies on transformational leadership reveal positive results in several industries,
including public and private sectors (Xenikou, 2017), banking (Xenikou, 2017), military
(Baškarada et al., 2017; Xenikou, 2017), healthcare (Deschamps et al., 2016), production
(Strukan et al., 2017), automotive (Chaubey et al., 2019), and hospitality (Buil et al., 2018).
Several recent transformational leadership studies also take place in the context of K-12
education (Dean, 2020; Hariri, 2020; Litz & Scott, 2016; Niessen et al., 2017; Sutresna &
Wijayanti, 2020; Xenikou, 2017). In the context of the United Arab Emirates, Litz and Scott
(2016) found school “principals felt that they practiced many aspects of transformational
leadership, while teachers disagreed” (p. 574). Berkovich (2016) concludes that school
administrators should not abandon transformational leadership due to its relevance to
contemporary challenges. Sutresna and Wijayanti’s (2020) meta-analysis revealed that principals
who practice transformational leadership significantly affect teacher performance. Hariri (2020)
found in their study in the context of East Asia (Indonesia) that both transformational leadership
and transactional leadership is positively and significantly related with three leadership
outcomes: extra effort, satisfaction, and effectiveness. In China, Li and Liu (2020) explored how
the transformational leadership of school principals levied teacher leadership. They found that
transformational leadership is positively and significantly associated to teacher leadership. Li and
Liu conclude that to improve school and student outcomes, an essential role of school principals
is to inspire, motivate, and develop teacher leaders.
Research conducted in Texas found transformational and transactional leaders support
teacher job satisfaction and retention (Dean, 2020). Teacher pay did not support job satisfaction.
Dean recommends that funding increases to train current and aspiring school principals how to
45
be more transformational and transactional. A study in New York showed that at the elementary
school level, female principals are significantly more transformational than male principals
(Netto, 2020). At both the elementary and secondary school levels, male principals exhibited
more laissez-faire behaviors than female principals. Niessen et al. (2017) suggests researchers
consider energy levels of teachers when examining the association between transformational
leadership and teacher proactivity. When teachers feel exhausted, a principal’s transformational
leadership decreases proactivity.
A systematic review of empirical research of transformational leadership in the Chinese
K-12 setting was conducted (Li, 2020). Eighteen articles published between 2010 and 2019 in
either Chinese or English were analyzed. In contrast to Liu (2018), Li found that researchers
utilized Li and Shi’s 2008 model of transformational leadership slightly more than Bass and
Avolio’s 1985 model (seven versus six studies, respectively). The eighteen studies most often
examined teacher-level variables such as commitment, engagement, performance, and job
satisfaction. Two studies found that transformational leadership had both direct and indirect
positive effects on job satisfaction. Only two studies tested organizational-level variables
(organizational citizenship behavior and organizational silence). The most prevalent data
analysis techniques across the 18 studies were regression analysis and structural equation
modeling. Although there is an increased interest in studying transformational leadership within
the Chinese school context, there are few empirical studies.
Summary
The international school industry is diverse with schools that are market-driven,
ideologically focused, and profit motivated. Although a rapidly growing industry, research on the
challenging arena of international school leadership is limited. Most studies related to the
46
leadership styles of international school leaders are qualitative. There are no recent studies
related to international school principal job satisfaction or studies measuring the organizational
performance of international schools.
Organizational performance research is popular in the business field. Organizational
performance can be measured both objectively and subjectively. Positive and direct links are
found between transformational leadership and organizational performance. Mediating variables
such as job satisfaction form positive associations between transformational leadership and
organizational performance.
Although recent research does not measure the job satisfaction of international school
principals, several recent studies measure the job satisfaction of international school teachers.
Studies show a positive relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction.
Since the 1970s, transformational leadership is an extensively research leadership style.
Transformational leadership produces positive outcomes across industries and countries.
47
Chapter 3: Methodology
This quantitative study analyzed the associations between leadership styles (independent
variable), job satisfaction (mediating variable), and organizational performance (dependent
variable). Three instruments were used. First, international school principals in China, Hong
Kong, and the United Arab Emirates evaluated the leadership style of their heads of school using
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Second, they self-assessed their own job
satisfaction using the Abridged Job in General scale (AJIG). Finally, principals rated the
organizational performance of their international school using questions from Delaney and
Huselid’s 1996 study. An online survey was developed to collect instrument data and
demographical information about the school, principal, and head of school. The data was
analyzed and reported using descriptive and inferential statistics. Several steps were taken within
the study to increase validity and reliability.
Research Design
A quantitative research method was selected for this study. The method was selected for
five reasons. First, the study’s research questions were able to be answered with a quantitative
research method; the data collected for each variable could be quantified and statistically
analyzed. Second, literature within the international school leadership context over relies on
qualitative research methods (Bunnell , 2019b). Third, quantitative research methods can support
theories (Apuke, 2017). This study helped determine whether the theory of transformational
leadership was supported in the international school sector. Fourth, quantitative research
methods can build knowledge within an industry (Apuke, 2017); organizational performance is
rarely measured in the international school setting. Finally, quantitative research findings are
more generalizable than qualitative research results (Apuke, 2017). The findings of this study
48
might be generalizable to the population of accredited international schools in China, Hong
Kong, the UAE, and to the broader international school industry in the greater Asia region. China
was chosen for this study because it is the country with the most international schools. Hong
Kong was selected because it actively competes with the neighboring Chinese province of
Guangdong for international school students. The United Arab Emirates was chosen because it is
the country with the most students enrolled at international schools.
There are several approaches to quantitative research including field experiments,
simulations, surveys, and correlational studies (Apuke, 2017; Queirós, 2017). This study
analyzed how variables relate. Studies like these help “[connect] the dots between the known and
unknown” (Akoglu, 2018, p. 91). The direction and strength of relationships were measured to
determine if variables are positively related, negatively related, or not related. The study assessed
and examined if and how leadership styles are related with organizational performance. It also
determined if any relationships between leadership styles and organizational performance were
mediated by job satisfaction.
Research Questions
The following research questions were addressed in this study:
Research Question 1: What is the relationship between a head’s transformational
leadership and a school’s organizational performance?
Research Question 2: What is the relationship between a head of school’s transactional
leadership and a school’s organizational performance?
Research Question 3: What is the relationship between a head of school’s
passive/avoidant leadership and a school’s organizational performance?
49
Research Question 4: What is the relationship between a principal’s job satisfaction and a
school’s organizational performance?
Research Question 5: If there is a relationship between a head of school’s
transformational leadership and a school’s organizational performance, is the relationship
mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction?
Research Question 6: If there is a relationship between a head of school’s transactional
leadership and a school’s organizational performance, is the relationship mediated by a
principal’s job satisfaction?
Research Question 7: If there is a relationship between a head of school’s
passive/avoidant leadership and a school’s organizational performance, is the relationship
mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction?
Hypotheses
The study tested the following hypotheses:
H01: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is the same across
categories of a head of school’s transformational leadership.
HA1: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is different across
categories of a head of school’s transformational leadership.
H02: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is the same across
categories of a head of school’s transactional leadership.
HA2: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is different across
categories of a head of school’s transactional leadership.
H03: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is the same across
categories of a head of school’s passive/avoidant leadership.
50
HA3: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is different across
categories of a head of school’s passive/avoidant leadership.
H04: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is the same across
categories of a principal’s job satisfaction.
HA4: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is different across
categories of a principal’s job satisfaction.
H05: The relationship between a head of school’s transformational leadership style and a
school’s organizational performance is not mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction.
HA5: The relationship between a head of school’s transformational leadership and a
school’s organizational performance is mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction.
H06: The relationship between a head of school’s transactional leadership and a school’s
organizational performance is not mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction.
HA6: The relationship between a head of school’s transactional leadership and a school’s
organizational performance is mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction.
H07: The relationship between a head of school’s passive/avoidant leadership and a
school’s organizational performance is not mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction.
HA7: The relationship between a head of school’s passive/avoidant leadership and a
school’s organizational performance is mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction.
Population and Sample
Estimated Population
As of March 2021, there were 215 schools in China that were accredited by one or more
of seven international school accreditation agencies (AdvancED/Cognia, BOS, CIS, COBIS,
MSA, NEASC, and WASC). Likewise, there were 29 schools in Hong Kong that were accredited
51
by one or more of these seven agencies. In the UAE, 192 schools were accredited by one or more
of these agencies. An international school may have no principals, one principal, two principals,
three principals, or four principals. A small international school may only have a head of school
and no divisional school principals; teachers report directly to the head of school. At a large
international school, up to four divisional school principals may report to a head of school i.e.,
lower primary school principal, upper primary school principal, middle school principal, and
high school principal. Using the median number of principals at an international school, two, the
total estimated population of principals at international schools across China, Hong Kong, and
the UAE was 872.
Sample
The participants in the study were principals who reported directly to a head of school at
accredited international schools in China, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Vice principals who are members of the senior leadership team were also included in the study.
A list of accredited international schools was put together from seven international school
accrediting organizations. Morrison (2018) compiled a similar list from two of these accrediting
organizations. As of March 2021, there were 215 international schools in China, 29 in Hong
Kong, and 192 in the United Arab Emirates that are accredited by AdvancED/Cognia, British
Schools Overseas (BSO), Council of International Schools (CIS), Council of British
International Schools (COBIS), Middle States Association (MSA), New England Association of
Schools and Colleges (NEASC) and/or Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC).
Schools that were candidates for accreditation were also included in this number. The population
size of international school principals in China, Hong Kong and the UAE was about 872 (See
population size estimation above). In this study, enough datapoints were needed to run tests.
52
Assuming an effect size, d, of 0.15 and an α = 0.05, this study required 129 datapoints as it
contains four independent variables (transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
passive/avoidant leadership, and job satisfaction). Therefore, the required sample size of
principals was 129. Random sampling was used.
Role of the Researcher
The researcher designed this study based on his experiences as an international school
principal. In the increasingly competitive international school industry, he was curious whether
certain leadership styles are associated with higher organizational performance. Also, few studies
measure the job satisfaction of international school principals. The researcher wondered whether
any relationships between leadership styles and organizational performance were mediated by
the job satisfaction of principals. The researcher collected and analyzed the data in this study.
Geographical or Virtual Location
The population under study was international school principals located in either China,
Hong Kong, or the United Arab Emirates. Each principal reported to a head of school at an
accredited international school in one of these geographical locations. China was chosen because
it is the country with the most international schools. Hong Kong was selected because it actively
competes with the neighboring Chinese province of Guangdong for international school students.
The United Arab Emirates was chosen because it is the country with the most students enrolled
at international schools.
Procedure
The researcher created a database of international schools in China, Hong Kong, and the
United Arab Emirates that were accredited by at least one of seven international school
accrediting agencies. For each school, the researcher found the email address of the head of
53
school from either an accrediting agency website or the school’s website. The researcher emailed
heads of school and asked that they forward the online consent form and survey link to each
principal who reported to them.
Principals first read and electronically sign the consent form. They then began the online
survey that includes general demographic questions about themselves, their head of school, and
their school, followed by questions about their head of school’s leadership style, their job
satisfaction, and the organizational performance of their school. The data was transferred from
Microsoft Forms to Microsoft Excel.
Instrumentation
Three instruments were used in this study. To collect data about the leadership style of
the head of school, Bass and Avolio’s (2004) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was
used. The researcher purchased the MLQ manual and has permission to reproduce a copy of the
manual within three years of August 12, 2020. The researcher also purchased administration
licenses for the required sample. Second, to collect data about the job satisfaction of the
principal, the Abridged Job in General scale (AJIG) was used. The researcher bought the AJIG
reference guide on December 10, 2020. Third, to collect data about the organizational
performance of the international school, Delaney and Huselid’s (1996) survey of perceived
organizational performance was used. Permission to use this instrument was obtained on
December 10, 2020 (See Appendix E: Permission to Use Questions in Delaney and Huselid’s
1996 Study).
The MLQ includes 36 questions that measure nine dimensions (Four questions per
dimension) and nine questions that measure three leadership outcomes (Two to four questions
per outcome). Transformational leadership dimensions include idealized attributes, idealized
54
behaviors, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration.
Examples of items used to measure transformational leadership include “The person I am rating
goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group” and “The person I am rating considers me as
having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others.” Transactional leadership
dimensions include contingent reward and active management-by-exception. Examples of items
used to measure transactional leadership include “The person I am rating makes clear what one
can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved” and “The person I am rating
concentrates his or her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints, and failures.”
Passive/avoidant leadership dimensions include passive management-by-exception and
laissez-faire leadership. Examples of items used to measure passive/avoidant leadership include
“The person I am rating waits for things to go wrong before taking action” and “The person I am
rating avoids getting involved when important issues arise.” For this study, the nine questions
that measure leadership outcomes were not included on the online survey. These questions relate
to extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction with the leader. The MLQ rating scale includes
five-points: 0 = Not at all; 1 = Once in a while; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Fairly often; 4 =
Frequently, if not always. Cronbach’s alphas determine the internal consistency of a survey
instrument. An alpha exceeding .70 is viewed as reliable (Taherdoost, 2016). Alphas for the
MLQ subscales range from .63 to .92 (Avolio & Bass, 2004). The alpha for active management-
by-exception was the only alpha below .70.
The AJIG scale includes a list of eight positively and negatively written words and
phrases that could describe a person’s overall feelings about his or her job i.e., good, undesirable,
and better than most. A person thinks about his or her job in general and then selects whether
each word or phrase describes what it is like most of the time. A person can also indicate
55
whether he or she cannot decide whether a particular word or phrase describes his or her job. The
alpha for the AJIG scale is at least .85 (Russell et al., 2004). Therefore, it is a reliable instrument
to measure overall job satisfaction.
Delaney and Huselid’s (1996) survey of perceived organizational performance includes
seven questions. These questions were taken from the National Organizations Study (J. Delaney,
personal communication, December 10, 2020). For this study, some of the questions were
modified to match the international school industry. For example, the term “products” was
removed because schools, in general, offer services and programs. “Satisfaction of customers or
clients” was changed to “Satisfaction of parents” as parents are usually viewed as a school’s
customers. These and other changes act as a delimitation, bringing clarity to each question.
Examples of items used to measure perceived organizational performance included “How would
you compare your school’s performance over the past 3 years to that of similar schools? What
about quality of services or programs? What about ability to attract teachers and school leaders?”
The Delaney and Huselid survey included a four-point rating scale ranging from 1 = Worse to 4
= Much better. The National Organizations Study used a five-point scale: 1 = Much worse; 2 =
Somewhat worse; 3 = About the same; 4 = Somewhat better; 5 = Much better, and included
“Don’t know,” “Refuse to answer,” and “Not applicable” response options for each question. In
Delaney and Huselid’s study, the alpha for the set of perceived organizational performance
questions was .85. The alpha was above .70 so the set of questions are a reliable instrument to
measure perceived organizational performance.
In addition to these three instruments, a demographic section was included on the survey.
To address the testing effect limitation, two versions of the survey were created that arrange the
survey sections in different orders. Both versions began with the demographic section. Version
56
one of the survey continued to the instrument that measures the independent variable, then the
one that measures the mediating variable, and finally the instrument that measures the dependent
variable. From the demographic questions, version two presented the instruments in reverse
order, from dependent to mediating to independent variables. Appendix C includes the sections
and questions, as arranged in version one of the survey.
Data Collection
International school principals and vice principals were asked to complete the four-part
online survey. The survey included questions related to the organizational performance of their
current international school, their personal job satisfaction, and their head of school’s leadership
style (transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant leadership). The survey also asked
demographic-related questions such as the school’s location (country), type of international
school (for-profit or not-for-profit), and number of years in current role at current school (of both
principal/vice principal and head of school).
Principals and vice principals were contacted by email through their head of school. First,
a database of accredited international schools was created. The database included fields such as
country, school name, head of school’s name and email address, and any other email addresses
such as a school’s general info@schoolsname.org email address. Next, emails were sent to head
of school email addresses and other email addresses asking them to please forward the survey
link to the principals and vice principals at their schools. After a week, a follow-up email was
sent asking whether they were able to forward the link to the principals and vice principals at
their schools. A second follow-up email was sent two weeks after the initial email if the head of
school or school did not respond to the first follow-up email. To vary the days of receipt and
considering time zones, the initial email and first follow-up email was sent on Thursday
57
afternoons. The second follow-up email was sent on a Saturday morning. This and other
processes were adapted from Keung’s (2011) study. To increase effectiveness, emails were
personalized with the school’s name in the subject line and were personally addressed to the
head of school. The email to the head of school or school explained the purpose and potential
benefits of the study.
Microsoft Forms was used for the consent form and the survey. After receiving and
clicking on the link, principals were presented with a statement of informed consent (See
Appendix D). By clicking next/continue, the principal acknowledged that he or she had read and
understood the statement of informed consent and consented to participate in the study. The four
sections of the survey then followed. At the end of the survey, an opportunity to receive the
findings of the research study was provided; principals chose to provide their name and email
address.
Data Analysis
Data was automatically transferred from Microsoft Forms to Microsoft Excel for
preprocessing and cleaning. Duplicate responses and incomplete surveys were removed. SPSS
was used to assess and examine data. Descriptive statistics provided a summary of data in the
forms of means and medians. The mean and median was calculated for transformational
leadership, transactional leadership, passive/avoidant leadership, job satisfaction, and
organizational performance.
Inferential statistics were used to make inferences about the study’s population.
Inferential statistics tested the hypotheses. To determine relationships between variables, there
are a number of tests that can be conducted i.e., ANOVA, Pearson’s r, and Spearman’s rho.
However, before deciding on what test to run, dependent variable data was plotted on bar graphs
58
to determine whether data was normally distributed (Curtis et al., 2016). The results and
inferences of a study are only precise if the correct statistical tests are used (Ali & Bhaskar,
2016). If the dependent variable data was normally distributed, a parametric test would have
been used to analyze the relationship. The most used parametric tests are t-tests and ANOVA
(Ali & Bhaskar, 2016; Curtis et al., 2016). If dependent variable data was not normally
distributed, a non-parametric test such as Kruskal-Wallis would be used. To test whether job
satisfaction was a mediating variable between leadership styles and organizational performance,
Baron and Kenny’s four-step process to testing the mediating effect of a variable as performed in
Chaubey et al.’s 2019 study was used.
Hypothesis Tests
The study performed seven hypotheses tests. Tests were performed using SPSS and
utilized a = 0.05. Rejection of the null hypotheses required p < .
First Hypothesis Test
H01: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is the same across
categories of a head of school’s transformational leadership.
HA1: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is different across
categories of a head of school’s transformational leadership.
This hypothesis test analyzed whether the measurement of the dependent variable was
sensitive to the independent variable. The test statistic (H), significance (p), and means were
calculated to analyze the relationship between a head’s transformational leadership style and a
school’s organizational performance.
59
Second Hypothesis Test
H02: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is the same across
categories of a head of school’s transactional leadership.
HA2: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is different across
categories of a head of school’s transactional leadership.
This hypothesis test analyzed whether the measurement of the dependent variable was
sensitive to the independent variable. The test statistic (H), significance (p), and means were
calculated to analyze the relationship between a head’s transactional leadership style and a
school’s organizational performance.
Third Hypothesis Test
H03: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is the same across
categories of a head of school’s passive/avoidant leadership.
HA3: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is different across
categories of a head of school’s passive/avoidant leadership.
This hypothesis test analyzed whether the measurement of the dependent variable was
sensitive to the independent variable. The test statistic (H), significance (p), and means were
calculated to analyze the relationship between a head’s passive/avoidant leadership style and a
school’s organizational performance.
Fourth Hypothesis Test
H04: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is the same across
categories of a principal’s job satisfaction.
HA4: The distribution of a school’s organizational performance is different across
categories of a principal’s job satisfaction.
60
This hypothesis test analyzed whether the measurement of the dependent variable was
sensitive to the independent variable. The test statistic (H), significance (p), and means were
calculated to analyze the relationship between a principal’s job satisfaction and a school’s
organizational performance.
Fifth Hypothesis Test
H05: The relationship between a head of school’s transformational leadership style and a
school’s organizational performance is not mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction.
HA5: The relationship between a head of school’s transformational leadership and a
school’s organizational performance is mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction.
This hypothesis test involved mediation analysis to determine whether the relationship
between a head’s transformational leadership style and organizational performance was
mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction. Baron and Kenny’s approach to testing the mediating
effect of a variable as performed in Chaubey et al.’s 2019 study was used in this study.
Sixth Hypothesis Test
H06: The relationship between a head of school’s transactional leadership and a school’s
organizational performance is not mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction.
HA6: The relationship between a head of school’s transactional leadership and a school’s
organizational performance is mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction.
This hypothesis test involved mediation analysis to determine whether the relationship
between a head’s transactional leadership style and organizational performance was mediated by
a principal’s job satisfaction. Baron and Kenny’s approach to testing the mediating effect of a
variable as performed in Chaubey et al.’s 2019 study was used in this study.
61
Seventh Hypothesis Test
H07: The relationship between a head of school’s passive/avoidant leadership and a
school’s organizational performance is not mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction.
HA7: The relationship between a head of school’s passive/avoidant leadership and a
school’s organizational performance is mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction.
This hypothesis test involved mediation analysis to determine whether the relationship
between a head’s passive/avoidant leadership style and organizational performance was
mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction. Baron and Kenny’s approach to testing the mediating
effect of a variable as performed in Chaubey et al.’s 2019 study was used in this study.
Informed Consent Process and Ethical Concerns
All participants received an informed consent form at the beginning of the online survey.
The participant provided consent when clicking the Begin Survey button at the end of the consent
for. This removed the need for a separate consent form while ensuring each survey corresponds
to an easily completed consent form. All participants obtained the researcher’s e-mail address so
they could ask questions at any time during the survey process. The survey data remained
anonymous, contained no identifying marks connected to the participant, and protected
identifiers related to institutions and participants. No contact information, name, e-mail address,
or other identification marks remained in a publicly accessible format. Likewise, no identifying
phrases remained in the data to ensure privacy.
In 1979, the Belmont Report outlined ethical principles to protect human subjects in
research. This study adhered to the three principles outlined in the Belmont Report: Respect for
persons, beneficence, and justice. Participants were given the opportunity to make an informed
choice about taking part in the study. Anonymity and confidentiality were clearly outlined. No
62
financial incentive was offered to participants. Participants were named during the reporting and
discussion of survey results. Results from the survey were kept confidential. Survey data was
securely stored on a computer and remained in the personal procession of the researcher.
Personal data such as a participant’s name was encoded by the researcher in such a way that the
data can be retrieved without directly revealing the identity of participants. Survey data will be
destroyed five years after the publication of the final project report.
Site Permissions
Site permissions were obtained from each school. Heads of school served as school
representatives and understood the project’s purpose, the data collection procedure, a projected
data collection period, and the necessity to document site permission as a step in ensuring ethical
research practices. Site permissions were securely stored and evidence of site permissions may
be obtained via a request to the IRB.
Trustworthiness of the Study
This study faced challenges to its validity. First, due to the busy nature of international
school principals, they may not have completed the survey in a timely manner. Follow up emails
were sent, reminding principals to complete the survey. Second, principals may not have
responded to all the survey questions. For example, organizational performance terminology is
not often used in the education field. Therefore, some principals may have selected “don’t know”
for some questions in this survey section.
To minimize threats to validity, the following steps were taken: (a) all data was collected
in the same six-week period; (b) an appropriate methodology (quantitative) was used to answer
the research questions; and (c) appropriate instruments were used to collect data. The MLQ and
AJIG are proven research instruments. Based on a review of international school literature, no
63
studies have been conducted with both international schools in China and the UAE; China has
the most international schools, and the UAE has the most students attending international
schools. This was the first study conducted on the relationships between leadership styles, job
satisfaction, and the organizational performance of international schools. The results of this study
can be generalized to other international schools in China, Hong Kong, and the UAE.
Summary
This quantitative study used a relationship research design. Associations between
independent, mediating, and dependent variables were statistically explored through appropriate
hypotheses tests. Random sampling was used to increase the generalizability of results. Reliable
instruments were chosen to increase the credibility of the study.
64
Chapter 4: Findings
Findings for this study were analyzed from quantitative data collected from principals at
accredited international and internationalized schools in China, Hong Kong, and the United Arab
Emirates. This chapter describes how variables were measured, the required and actual sample
size, and how data was collected. Results of hypothesis tests and data outliers are stated.
General Description of Participants
The participants had various titles, country locations, and number of years in their current
roles at their current schools. Almost all (98%) of participants were divisional principals or
divisional vice principals who reported directly to a head of school and/or were members of the
senior leadership team (see Table A2 and Figure B5). Participants who reported directly to a
school board or school owner were removed from the survey results during data cleaning. Of the
129 participants who remained after data cleaning, 71 were located in China, seven in Hong
Kong, and 51 in the United Arab Emirates. More than half (56%) of participants were in their
first, second, or third year in their current role at their current school (see Table A3 and Figure
B6).
The demographics of heads of school included the number of years the head of school
was in his or her current role at his or her current school. More than half of heads of school
where in their first through third year. Table A4 and Figure B7 presents the distribution of years
in current role and school. The demographics of schools included what accreditations schools
had achieved, the school’s organizational structure, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, and the
type of school, whether international or internationalized. Table A5 and Figure B8 presents how
many schools were accredited by each of the seven international school accrediting agencies.
The majority of participants worked at WASC, AdvancED/Cognia, and CIS accredited schools:
65
31% of participants worked at WASC accredited schools, 27% at AdvancED/Cognia accredited
schools, and 19% at CIS accredited schools. Nearly half (44%) of participants reported they
worked in for-profit schools while more than half (54%) worked in not-for-profit schools. A
majority (90%) of participants described their schools as an international school and a minority
(9%) described their schools as internationalized local schools.
Unit of Analysis and Measurement
There were three units of analysis. The first unit of analysis were the leadership styles of
heads of school. The second unit of analysis was the job satisfaction of principals. The third unit
of analysis was the organizational performance of international schools.
The unit of measurement for heads of school was a 36 statement scale to measure their
leadership styles. The parameters were the degree to which heads were viewed as a
transformational leader, transactional leader, and passive/avoidant leader. The unit of
measurement for principals was an eight statement scale to measure their job satisfaction. The
parameter was the degree to which principals were satisfied in their current role. The unit of
measurement for the organizational performance of schools was a seven statement scale. The
parameters included categories such as service and program quality, recruitment and retention of
teachers and leaders, and satisfaction of parents.
Sample Size
The sample was drawn from a database of accredited international schools in China,
Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates. 436 schools were accredited by one or more of seven
international school accreditation agencies. It was estimated, that on average, each school had
two principals. Therefore, the population, N, of principals working at the 436 schools was about
872. Assuming an effect size, d, of 0.15 and an α = 0.05, the study required 129 datapoints as it
66
contained four independent variables (transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
passive/avoidant leadership, and job satisfaction). Therefore, the required sample size, n, of
principals is 129. Through the random sampling of 436 schools, 55 schools gave permission for
their principals to participate in the study. The survey was emailed to 186 principals and vice
principals. 145 principals and vice principals completed the survey. Therefore, the response rate
was 78%. The sample of 145 principals and vice principals from the estimated population of 872
was large enough to ensure statistical power.
Data Collection
Data collection began after receiving IRB approval (see Appendix F). Before distributing
the online survey, site permissions were obtained from schools. Once permission was granted,
the head of school was asked to connect the researcher with the principals and any vice
principals in his or her school. The consent form and survey were then emailed to each principal
and vice principals. After a principal digitally signed the consent form, he or she began the
survey. Two versions of the survey were distributed to limit the testing effect. One version began
with the independent variable scales and the other version ended with the independent variable
scales. Microsoft Forms was used to capture survey responses. Microsoft Forms created a
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet containing all data.
Data was collected over a four-week period, beginning on September 29, 2021, and
ending on October 27, 2021. Principals were sent two emails to remind them to complete the
survey, the first reminder one week after the initial email, and the final reminder 10 days after
the second one. At the end of the online survey, principals were given an opportunity to leave an
email address to receive the findings of the research study.
67
Data was cleaned, organized, and scored after collection and before hypotheses tests were
conducted. Three data files resulted after the cleaning and organizing: one for each version of the
survey and one file that combined all survey results. If a participant did not sign the consent
form, his or her survey response was removed. Participants who reported directly to a school
board or school owner were removed from survey results. Also, a survey entry was removed if
one of the following fields were not answered: the participant’s job title (participants had to be
either a principal or vice principal), the location of the school (participants had to be working at a
school in either China, Hong Kong, or the UAE), and a school’s accreditation status (schools
needed to be accredited in this study). Survey responses of participants who indicated their
school was best described as a public or private school and not an international,
internationalized, or international division within a local school were removed from the data. For
the seven organizational performance questions, if a participant left four or more questions
blank, entered three or more “don’t know” or “not applicable” responses, or a combination of
three or more blank and “don’t know”/“not applicable” responses, his or her survey response was
removed. For the eight job satisfaction questions, if a participant left two or more blank, his or
her survey response was removed. If a participant did not answer a significant number of
questions related to leadership styles, her or his survey response was removed. For example, two
participants did not answer 15 of the 36 leadership style questions. After data cleaning, 129
survey responses had the required data for analysis.
From the raw data, the following scores were calculated, following the instructions of
three scoring guides/studies: transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
passive/avoidant leadership, job satisfaction, and organizational performance.
68
Results of Hypothesis Tests
To determine the appropriate statistical test, data normality was first tested. Each of the
seven organizational performance subscales were negatively skewed (see Figures B9 through
B15). Therefore, a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis (KW) test was chosen to analyze the
relationships between variables. The KW test is the nonparametric equivalent of the one-way
ANOVA test. Also, the dependent variable is an ordinal measurement, so a nonparametric test is
most appropriate.
First Hypothesis Test
Using SPSS, a Kruskal-Wallis test showed a head’s transformational
leadership did not significantly affect a school’s organizational performance, H (1) =
.615, p = .433. A school’s organizational performance with a head who was less
transformational (M = 3.83) was about the same as one who was more
transformational (M = 3.95). Therefore, the measurement of a school’s
organizational performance was insensitive to a head’s transformational leadership.
The null hypothesis was retained.
Second Hypothesis Test
Using SPSS, a Kruskal-Wallis test showed a head’s transactional leadership
did not significantly affect a school’s organizational performance, H (1) = .001, p =
.970. A school’s organizational performance with a head who was less transactional
(M = 3.90) was the same as one who was more transactional (M = 3.90). Therefore,
the measurement of a school’s organizational performance was insensitive to a
head’s transactional leadership. The null hypothesis was retained.
69
Third Hypothesis Test
Using SPSS, a Kruskal-Wallis test showed a head’s passive/avoidant
leadership did not significantly affect a school’s organizational performance, H (1) =
1.799, p = .180. A school’s organizational performance with a head who was less
passive/avoidant (M = 3.99) was a little better than with a head who was more
passive/avoidant (M = 3.77). The measurement of a school’s organizational
performance was insensitive to a head’s passive/avoidant leadership. The null
hypothesis was retained.
Fourth Hypothesis Test
Using SPSS, a Kruskal-Wallis test showed a principal’s job satisfaction
significantly affected a school’s organizational performance, H (1) = 17.444, p =
.000030. A school’s organizational performance with a principal with lower job
satisfaction (M = 3.44) was worse than with a principal with higher job satisfaction
(M = 4.13). Therefore, the measurement of a school’s organizational performance
was sensitive to a principal’s job satisfaction. The null hypothesis was rejected.
Fifth Hypothesis Test
The relationship between a head’s transformational leadership and a school’s
organizational performance was not significant (see first hypothesis test), making
mediation by a principal’s job satisfaction unlikely. The null hypothesis was
retained.
Sixth Hypothesis Test
The relationship between a head’s transactional leadership and a school’s
organizational performance was not significant (see second hypothesis test), making
70
mediation by a principal’s job satisfaction unlikely. The null hypothesis was
retained.
Seventh Hypothesis Test
The relationship between a head’s passive/avoidant leadership and a school’s
organizational performance was not significant (see third hypothesis test), making
mediation by a principal’s job satisfaction unlikely. The null hypothesis was
retained.
Outliers
There were several outliers in the dataset. First, although the majority of principals rated
their heads between 2.01 to 4.00 on transformational leadership (five subscales averaged); 16
(12%) rated their heads 2.00 or below. Second, although the majority of principals rated their
heads 2.00 or below on passive/avoidant leadership (two subscales averaged); nine (7%) rated
their heads between 2.01 and 4.00. Third, although the majority of principals scored between 13
and 24 on the job satisfaction scale; 12 principals (9%) scored 12 or below. Fourth, although the
majority of principals rated their schools between 2.51 to 5.00 on organizational performance
(seven statements averaged); 10 (8%) rated their heads 2.50 or below. There were no outliers in
the transactional leadership data. All outliers were included in the study as they still provided
valuable data. Outliers were included for two reasons. First, removing outliers would decrease
the sample size thus decreasing generalizability. Second, the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test
is a rank-based test and is thus quite insensitive to outliers.
Summary
Six of the seven hypotheses were retained; the hypothesis related to a principal’s job
satisfaction and a school’s organizational performance was the only rejected hypothesis. The
71
significance of these results are discussed in Chapter 5. Other observations from the study’s
quantitative data are also shared in Chapter 5 along with recommendations for future studies in
the international and internationalized school sector.
72
Chapter 5: Concluding the Study
This chapter summarizes the study. Ethical standards and limitations are discussed. An
overview of participants, sampling, and findings are included. Reflections, recommendations,
and suggestions for future research are also outlined in this chapter.
Summary of the Study
This quantitative study examined three variables in the context of international and
internationalized schools in China, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates. The independent
variable was the leadership styles of heads of schools. The mediating variable was the job
satisfaction of principals. The dependent variable was the organizational performance of
accredited schools. Schools needed to be accredited by one of seven international accreditation
agencies.
Over a period of four weeks, data was collected through an online survey. 145 principals
completed the survey resulting in a response rate of 77%. After data cleaning, 129 datasets were
used to analyze the relationships between the three variables. SPSS was used to run Kruskal-
Wallis tests.
Ethical Dimensions
This study adhered to strict ethical standards. First, survey instruments were used with
permission and/or purchased. For example, the researcher purchased a license to administer the
set of questions on leadership styles. Second, the researcher secured site permissions for each
school before sending the survey to principals. Third, each principal signed a consent form
before he or she began the survey. Fourth, confidentially was maintained as no participants or
schools were named in the study. Fifth, all data remained anonymous. Research bias was
73
bracketed by randomly selecting schools from which to seek site permissions. The data and
findings of this study reflect only the participants’ opinions and responses.
Overview of the Population and Sampling Method
The population, N = 872, was principals working at accredited international and
internationalized schools in either China, Hong Kong, or the United Arab Emirates. Only
accredited international schools were included in the study because accreditation adds a layer of
legitimacy to a school. China was chosen because it has the most international schools. The
United Arab Emirates was chosen because it has the most students enrolled in international
schools. Hong Kong was chosen because of its competitive relationship with China. For the
study, schools were randomly selected using a random sampling formula in Microsoft Excel.
Limitations
Several limitations were experienced while collecting data. First, due to the COVID-19
pandemic, obtaining site permissions was challenging. One head of school wrote, "We are still
short staffed with multiple new staff still waiting to get through the visa process or complete
quarantine. As a result, everyone on campus - especially school leaders are working long hours
to make up the shortfall. During this time, we have agreed to a complete moratorium on any
additional workload or initiatives. As such, we are unable to participate on this occasion."
Another head wrote, “I wish you every success in getting enough people to complete this survey.
Unfortunately, I will need to decline this time as it really is a particularly challenging year given
the circumstances of the pandemic.” The pandemic may have also influenced the job satisfaction
results. Principals are facing workload challenges due to the pandemic, and some may be feeling
stuck in their current role as international mobility has be drastically reduced.
74
The study was conducted primarily during the month of October, which is near the
beginning of the school year. The beginning (and end) of a school year can be overwhelming for
school leaders. Although the researcher deliberately waited a few weeks after the start of the
school year, some heads of school communicated they did not want to add anything else to their
principal’s workload and therefore did not give permission for principals to complete the survey.
Another limitation to the study is that only a few principals in Hong Kong completed the survey.
Only four schools in Hong Kong gave permission for the study.
First year principals may not have had an accurate understanding of their school’s
organizational performance or the leadership style of their head of school. For heads of school in
their first year as head, principals may have not had enough time and experience with the head to
accurately assess his or her leadership behaviors. In the organizational performance section of
the survey, participants may have understood the term, “similar schools” differently. For
example, one participant wrote, “I've just completed the survey. My only concern was how to
define ‘similar’ schools. I interpreted that to mean schools of similar demographic (more truly
international) and their quality (Tier II maybe). I wasn't sure whether I should also think about
schools in China, so I tried to think about schools in the SE Asia region generally.” Another
limitation was unusable survey responses. Of the 145 survey completions, 16 needed to be
eliminated for reasons noted in Chapter 4’s data collection section.
Findings
Research Question 1
There was no relationship between a head’s transformational leadership and a school’s
organizational performance. A head’s transformational leadership did not significantly affect a
school’s organizational performance. A school’s organizational performance with a head who
75
was less transformational was about the same as one who was more transformational. However,
a school’s organizational performance was slightly better with a more transformational leader
(M = 3.95) than a more transactional leader (M = 3.90).
This finding is contrary to findings within the transformational leadership and
organizational performance literature. Al Khajeh (2018) found transformational leadership is
positively related with organizational performance. Arif and Akram (2018) accepted their
hypothesis that transformational leadership positively effects organizational performance.
García-Morales et al. (2012) also discovered that transformational leadership positively
influences organizational performance. This study’s finding that a head’s transformational
leadership did not significantly affect a school’s organizational performance may be due to the
sample size; some of the transformational leadership and organizational performance categories
used in the Kruskal-Wallis test may have had too few responses. Also, including the outliers may
have been problematic and should not have been included in the testing.
The literature points to a positive relationship between transformational leadership and
organizational performance (Al Khajeh, 2018; Arif & Akram, 2018; García-Morales et al.,
2012). In the international and internationalized school sector, the leadership style of divisional
principals, instead of the head of school, may show a relationship to the school’s organizational
performance. Divisional principals, instead of heads of school, are more involved in the day-to-
day operations of the school. For example, they interact more with teachers and parents so their
leadership style may show a relationship to aspects of organizational performance such as the
ability to retain teachers and parent satisfaction. Liu and Bellibas (2018) describe divisional
principals as “an indispensable ingredient for school success” (p. 15). Hariri et al. (2016) found
that the leadership of divisional principals leads to the “largest unique contribution to teacher job
76
satisfaction” (p. 52). Cansoy (2019) discovered that the leadership behaviors of principals were
positively and considerably related to teacher job satisfaction.
The meaning of this finding could be interpreted in two ways. First, the sample size and
inclusion of outliers may have resulted in the non-significant finding. Second, the leadership
style of the divisional principal, instead of the head of school, should be measured.
Research Question 2
There was no relationship between a head’s transactional leadership and a school’s
organizational performance. A head’s transactional leadership did not significantly affect a
school’s organizational performance. A school’s organizational performance with a head who
was less transactional was the same as one who was more transactional. Therefore, whether a
head was more transactional or less transactional does not affect a school’s organizational
performance.
This finding is contrary to findings within the transactional leadership and organizational
performance literature. Al Khajeh (2018) found that transactional leadership is negatively related
with organizational performance. Hariri (2020) found in their study in the context of East Asia
that transformational leadership and transactional leadership is positively and significantly
related to organizational performance. This study’s finding that a head’s transactional leadership
did not significantly affect a school’s organizational performance may be due to the sample size;
some of the transactional leadership and organizational performance categories used in the
Kruskal-Wallis test may have had too few responses. Also, including the outliers may have been
problematic and should not have been included in the testing.
The literature points to a relationship between transactional leadership and
organizational performance. In the international and internationalized school sector, the
77
leadership style of divisional principals, instead of the head of school, may show a relationship to
the school’s organizational performance. Divisional principals, instead of heads of school, are
more involved in the day-to-day operations of the school. For example, they interact more with
teachers and parents so their leadership style may show a relationship to aspects of
organizational performance such as the ability to retain teachers and parent satisfaction. Liu and
Bellibas (2018) describe divisional principals as “an indispensable ingredient for school success”
(p. 15). Hariri et al. (2016) found that the leadership of divisional principals leads to the “largest
unique contribution to teacher job satisfaction” (p. 52). Cansoy (2019) discovered that the
leadership behaviors of principals were positively and considerably related to teacher job
satisfaction.
The meaning of this finding could be interpreted in two ways. First, the sample size and
inclusion of outliers may have resulted in the non-significant finding. Second, the leadership
style of the divisional principal, instead of the head of school, should be measured.
Research Question 3
There was no relationship between a head’s passive/avoidant leadership and a school’s
organizational performance. A head’s passive/avoidant leadership did not significantly affect a
school’s organizational performance. A school’s organizational performance with a head who
was less passive/avoidant was a little better than with a head who was more passive/avoidant.
This finding is contrary to findings within the passive/avoidant leadership and
organizational performance literature. Xenikou (2017) found that both components of
passive/avoidant leadership (laissez-faire leadership and passive management-by-exception) are
negatively related with effectiveness and satisfaction. Hariri et al. (2016) discovered that laissez-
faire leadership decreased teacher job satisfaction. This study’s finding that a head’s
78
passive/avoidant leadership did not significantly affect a school’s organizational performance
may be due to the sample size; some of the passive/avoidant leadership and organizational
performance categories used in the Kruskal-Wallis test may have had too few responses. Also,
including the outliers may have been problematic and should not have been included in the
testing.
The literature points to a negative relationship between passive/avoidant leadership and
organizational performance. In the international and internationalized school sector, the
leadership style of divisional principals, instead of the head of school, may show a relationship to
the school’s organizational performance. Divisional principals, instead of heads of school, are
more involved in the day-to-day operations of the school. For example, they interact more with
teachers and parents so their leadership style may show a relationship to aspects of
organizational performance such as the ability to retain teachers and parent satisfaction. Liu and
Bellibas (2018) describe divisional principals as “an indispensable ingredient for school success”
(p. 15). Hariri et al. (2016) found that the leadership of divisional principals leads to the “largest
unique contribution to teacher job satisfaction” (p. 52). Cansoy (2019) discovered that the
leadership behaviors of principals were positively and considerably related to teacher job
satisfaction.
The meaning of this finding could be interpreted in two ways. First, the sample size and
inclusion of outliers may have resulted in the non-significant finding. Second, the leadership
style of the divisional principal, instead of the head of school, should be measured.
Research Question 4
There was a relationship between a principal’s job satisfaction and a school’s
organizational performance. A principal’s job satisfaction significantly affects a school’s
79
organizational performance. A school’s organizational performance with a principal with lower
job satisfaction was worse than with a principal with higher job satisfaction.
This finding matches findings within the job satisfaction and organizational performance
literature. Miah (2018) found a strong and positive relationship between job satisfaction and
organizational performance. Bakotić (2016) also found a positive association between job
satisfaction and organizational performance. Onyebu and Omotayo (2017) discovered a positive
relationship between employee job satisfaction and organizational performance.
The literature points to a relationship between job satisfaction and organizational
performance. In the international and internationalized school sector, the attitudes and actions of
divisional principals, instead of the head of school, may be more related to the school’s
organizational performance. Liu and Bellibas (2018) describe divisional principals as “an
indispensable ingredient for school success” (p. 15).
The meaning of this finding could be interpreted in two ways. First, the job satisfaction of
divisional principals is related to organizational performance and should be prioritized by school
boards and owners. Second, in this study’s conceptual framework (see Figure B3), the job
satisfaction of divisional principals should be changed from a mediating variable to an
independent variable.
Research Question 5
The relationship between a head’s transformational leadership and a school’s
organizational performance was not mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction. The relationship
between a head’s transformational leadership and a school’s organizational performance was not
significant, making mediation by a principal’s job satisfaction unlikely.
80
In the literature, job satisfaction is studied as a mediating variable between a different
independent variable and organizational performance. Al-dalahmeh et al. (2018) and Abu Khalaf
et al. (2019) studied the mediation effect of job satisfaction between employee engagement and
organizational performance. Kanyurhi and Bugandwa Mungu Akonkwa (2016) studied the
mediating role of job satisfaction between internal marketing and organizational performance.
Instead of leadership styles being the independent variable, this study could have used
independent variables such as employee engagement and internal marketing.
This finding was contrary to the study’s conceptual framework (see Figure B3). Instead
of job satisfaction being studied as a mediating variable, it could be studied as an independent
variable. In practice, schools should focus on the role of divisional principals and their influence
on the school’s organizational performance. Liu and Bellibas (2018) describe divisional
principals as “an indispensable ingredient for school success” (p. 15).
The meaning of this finding could be interpreted in two ways. First, the sample size and
inclusion of outliers may have resulted in the non-significant finding. Second, a different
independent variable could be used to test the mediation effect of the principal’s job satisfaction.
Research Question 6
The relationship between a head’s transactional leadership and a school’s organizational
performance was not mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction. The relationship between a
head’s transactional leadership and a school’s organizational performance was not significant,
making mediation by a principal’s job satisfaction unlikely.
In the literature, job satisfaction is studied as a mediating variable between a different
independent variable and organizational performance. Al-dalahmeh et al. (2018) and Abu Khalaf
et al. (2019) studied the mediation effect of job satisfaction between employee engagement and
81
organizational performance. Kanyurhi and Bugandwa Mungu Akonkwa (2016) studied the
mediating role of job satisfaction between internal marketing and organizational performance.
Instead of leadership styles being the independent variable, this study could have used
independent variables such as employee engagement and internal marketing.
This finding was contrary to the study’s conceptual framework (see Figure B3). Instead
of job satisfaction being studied as a mediating variable, it could be studied as an independent
variable. In practice, schools should focus on the role of divisional principals and their influence
on the school’s organizational performance. Liu and Bellibas (2018) describe divisional
principals as “an indispensable ingredient for school success” (p. 15).
The meaning of this finding could be interpreted in two ways. First, the sample size and
inclusion of outliers may have resulted in the non-significant finding. Second, a different
independent variable could be used to test the mediation effect of the principal’s job satisfaction.
Research Question 7
The relationship between a head’s passive/avoidant leadership and a school’s
organizational performance was not mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction. The relationship
between a head’s passive/avoidant leadership and a school’s organizational performance was not
significant, making mediation by a principal’s job satisfaction unlikely.
In the literature, job satisfaction is studied as a mediating variable between a different
independent variable and organizational performance. Al-dalahmeh et al. (2018) and Abu Khalaf
et al. (2019) studied the mediation effect of job satisfaction between employee engagement and
organizational performance. Kanyurhi and Bugandwa Mungu Akonkwa (2016) studied the
mediating role of job satisfaction between internal marketing and organizational performance.
82
Instead of leadership styles being the independent variable, this study could have used
independent variables such as employee engagement and internal marketing.
This finding was contrary to the study’s conceptual framework (see Figure B3). Instead
of job satisfaction being studied as a mediating variable, it could be studied as an independent
variable. In practice, schools should focus on the role of divisional principals and their influence
on the school’s organizational performance. Liu and Bellibas (2018) describe divisional
principals as “an indispensable ingredient for school success” (p. 15).
The meaning of this finding could be interpreted in two ways. First, the sample size and
inclusion of outliers may have resulted in the non-significant finding. Second, a different
independent variable could be used to test the mediation effect of the principal’s job satisfaction.
Reflection
The literature pointed to a positive association between transformational leadership and
organizational performance. However, within the international and internationalized school
sector in China, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates, there was no relationship between
transformational leadership and organizational performance. However, there was a relationship
between a principal’s job satisfaction and a school’s organizational performance. To improve a
school’s organizational performance, more attention should be given to the job satisfaction of
principals than to having leaders with specific leadership styles.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1
Contrary to the literature, there was no relationship between a head’s transformational
leadership and a school’s organizational performance; the literature points to a positive
relationship between transformational leadership and organizational performance. Instead of
83
measuring the leadership style of the head of school, researchers and practitioners could measure
the leadership style of divisional principals because divisional principals are more involved in
the day-to-day operations of the school. Teachers could rate their divisional principal’s
leadership style using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Testing issues can also be
addressed by increasing the sample size, so the transformational leadership and organizational
performance categories used in the Kruskal-Wallis test have more responses. Also, with the
increased sample size, outliers could be excluded in the testing.
The problem this study addressed was the need to assess the organizational performance
of the growing number of international schools. School leaders and owners should continue to
annually assess the organizational performance of their schools so their schools can continue to
compete and create sustainable competitive advantage. The study also examined variables that
may be related to organizational performance. Instead of measuring transformational leadership,
other leadership styles such as distributed leadership could be measured to determine whether
other leadership styles are related to organizational performance. A new research question could
be “What is the relationship between a divisional principal’s distributed leadership and a
school’s organizational performance?” The finding and recommendation for research question 1
can be shared at a conference for international school leaders such as the East Asia Regional
Council of Schools leadership conference or published in a research journal such as the Journal
of Research in International Education.
Recommendation 2
Contrary to the literature, there was no relationship between a head’s transactional
leadership and a school’s organizational performance; the literature points to a negative
relationship between transactional leadership and organizational performance. Instead of
84
measuring the leadership style of the head of school, researchers and practitioners could measure
the leadership style of divisional principals because divisional principals are more involved in
the day-to-day operations of the school. Teachers could rate their divisional principal’s
leadership style using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Testing issues can also be
addressed by increasing the sample size, so the transactional leadership and organizational
performance categories used in the Kruskal-Wallis test have more responses. Also, with the
increased sample size, outliers could be excluded in the testing.
The problem this study addressed was the need to assess the organizational performance
of the growing number of international schools. School leaders and owners should continue to
annually assess the organizational performance of their schools so their schools can continue to
compete and create sustainable competitive advantage. The study also examined variables that
may be related to organizational performance. Instead of measuring transactional leadership,
other leadership styles such as distributed leadership could be measured to determine whether
other leadership styles are related to organizational performance. A new research question could
be “What is the relationship between a divisional principal’s distributed leadership and a
school’s organizational performance?” The finding and recommendation for research question 2
can be shared at a conference for international school leaders such as the East Asia Regional
Council of Schools leadership conference or published in a research journal such as the Journal
of Research in International Education.
Recommendation 3
Contrary to the literature, there was no relationship between a head’s passive/avoidant
leadership and a school’s organizational performance; the literature points to a negative
relationship between passive/avoidant leadership and organizational performance. Instead of
85
measuring the leadership style of the head of school, researchers and practitioners could measure
the leadership style of divisional principals because divisional principals are more involved in
the day-to-day operations of the school. Teachers could rate their divisional principal’s
leadership style using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Testing issues can also be
addressed by increasing the sample size, so the passive/avoidant leadership and organizational
performance categories used in the Kruskal-Wallis test have more responses. Also, with the
increased sample size, outliers could be excluded in the testing. Of the three leadership styles
under study, passive/avoidant leadership had the largest negative effect on a school’s
organizational performance. School leaders should avoid passive/avoidant leadership behaviors
such as taking corrective action only when problems are serious. They should develop
transformational leadership behaviors such as providing employees with a clear sense of purpose
if they wish to change their school’s organizational performance.
The problem this study addressed was the need to assess the organizational performance
of the growing number of international schools. School leaders and owners should continue to
annually assess the organizational performance of their schools so their schools can continue to
compete and create sustainable competitive advantage. The study also examined variables that
may be related to organizational performance. Instead of measuring passive/avoidant leadership,
other leadership styles such as distributed leadership could be measured to determine whether
other leadership styles are related to organizational performance. A new research question could
be “What is the relationship between a divisional principal’s distributed leadership and a
school’s organizational performance?” The finding and recommendation for research question 3
can be shared at a conference for international school leaders such as the East Asia Regional
86
Council of Schools leadership conference or published in a research journal such as the Journal
of Research in International Education.
Recommendation 4
The meaning of this finding could be interpreted in two ways. First, the job satisfaction of
divisional principals is related to organizational performance and should be prioritized by school
boards and owners. This finding matches findings within the job satisfaction and organizational
performance literature; there is a strong and positive relationship between job satisfaction and
organizational performance.
The problem this study addressed was the need to assess the organizational performance
of the growing number of international schools. School leaders and owners should continue to
annually assess the organizational performance of their schools so their schools can continue to
compete and create sustainable competitive advantage. The study also examined variables that
may be related to organizational performance. Instead of measuring the job satisfaction of
divisional principals, the job satisfaction of teachers could be measured to determine whether the
job satisfaction of teachers is related to organizational performance. A new research question
could be “What is the relationship between a teacher’s job satisfaction and a school’s
organizational performance?” The finding and recommendation for research question 4 can be
shared at a conference for international school leaders such as the East Asia Regional Council of
Schools leadership conference or published in a research journal such as the Journal of Research
in International Education.
Second, in this study’s conceptual framework (see Figure B3), the job satisfaction of
divisional principals should be changed from a mediating variable to an independent variable.
Contrary to the literature, job satisfaction did not mediate the relationship between leadership
87
styles and organizational performance. Job satisfaction was related to organizational
performance.
The problem this study addressed was the need to assess the organizational performance
of the growing number of international schools. School leaders and owners should continue to
annually assess the organizational performance of their schools so their schools can continue to
compete and create sustainable competitive advantage. The measurement of organizational
performance should go beyond academic performance metrics and should include metrics related
to parent satisfaction, retention of teachers and leaders, etc. School boards and owners should
pay greater attention to the job satisfaction of their principals than the leadership styles of their
head of school. Heads of school should also seek to promote and maintain high levels of job
satisfaction among their principals. The finding and recommendation for research question 4 can
be shared at a conference for international school leaders such as the East Asia Regional Council
of Schools leadership conference or published in a research journal such as the Journal of
Research in International Education.
Recommendation 5
First, this finding was contrary to the study’s conceptual framework. The relationship
between a head’s transformational leadership and a school’s organizational performance was not
mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction. Second, a different independent variable could be used
to test the mediation effect of the principal’s job satisfaction. For example, the mediation effect
of a principal’s job satisfaction between his or her employee engagement and the school’s
organizational performance could be tested.
The problem this study addressed was the need to assess the organizational performance
of the growing number of international schools. School leaders and owners should continue to
88
annually assess the organizational performance of their schools so their schools can continue to
compete and create sustainable competitive advantage. In addition to variables that may be
related to organizational performance, the study examined a variable that may mediate the
relationship between leadership styles and organizational performance. If the independent
variable is changed to a different leadership style such as distributed leadership, a new research
question could be “If there is a relationship between a head of school’s distributed leadership and
a school’s organizational performance, is the relationship mediated by a principal’s job
satisfaction?” The finding and recommendation for research question 5 can be shared at a
conference for international school leaders such as the East Asia Regional Council of Schools
leadership conference or published in a research journal such as the Journal of Research in
International Education.
Recommendation 6
First, this finding was contrary to the study’s conceptual framework. The relationship
between a head’s transactional leadership and a school’s organizational performance was not
mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction. Second, a different independent variable could be used
to test the mediation effect of the principal’s job satisfaction. For example, the mediation effect
of a principal’s job satisfaction between his or her employee engagement and the school’s
organizational performance could be tested.
The problem this study addressed was the need to assess the organizational performance
of the growing number of international schools. School leaders and owners should continue to
annually assess the organizational performance of their schools so their schools can continue to
compete and create sustainable competitive advantage. In addition to variables that may be
related to organizational performance, the study examined a variable that may mediate the
89
relationship between leadership styles and organizational performance. If the independent
variable is changed to a different leadership style such as distributed leadership, a new research
question could be “If there is a relationship between a head of school’s distributed leadership and
a school’s organizational performance, is the relationship mediated by a principal’s job
satisfaction?” The finding and recommendation for research question 6 can be shared at a
conference for international school leaders such as the East Asia Regional Council of Schools
leadership conference or published in a research journal such as the Journal of Research in
International Education.
Recommendation 7
First, this finding was contrary to the study’s conceptual framework. The relationship
between a head’s passive/avoidant leadership and a school’s organizational performance was not
mediated by a principal’s job satisfaction. Second, a different independent variable could be used
to test the mediation effect of the principal’s job satisfaction. For example, the mediation effect
of a principal’s job satisfaction between his or her employee engagement and the school’s
organizational performance could be tested.
The problem this study addressed was the need to assess the organizational performance
of the growing number of international schools. School leaders and owners should continue to
annually assess the organizational performance of their schools so their schools can continue to
compete and create sustainable competitive advantage. In addition to variables that may be
related to organizational performance, the study examined a variable that may mediate the
relationship between leadership styles and organizational performance. If the independent
variable is changed to a different leadership style such as distributed leadership, a new research
question could be “If there is a relationship between a head of school’s distributed leadership and
90
a school’s organizational performance, is the relationship mediated by a principal’s job
satisfaction?” The finding and recommendation for research question 7 can be shared at a
conference for international school leaders such as the East Asia Regional Council of Schools
leadership conference or published in a research journal such as the Journal of Research in
International Education.
Suggestions for Future Research
Although there was a warm reception to this study, characterized by statements such as “I
hope you publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal,” “It seems to me that this information
will be valuable,” and “I look forward to reading your findings,” the study can be improved and
built upon with future research. Future research could use a different leadership style as the
independent variable. A research question could be, “What is the relationship between a head of
school’s distributed/servant/instructional leadership style and a school’s organizational
performance? Using a different leadership style, a future research question could be, “If there is a
relationship between a head of school’s distributed/servant/instructional leadership and a
school’s organizational performance, is the relationship mediated by a principal’s job
satisfaction? Future research could use different job satisfaction scales such as the Job
Satisfaction Survey (JSS) or Job Descriptive Index (JDI).
The study could be conducted in a non-pandemic school year to determine if the
pandemic had any effects on the results. The study could be conducted in March or April of a
school year so new principals have a better understanding of their school’s organizational
performance and their head’s leadership style. The study could be conducted in countries beyond
China, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates. For example, a future study’s population
could be all accredited international and internationalized schools in East Asia.
91
A qualitative study could be designed where heads of school are interviewed regarding
their leadership styles, perceptions regarding the job satisfaction of their principals, and their
perceptions of the organizational performance of their school. Heads could describe how they
improve organizational performance. For example, they can describe what they do to improve
parent satisfaction and how they improve relations between employees.
Concluding the Study
This quantitative study examined the relationships between leadership styles, job
satisfaction, and organizational performance within the international and internationalized school
sector in China, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates. Based on the study’s theoretical and
conceptual framework, relationships were expected between leadership styles, job satisfaction,
and organizational performance. However, there were no relationships between the three
leadership styles under study and organizational performance. This result was surprising. As an
international school principal, I expected a significant relationship between transformational
leadership and organizational performance. There was however a relationship between the job
satisfaction of the principal and organizational performance. As a school principal myself, this
result matched my experiences within international schools. Chapter 5 concludes this study.
92
References
Abouraia, M. K., & Othman, S. M. (2017). Transformational leadership, job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and turnover intentions: The direct effects among bank
representatives. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 7(4),
404-423. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2017.74029
Abu Khalaf, R. K., Hmoud, H. Y., & Beidat, B. (2019). Reviewing the mediating role of job
satisfaction on the effect of employee engagement on organizational performance.
Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.25255/jss.2019.8.1.7.23
Adams, D., & Velarde, J. M. (2020). Leadership in a culturally diverse environment:
Perspectives from international school leaders in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, 41(2), 323-335. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1732295
Akoglu, H. (2018). User's guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish Journal of Emergency
Medicine, 18(3), 91-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001
Al-dalahmeh, M., Masa’deh, R., Abu Khalaf, R. K., & Obeidat, B. Y. (2018). The effect of
employee engagement on organizational performance via the mediating role of job
satisfaction: The case of IT employees in Jordanian banking sector. Modern Applied
Science, 12(6), 17-43. https://doi.org/10.5539/mas.v12n6p17
Al Khajeh, E. H. (2018). Impact of leadership styles on organizational performance. Journal of
Human Resources Management Research, 2018, 1-10. doi: 10.5171/2018.687849
Alatailat, M., Elrehail, H., & Emeagwali, O. L. (2019). High performance work practices,
organizational performance and strategic thinking. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 27(3), 370-395. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa-10-2017-1260
93
Ali, W. (2016). Understanding the concept of job satisfaction, measurements, theories and its
significance in the recent organizational environment: A theoretical framework. Archives
of Business Research, 4(1), 100-111. https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.41.1735
Ali, Z., & Bhaskar, S. B. (2016). Basic statistical tools in research and data analysis. Indian
Journal of Anaesthesia, 60(9), 662-669. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.190623
Albalooshi, A. M., Al-Ansi, A. A., & Ali, A. B. (2017). The effect of job satisfaction, job
loyalty, team and management performance, rewards and recognition on profitability of
Islamic and conventional banks: Evidence from UAE. International Business
Management, 11(13), 729-737. https://medwelljournals.com/journalhome.php?jid=1993-
5250
Almatrooshi, B., Singh, S. K., & Farouk, S. (2016). Determinants of organizational performance:
A proposed framework. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 65(6), 844-859. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-02-2016-0038
Alqatawenah, A. S. (2018). Transformational leadership style and its relationship with change
management. Business: Theory and Practice, 19, 17-24.
https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2018.03
Alrowwad, A., Obeidat, B. Y., Tarhini, A., & Aqqad, N. (2017). The impact of transformational
leadership on organizational performance via the mediating role of corporate social
responsibility: A structural equation modeling approach. International Business
Research, 10(1), 199-221. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v10n1p199
Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2016). Intellectual failure and ideological success in
organization studies. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(2), 139-152.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492615589974
94
Andersen, J. A. (2018). Servant leadership and transformational leadership: From comparisons to
farewells. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(6), 762-774.
https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-01-2018-0053
Andreeva, T., & Garanina, T. (2016). Do all elements of intellectual capital matter for
organizational performance? Evidence from Russian context. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 17(2), 397-412. https://doi.org/10.1108/jic-07-2015-0062
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor
leadership questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261-295.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(03)00030-4
Apuke, O. D. (2017). Quantitative research methods : A synopsis approach. Kuwait Chapter of
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 6(10), 40-47.
https://doi.org/10.12816/0040336
Arif, S., & Akram, A. (2018). Transformational leadership and organizational performance.
SEISENSE Journal of Management, 1(3), 59-75. https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v1i3.28
Avolio, B. J. & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Manual and sample
set. (3rd ed.) Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462.
https://doi.org/10.1348/096317999166789
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking
the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and
95
behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801-823.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.003
Aydogmus, C., Metin Camgoz, S., Ergeneli, A., & Tayfur Ekmekci, O. (2016). Perceptions of
transformational leadership and job satisfaction: The roles of personality traits and
psychological empowerment. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(1), 81-107.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.59
Bailey, L., & Gibson, M. T. (2019). International school principals: Routes to headship and key
challenges of their role. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(6),
1007-1025. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219884686
Bakotić, D. (2016). Relationship between job satisfaction and organisational performance.
Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 29(1), 118-130.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677x.2016.1163946
Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. E. (2016). A meta-analytic review
of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The Leadership
Quarterly, 27(4), 634-652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006
Barker, M. R. (2020). Job satisfaction: A quantitative study of active IB MYP coordinators in
international schools (Order No. 27832538). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global. (2394822778). Retrieved from
http://proxy1.calsouthern.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.proxy1.calsouthern.edu/dissertations-theses/job-satisfaction-quantitative-study-
active-ib-myp/docview/2394822778/se-2?accountid=35183
96
Baškarada, S., Watson, J., & Cromarty, J. (2017). Balancing transactional and transformational
leadership. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 25(3), 506-515.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa-02-2016-0978
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-
2616(90)90061-s
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.52.2.130
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398410
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational
leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. Research in
Organizational Change and Development, 4, 231–272.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(2), 207-218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207
Beck, L. (2020, February 6). Catalysing a culture of continuous change: Transformational
leadership. Human Capital Leadership Institute.
https://www.hcli.org/articles/catalysing-culture-continuous-change-transformational-
leadership-0
97
Berkovich, I. (2016). School leaders and transformational leadership theory: Time to part ways?
Journal of Educational Administration, 54(5), 609-622. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-11-
2015-0100
Bittencourt, T., & Willetts, A. (2018). Negotiating the tensions: A critical study of international
schools’ mission statements. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 16(4), 515-525.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2018.1512047
Brodke, M. R., Sliter, M. T., Balzer, W. K., Gillespie, J. Z., Gillespie, M. A., Gopalkrishman, P.,
Lake, C. J., Oyer, B., Withrow, S., & Yamkelevich, M. (2009). The Job Descriptive
Index and Job in General 2009 Revision Quick Reference Guide. Bowling Green State
University.
Buil, I., Martínez, E., & Matute, J. (2019). Transformational leadership and employee
performance: The role of identification, engagement and proactive personality.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 64-75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.014
Bunnell, T. (2016). Teachers in international schools: A global educational ‘precariat’?
Globalisation, Societies and Education, 14(4), 543-559.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2015.1068163
Bunnell, T. (2018). Social media comment on leaders in international schools: The causes of
negative comments and the implications for leadership practices. Peabody Journal of
Education, 93(5), 551-564. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.2018.1515815
Bunnell, T. (2019a). Developing and institutionalising the ‘internationally-minded school’: The
role of the ‘Numerous Fs’. Journal of Research in International Education, 18(2),
186-198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240919865792
98
Bunnell, T. (2019b). Leadership of ‘messy, tense international schools’: The potential scope for a
fresh, positive lens of inquiry. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1-
13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1690708
Bunnell, T., Courtois, A., & Donnelly, M. (2020). British elite private schools and their overseas
branches: Unexpected actors in the global education industry. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2020.1728227
Bunnell, T., Fertig, M., & James, C. (2016). What is international about international schools?
An institutional legitimacy perspective. Oxford Review of Education, 42(4), 408-423.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2016.1195735
Burg-Brown, S. A. (2016). The relationship between leadership styles and organizational
performance moderated by employee job satisfaction in United States government
agencies (10240572) [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest.
Burks, K. (2020). International school leaders: Finding success through distributed leadership
practices. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 56(2), 52-54.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2020.1729625
Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Çakmak, E., Öztekin, Ö., & Karadağ, E. (2015). The effect of Leadership on job satisfaction.
Leadership and Organizational Outcomes, 29-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
14908-0_3
Calnin, G., Waterson, M., Richards, S., & Fisher, D. (2018). Developing leaders for international
baccalaureate world schools. Journal of Research in International Education, 17(2),
99-115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240918790703
99
Cansoy, R. (2019). The relationship between school principals’ leadership behaviours and
teachers’ job satisfaction: A systematic review. International Education Studies, 12(1),
37-52. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v12n1p37
Chaubey, A., Sahoo, C. K., & Khatri, N. (2019). Relationship of transformational leadership
with employee creativity and organizational innovation. Journal of Strategy and
Management, 12(1), 61-82. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsma-07-2018-0075
Choi, S. L., Goh, C. F., Adam, M. B., & Tan, O. K. (2016). Transformational leadership,
empowerment, and job satisfaction: The mediating role of employee empowerment.
Human Resources for Health, 14, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-016-0171-2
Cravens, X. (2018). School leadership in international schools: Perspectives and practices.
Peabody Journal of Education, 93(5), 584-588.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.2018.1515818
Crede, M., Jong, J., & Harms, P. (2019). The generalizability of transformational leadership
across cultures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(3), 139-155.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-11-2018-0506
Crucke, S., & Decramer, A. (2016). The development of a measurement instrument for the
organizational performance of social enterprises. Sustainability, 8(2).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020161
Cruz, N., & Glass, C. R. (2020). Re-imagining the collegiate ideal: An exploration of the higher
education motivations and self-formation of students from international schools [Poster
session]. College of Education & Professional Studies, Old Dominion University,
Virginia. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/gradposters2020_education/1
100
Curcio, L. (2018). District office leadership practices' impact on principal job satisfaction
(Order No. 10810177). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(2068573286). Retrieved from http://proxy1.calsouthern.edu/login?url=https://www-
proquest-com.proxy1.calsouthern.edu/docview/2068573286?accountid=35183
Curtis, E. A., Comiskey, C., & Dempsey, O. (2016). Importance and use of correlational
research. Nurse Researcher, 23(6), 20-25. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2016.e1382
Dean, V. D. (2020). An examination of the relationship between principal leadership styles and
teacher turnover rates (Order No. 28002197). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global. (2443587391). Retrieved from
http://proxy1.calsouthern.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.proxy1.calsouthern.edu/docview/2443587391?accountid=35183
Deschamps, C., Rinfret, N., Lagacé, M. C., & Privé, C. (2016). Transformational leadership and
change: How leaders influence their followers’ motivation through organizational justice.
Journal of Healthcare Management, 61(3), 194-213. https://doi.org/10.1097/00115514-
201605000-00007
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices
on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4),
949-969. https://doi.org/10.5465/256718
Dickel, D. G., & Moura, G. L. (2016). Organizational performance evaluation in intangible
criteria: A model based on knowledge management and innovation management. RAI
Revista de Administração e Inovação, 13(3), 211-220.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rai.2016.06.005
101
Dos Santos, L. M. (2019). Bilingual English education: Expectation of parents who enrol their
children in bilingual primary schools. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 747-
766. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12448a
Dou, D., Devos, G., & Valcke, M. (2017). The relationships between school autonomy gap,
principal leadership, teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(6), 959-977.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216653975
Ebrahimi, P., Moosavi, S. M., & Chirani, E. (2016). Relationship between leadership styles and
organizational performance by considering innovation in manufacturing companies of
Guilan province. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 230, 351-358.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.09.044
EBSCO. (2020). California Southern University Library. https://www.calsouthern.edu/.
Retrieved July 16, 2020, from
https://proxy1.calsouthern.edu/login?url=search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&b
query=TI+%26quot%3binternational+schools%26quot%3b&cli0=RV&clv0=Y&cli1=D
T1&clv1=201001-201912&type=1&searchMode=And&site=eds-live&scope=site
Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., Van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant
leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly,
30(1), 111-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004
Farouk, S., Abu Elanain, H. M., Obeidat, S. M., & Al-Nahyan, M. (2016). HRM practices and
organizational performance in the UAE banking sector. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 65(6), 773-791.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-01-2016-0010
102
Finanda Yogi Dwi, L. (2018). The influence of employee job satisfaction and service quality on
profitability in PT. Bank Jatim: Customer satisfaction as the intervening variable. Russian
Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences, 74(2).
https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2018-02.18
García-Morales, V. J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012).
Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through
organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 1040-1050.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.03.005
Gardner-McTaggart, A. (2018). International schools: Leadership reviewed. Journal of Research
in International Education, 17(2), 148-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240918793955
Hambali, M., & Idris. (2020). Transformational leadership, organizational culture, quality
assurance, and organizational performance: Case study in Islamic higher education
institutions. Journal of Applied Management, 18(3), 572-587.
https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jam.2020.018.03.18
Hansbrough, T. K., & Schyns, B. (2018). The appeal of transformational leadership. Journal of
Leadership Studies, 12(3), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21571
Hariri, H. (2020). Leadership in a school context: How leadership styles are associated with
leadership outcomes. International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and
Management, 2(2), 159-170. https://doi.org/10.35912/ijfam.v2i2.236
Hariri, H., Monypenny, R., & Prideaux, M. (2016). Teacher-perceived principal leadership
styles, decision-making styles and job satisfaction: How congruent are data from
Indonesia with the Anglophile and Western literature? School Leadership &
Management, 36(1), 41-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1160210
103
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695-
702. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.4.695
Hayden, M., & Thompson, J. (1995). International schools and international education: A
relationship reviewed. Oxford Review of Education, 21(3), 327-345.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498950210306
Herciu, M., & Șerban, R. A. (2018). Measuring firm performance: Testing a proposed model.
Studies in Business and Economics, 13(2), 103-114. https://doi.org/10.2478/sbe-2018-
0023
Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2016). Do ethical, authentic, and
servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A
meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501-529.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316665461
Hodge, M. C. (2020). Transformational leadership among superintendents and its role in
principal job satisfaction (Order No. 27740437). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses Global. (2391982944). Retrieved from
http://proxy1.calsouthern.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.proxy1.calsouthern.edu/docview/2391982944?accountid=35183
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.891
104
Howling, S. E. (2017). Learning, becoming, leading : The experiences of international school
principals (Order No. 27922721). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global. (2371755468). Retrieved from
http://proxy1.calsouthern.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.proxy1.calsouthern.edu/docview/2371755468?accountid=35183
Hussinki, H., Ritala, P., Vanhala, M., & Kianto, A. (2017). Intellectual capital, knowledge
management practices and firm performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(4), 904-
922. https://doi.org/10.1108/jic-11-2016-0116
International Organization for Migration. (2020). International students. Migration Data
Portal. Retrieved July 10, 2020, from
https://migrationdataportal.org/themes/international-students
ISC Research. (2019a). Education in China: How demand and supply is changing.
https://www.iscresearch.com/news-and-events/isc-news/isc-news-
details/~post/education-in-china-how-demand-and-supply-is-changing-20190329
ISC Research. (2019b). Sample pages of Hong Kong International School Market Intelligence
Report 2019-2020. https://www.iscresearch.com/services/market-intelligence-
report/hong-kong-mir
ISC Research. (2019c). UAE market intelligence report 2018-2019.
https://www.iscresearch.com/services/market-intelligence-report/uae-mir
ISC Research. (2020). Sample pages of China International School Market Intelligence Report
2020. https://www.iscresearch.com/services/market-intelligence-report/china-mir
ISC Research. (n.d.). Who we are. https://www.iscresearch.com/about-us/who-we-are
105
İşcan, Ö. F., Ersarı, G., & Naktiyok, A. (2014). Effect of leadership style on perceived
organizational performance and innovation: The role of transformational leadership
beyond the impact of transactional leadership – An application among Turkish SME's.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 881-889.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.097
James, C., & Sheppard, P. (2014). The governing of international schools: The implications of
ownership and profit motive. School Leadership & Management, 34(1), 2-20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2013.813457
Jeenanunta, C., Rittippant, N., Chongphaisal, P., Machikita, T., Ueki, Y., & Tsuji, M. (2018).
Examining the role of top management leadership style on transportation efficiency and
profitability of logistics firms. Songklanakarin Journal of Science & Technology, 40(6),
1306-1314. http://www.sjst.psu.ac.th/
Jing, F. F., & Avery, G. C. (2016). Missing links in understanding the relationship between
leadership and organizational performance. International Business & Economics
Research Journal (IBER), 15(3), 107-118. https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v15i3.9675
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2019). Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of
researching in organizations. Australian Journal of Management, 45(1), 3-14.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219871976
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-
analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
106
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers' cultural orientation
on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management
Journal, 42(2), 208-218. https://doi.org/10.2307/257093
Kanyurhi, E. B., & Bugandwa Mungu Akonkwa, D. (2016). Internal marketing, employee job
satisfaction, and perceived organizational performance in microfinance institutions.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 34(5), 773-796.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijbm-06-2015-0083
Kartika, G., & Purba, D. E. (2018). Job satisfaction and turnover intention: The mediating effect
of affective commitment. Psychological Research on Urban Society, 1(2), 100-106.
https://doi.org/10.7454/proust.v1i2.34
Keller, D. (2015). Leadership of international schools: Understanding and managing dualities.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(6), 900-917.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214543201
Keung, E. K. (2011). What factors of cultural intelligence predict transformational leadership: A
study of international school leaders (Order No. 3468229). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (887707937). Retrieved from
http://proxy1.calsouthern.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.proxy1.calsouthern.edu/docview/887707937?accountid=35183
Khalil, L. (2019). International schooling: a sociocultural study (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southampton).
Kong, L., Woods, O., & Zhu, H. (2020). The (de)territorialised appeal of international schools in
China: Forging brands, boundaries and inter-belonging in segregated urban space. Urban
Studies, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020954143
107
Koohang, A., Paliszkiewicz, J., & Goluchowski, J. (2017). The impact of leadership on trust,
knowledge management, and organizational performance. Industrial Management &
Data Systems, 117(3), 521-537. https://doi.org/10.1108/imds-02-2016-0072
Langridge, C. (2016). An exploration into the effect of leadership behaviour of principals on
school culture in selected international schools in South East Asia (Order No. 10595353).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1896366264). Retrieved from
http://proxy1.calsouthern.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.proxy1.calsouthern.edu/docview/1896366264?accountid=35183
Lee, R., Lee, J., & Garrett, T. C. (2019). Synergy effects of innovation on firm
performance. Journal of Business Research, 99, 507-515.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.032
Lee, M., & Walker, A. (2018). School leadership in international schools: Perspectives and
practices. Peabody Journal of Education, 93(5), 465-467.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.2018.1515828
Lee, M., & Wright, E. (2016). Moving from elite international schools to the world’s elite
universities. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development,
18(2), 120-136. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijced-01-2016-0002
Lehman, C. (2020). Teaching assistants in international schools: Perceptions and perspectives.
Beyond Words, 8(1), 47-59. https://doi.org/10.33508/bw.v8i1.2145
Li, Y. (2020). A Review of Empirical Research on Transformational School Leadership in China
(2010–2019). ECNU Review of Education, 1-29.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120942242
108
Li, J., Furst-Holloway, S., Gales, L., Masterson, S. S., & Blume, B. D. (2017). Not all
transformational leadership behaviors are equal: The impact of followers’ identification
with leader and modernity on taking charge. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 24(3), 318-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051816683894
Li, L., & Liu, Y. (2020). An integrated model of principal transformational leadership and
teacher leadership that is related to teacher self-efficacy and student academic
performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1806036
Litz, D., & Scott, S. (2016). Transformational leadership in the educational system of the United
Arab Emirates. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(4), 566-
587. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216636112
Liu, P. (2018). Transformational leadership research in China (2005–2015). Chinese Education
& Society, 51(5), 372-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611932.2018.1510690
Liu, Y., & Bellibas, M. S. (2018). School factors that are related to school principals’ job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. International Journal of Educational
Research, 90, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.04.002
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Rand McNally.
Lord, R. G., Day, D. V., Zaccaro, S. J., Avolio, B. J., & Eagly, A. H. (2017). Leadership in
applied psychology: Three waves of theory and research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 102(3), 434-451. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000089
109
Machin, D. (2017). The great Asian international school gold rush: An economic analysis.
Journal of Research in International Education, 16(2), 131-146.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240917722276
Machin, D. (2019). The organisational evolution of contemporary international schools. Journal
of Research in International Education, 18(2), 109-124.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240919865033
Mancuso, S. V., Roberts, L., & White, G. P. (2010). Teacher retention in international schools:
The key role of school leadership. Journal of Research in International Education, 9(3),
306-323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240910388928
Manistitya, M., & Fongsuwan, W. (2015). Human resource management, job satisfaction and
employee commitment affecting information technology staff turnover intention: A
structural equation model. Research Journal of Business Management, 9(1), 157-172.
https://doi.org/10.3923/rjbm.2015.157.172
Megheirkouni, M., Amaugo, A., & Jallo, S. (2018). Transformational and transactional
leadership and skills approach. International Journal of Public Leadership, 14(4),
245-259. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpl-06-2018-0029
Meneghella, K., Walsh, J., & Sawagvudcharee, O. (2019). Strategies to maximise staff retention
among millennial teachers in Bangkok international schools. Asian Social Science,
15(8), 70-85. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v15n8p70
Miah, M. M. (2018). The impact of employee job satisfaction toward organizational
performance: A study of private sector employees in Kuching, East Malaysia.
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications (IJSRP), 8(12), 270-278.
https://doi.org/10.29322/ijsrp.8.12.2018.p8437
110
Morrison, A. R. (2018). Beyond the status quo – setting the agenda for effective change: The role
of leader within an international school environment. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 46(3), 511-529.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216682500
Muterera, J., Hemsworth, D., Baregheh, A., & Garcia-Rivera, B. R. (2016). The leader–follower
dyad: The link between leader and follower perceptions of transformational leadership
and its impact on job satisfaction and organizational performance. International Public
Management Journal, 21(1), 131-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2015.1106993
Netto, M. A. (2020). Analyzing teachers' perceptions on principal effectiveness through
leadership style, gender, and educational level of a school building [Doctoral
dissertation]. https://scholar.stjohns.edu/theses_dissertations/84/
Niessen, C., Mäder, I., Stride, C., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2017). Thriving when exhausted: The role
of perceived transformational leadership. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 103, 41-51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.012
Njie, B., & Asimiran, S. (2018). A review of the philosophy of international education in an
international school setting. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 8(3),
25-32. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-0803022532
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Onyebu, C. M., & Omotayo, O. A. (2017). Employee job satisfaction and organizational
performance: An insight from selected hotels in Lagos Nigeria. Arabian Journal of
Business and Management Review, 6(10), 48-59. https://doi.org/10.12816/0039071
111
Orabi, T. G. (2016). The impact of transformational leadership style on organizational
performance: Evidence from Jordan. International Journal of Human Resource Studies,
6(2), 89-102. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v6i2.9427
Palsha, Z. S. (2017). International school director turnover as influenced by school
Board/Director relationship (Order No. 10622131). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (1953315711). Retrieved from
http://proxy1.calsouthern.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.proxy1.calsouthern.edu/docview/1953315711?accountid=35183
Pang, K., & Lu, C. (2018). Organizational motivation, employee job satisfaction and
organizational performance. Maritime Business Review, 3(1), 36-52.
https://doi.org/10.1108/mabr-03-2018-0007
Para-González, L., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Martínez-Lorente, A. R. (2018). Exploring the
mediating effects between transformational leadership and organizational performance.
Employee Relations, 40(2), 412-432. https://doi.org/10.1108/er-10-2016-0190
Poole, A., & Bunnell, T. (2020). Developing the notion of teaching in ‘International schools’ as
precarious: Towards a more nuanced approach based upon ‘transition capital’.
Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2020.1816924
Queirós, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and
quantitative research methods. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(9), 369-386.
http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.1017
112
Rajapathirana, R. J., & Hui, Y. (2018). Relationship between innovation capability, innovation
type, and firm performance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 3(1), 44-55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2017.06.002
Raziq, M. M., Borini, F. M., Malik, O. F., Ahmad, M., & Shabaz, M. (2018). Leadership styles,
goal clarity, and project success. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
39(2), 309-323. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-07-2017-0212
Roberts, L., & Mancuso, S. V. (2014). What kind of international school leaders are in demand
around the world? A test of differences by region and stability over time. Journal of
Research in International Education, 13(2), 91-105.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240914532214
Rodriguez, R. A., Green, M. T., Sun, Y., & Baggerly-Hinojosa, B. (2017). Authentic leadership
and transformational leadership: An incremental approach. Journal of Leadership
Studies, 11(1), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21501
Russell, S. S., Spitzmüller, C., Lin, L. F., Stanton, J. M., Smith, P. C., & Ironson, G. H. (2004).
Shorter can also be better: The abridged job in general scale. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 64(5), 878-893. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404264841
Saleem, H. (2015). The impact of leadership styles on job satisfaction and mediating role of
perceived organizational politics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 563-
569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.403
Schippling, A. (2018). Researching international schools: Challenges for comparative
educational research. Revista LUsófona de Educação, (41), 193-204.
https://doi.org/10.24140/issn.1645-7250.rle41.12
113
Sealy, K. M., Perry, S. M., & DeNicola, T. C. (2016). Relationships and predictors of principal
job satisfaction across multiple countries: A study using TALIS 2013 and PISA 2012.
SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2717056
Selvam, M., Gayathri, J., Vasanth, V., Lingaraja, K., & Marxiaoli, S. (2016). Determinants of
firm performance: A subjective model. International Journal of Social Science Studies,
4(7), 90-100. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v4i7.1662
Sethibe, T., & Steyn, R. (2016). Innovation and organisational performance: A critical review of
the instruments used to measure organisational performance. The Southern African
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 8(1), 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.4102/sajesbm.v8i1.50
Shaikh, S. H., Shaikh, H., & Shaikh, S. (2019). The impact of job satisfaction and job
dissatisfaction on Herzberg theory: A case study of Meezan bank limited and National
Bank Limited. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 10(6), 143-
147. https://doi.org/10.30845/ijbss.v10n6p16
Shanker, R., Bhanugopan, R., Van der Heijden, B. I., & Farrell, M. (2017). Organizational
climate for innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of
innovative work behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 67-77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.02.004
Shen, H. J., Basri, R., & Asimiran, S. (2018). Relationship between job stress and job
satisfaction among teachers in private and international school in Malaysia. International
Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(12), 276-286.
https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v8-i12/5012
114
Singh, H., Saufi, R. A., Tasnim, R., & Hussin, M. (2017). The relationship between employee
job satisfaction, perceived customer satisfaction, service quality, and profitability in
luxury hotels in Kuala Lumpur. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 10(1), 26-
39. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2017/v10i1/109101
Singh, S., Darwish, T. K., & Potočnik, K. (2016). Measuring organizational performance: A case
for subjective measures. British Journal of Management, 27(1), 214-224.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12126
Singh, S. K., Gupta, S., Busso, D., & Kamboj, S. (2019). Top management knowledge value,
knowledge sharing practices, open innovation and organizational performance. Journal
of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.040
Sondakh, O., Christiananta, B., & Ellitan, L. (2017). Measuring organizational performance: A
case study of food industry SMEs in Surabaya-Indonesia. International Journal of
Scientific Research and Management, 5(12), 7681-7689.
https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v5i12.15
Sow, M., Murphy, J., & Osuoha, R. (2017). The relationship between leadership style,
organizational culture, and job satisfaction in the U.S. healthcare industry. Management
and Economics Research Journal, 3, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.18639/merj.2017.03.403737
Strukan, E., Nikolić, M., & Sefić, S. (2017). Impact of transformational leadership on business
performance. Tehnicki vjesnik - Technical Gazette, 24, 435-444.
https://doi.org/10.17559/tv-20150624082830
Sun, J., Chen, X., & Zhang, S. (2017). A review of research evidence on the antecedents of
transformational leadership. Education Sciences, 7(1), 1-27.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7010015
115
Susilo, D. (2018). Transformational leadership: A style of motivating employees. Management
and Economics Journal, 2(2), 109-115. https://doi.org/10.18860/mec-j.v0i1.5222
Sutresna, W., & Wijayanti, W. (2020). Relationship between principal transformational
leadership and teacher performance: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Education
Studies, 7(9). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v7i9.3273
Taherdoost, H. (2016). Validity and reliability of the research instrument: How to test the
validation of a questionnaire/survey in research. International Journal of Academic
Research in Management, 5(3), 28-36. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3205040
Tang, K. N. (2019). Leadership Styles and Organizational Effectiveness. SpringerBriefs in
Business, 11–25. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-8902-3_2
Taouab, O., & Issor, Z. (2019). Firm performance: Definition and measurement models.
European Scientific Journal, 15(1), 93-106. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2019.v15n1p93
Ting, W. (2019). International school director tenure: An evaluation study (Order No.
27804809). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2403069630).
Retrieved from http://proxy1.calsouthern.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.proxy1.calsouthern.edu/docview/2403069630?accountid=35183
Torlak, N. G., & Kuzey, C. (2019). Leadership, job satisfaction and performance links in private
education institutes of Pakistan. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 68(2), 276-295. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-05-2018-0182
Tosunoglu, H., & Ekmekci, O. T. (2016). Laissez-faire leaders and organizations: How does
laissez-faire leader erode the trust in organizations. Journal of Economics, Finance and
Accounting, 3(1), 89-89. https://doi.org/10.17261/pressacademia.2016116538
116
UNESCO. (2020). UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Retrieved July 10, 2020, from
https://data.uis.unesco.org/
United World Colleges. (2020). What is UWC? UWC. https://www.uwc.org/about
Usman, M., Ali, M., Yousaf, Z., Anwar, F., Waqas, M., & Khan, M. A. (2020). The relationship
between laissez-faire leadership and burnout: Mediation through work alienation and the
moderating role of political skill. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1568
Vann, J. C. (2017). Relationships between job satisfaction, supervisor support, and profitability
among quick service industry employees [Doctoral dissertation].
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3372/
Velarde, J. M., & Ghani, M. F. (2019). International school leadership in Malaysia: Exploring
teachers’ perspectives on leading in a culturally diverse environment. Malaysian Online
Journal of Educational Management, 7(2), 27-45.
https://doi.org/10.22452/mojem/vol7no2.2
Vij, S., & Bedi, H. S. (2016). Are subjective business performance measures justified?
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(5), 603-
621. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-12-2014-0196
Virgiawan, A. R., & Riyanto, S. (2020). Improving employee performance through
implementing transformational leadership style, organizational culture improvement and
work motivation. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology,
5(7), 498-504. https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt20jul423
117
Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1988). Adding to leader-follower
transactions: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership.
https://doi.org/10.21236/ada204115
Watts, D. S., & Richardson, J. W. (2020). Leveraging professional development to build
professional capital in international schools in Asia. Journal of Professional Capital and
Community, 5(2), 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpcc-09-2019-0025
Xenikou, A. (2017). Transformational leadership, transactional contingent reward, and
organizational identification: The mediating effect of perceived innovation and goal
culture orientations. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01754
Xie, Y., Xue, W., Li, L., Wang, A., Chen, Y., Zheng, Q., Wang, Y., & Li, X. (2018). Leadership
style and innovation atmosphere in enterprises: An empirical study. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 135, 257-265.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.05.017
Yaghoobi, T., & Haddadi, F. (2016). Organizational performance measurement by a framework
integrating BSC and AHP. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 65(7), 959-976. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-01-2015-0001
Yoshihara, K. F. (2018). Teacher satisfaction and staff morale in international schools [Doctoral
dissertation]. https://dune.une.edu/theses/203/
Young, N. A. (2017). Departing from the beaten path: International schools in China as a
response to discrimination and academic failure in the Chinese educational system.
Comparative Education, 54(2), 159-180.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2017.1360566
118
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(99)00013-2
119
Appendix A: Tables
120
Table A1
Nine Leadership Factors
Transformational Leadership
Transactional
Leadership
Passive/Avoidant
Leadership
Factor 1
Idealized Influence (Attitudes)
Factor 6
Contingent Reward
Factor 8
Management-by-Exception
(Passive)
Factor 2
Idealized Influence (Behaviors)
Factor 7
Management-by-Exception
(Active)
Factor 9
Laissez-Faire
Factor 3
Inspirational Motivation
Factor 4
Intellectual Stimulation
Factor 5
Individualized Consideration
Note. Adapted from Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed., p. 167) by P.G. Northouse, 2016,
SAGE. Copyright 2016 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Table A2
Job Titles of Participants: Percentages
Percent
Deputy head of school
2.3
Principal
55.0
Vice principal
42.6
121
Table A3
Participant’s Number of Years in Current Role: Percentages
Percent
1st
20.2
2nd
24.0
3rd
11.6
4th
7.8
5th
9.3
6th
6.2
7th
5.4
8th
.8
9th
1.6
10th or more
12.4
122
Table A4
Head of School’s Number of Years in Current Role at Current School: Percentages
Percent
1st
18.6
2nd
17.8
3rd
18.6
4th
13.2
5th
7.8
6th
3.1
7th
4.7
8th
3.1
9th
.8
10th or more
11.6
Table A5
Accreditation of Schools: Percentages
Percent
AdvancED / Cognia
27.2
BSO - British Schools Overseas
4.9
CIS - Council of International Schools
18.5
COBIS - Council of British International Schools
4.3
MSA - Middle States Association
6.8
NEASC - New England Association of Schools and Colleges
7.4
WASC - Western Association of Schools and Colleges
30.9
123
Appendix B: Figures
124
Figure B1
Published Research Pieces Related to International Schools
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 2010-2019
Number of Research Pieces
Decades
EBSCO and ProQuest databases (Peer reviewed)
ERIC
Google Scholar
125
Figure B2
Leadership Continuum from Transformational to Laissez-Faire Leadership
Note. Reproduced from Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed., p. 166) by P.G. Northouse,
2016, SAGE. Copyright 2016 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Transformational
Leadership
Transactional
Leadership
Laissez-Faire
Leadership
126
Figure B3
Research Problem
Independent
variable
Head of school's
leadership style
(TFL, TAS, PAL) Mediating
variable
Principal's job
satisfaction
Dependent variable
Organizational
performance
127
Figure B4
International School Industry Timeline
Note. This figure was created using information from the following sources: “International
schooling: A sociocultural study,” by L. Khalil, 2019, doctoral dissertation, University of
Southampton; “Teaching assistants in international schools: Perceptions and perspectives,” by C.
Lehman, 2020, Beyond Words, 8(1), p. 47-59 (https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000553); and
“Leveraging professional development to build professional capital in international schools in
Asia,” by D.S. Watts, and J.W. Richardson, 2020, Journal of Professional Capital and
Community, 5(2), p. 167-182 (https://doi.org/10.1108/jpcc-09-2019-0025).
1866
London
College of the
Int ernat ional
Educat ion
So c iety
1924,
Int ernat ional
School of
Geneva
1951
Int ernat ional
School
As so ciat ion
(ISA)
1965
Co un cil o f
Int ernat ional
Scho ols (CIS)
1968
Int ernat ional
Baccalaureat e
Organizat ion
(IBO), East
As ia R egio na l
Co un cil o f
Schools
(EARCOS),
Western
As so ciat ion
of Schools
and Co lleges
(WASC)
begins
acc redting
inte rna ti ona l
sc hoo ls in
East Asia
1988
Federation
of British
International
Schools in
Asia
(FOBISIA)
1994
International
School
Consultancy
(ISC)
1995
Around
1,000
inte rna ti ona l
schools
worldwide
2020
Over 11,000
inte rna ti ona l
schools
worldwide
128
129
Figure B5
Job Titles of Participants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Deputy head of school Principal Vice principal
Frequency
Job Titles of Participants
130
Figure B6
Participant’s Number of Years in Current Role
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th or
more
Frequency
Participant's Number of Years in Current Role
131
Figure B7
Head of School’s Number of Years in Current Role at Current School
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th or
more
Frequency
Head of School's Number of Years in Current Role at Current School
132
Figure B8
Accreditation of Schools
AdvancED / Cognia
BSO - British Schools Overseas
CIS - Council of International Schools
COBIS - Council of British International
Schools
MSA - Mid dle States Association
NEASC - New England Association of
Schools and Colleges
WASC - Western Association of Schools
and Colleges
133
Figure B9
”Quality of Services or Programs” Response Distribution
134
Figure B10
”Development of New Services or Programs” Response Distribution
135
Figure B11
”Ability to Attract Teachers and School Leaders” Response Distribution
136
Figure B12
”Ability to Retain Teachers and School Leaders” Response Distribution
137
Figure B13
”Satisfaction of Parents” Response Distribution
138
Figure B14
”Relations between Management and Other Employees” Response Distribution
139
Figure B15
”Relations among Employees in General” Response Distribution
140
Appendix C: Instruments
141
Demographical questions
About me
My job title is (select the title below that best describes your role):
Note: The "head of school" is sometimes referred to as the School Director, Superintendent, etc.
Leader who reports directly to the board or owner of the school (If this best describes your
role, will you please also forward the link to this survey to the principals who report to
you? Thank you.)
Assistant/vice/deputy principal (or equivalent), reporting to a principal who in turn reports
to the head of school
Early childhood/kindergarten principal, reporting directly to the head of school
Lower primary school principal, reporting directly to the head of school
Upper primary school principal, reporting directly to the head of school
Primary school principal/head of primary, reporting directly to the head of school
Middle school/junior high school principal, reporting directly to the head of school
High school principal/head of high school, reporting directly to the head of school
Secondary school principal/head of secondary, reporting directly to the head of school
Other: ______________
This is my ___ year in my current role at my current school (Drop-down menu with choices such
as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th. . . 10th or more).
About my head of school (Sometimes referred to as School Director, Superintendent, etc.):
This is his or her ___ year as head of school at this school (Drop-down menu with choices such
as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th. . . 10th or more).
About my school
My school is located in the following country or special administrative region (SAR). Please
type the name of the country or SAR below.
My school is a candidate for OR is currently accredited by (Choose all that apply):
142
AdvancED / Cognia
BSO - British Schools Overseas
CIS - Council of International Schools
COBIS - Council of British International Schools
MSA - Middle States Association
NEASC - New England Association of Schools and Colleges
WASC - Western Association of Schools and Colleges
Other: ______________
My school is a (Participant selects best option):
For-profit school
Not-for-profit school
Other: ______________
My school is best described as
An international school
An internationalized local school
The international division within a local school
A local public school
A local private school
Other: ______________
- - - - -
Leadership style
Leader being rated: Head of School (Sometimes referred to as School Director, Superintendent,
etc.)
143
This questionnaire is used to describe the leadership style of the above-mentioned individual as
you perceive it. Please try to answer all statements. If a statement is irrelevant, or if you are
unsure or do not know the answer, leave the answer blank.
Thirty-six descriptive statements are listed on the following pages. Judge how frequently each
statement fits the person you are describing. Use the following rating scale:
0 = Not at all
1 = Once in a while
2 = Sometimes
3 = Fairly often
4 = Frequently, if not always
As per MLQ policy, only a sample of six of the 36 questions are included below.
5. Avoids getting involved when important issues arise.
12. Waits for things to go wrong before taking action.
16. Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved.
18. Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group.
22. Concentrates his or her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints, and failures.
29. Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others.
- - - - -
Job satisfaction
Think of your job in general. All in all, what is it like most of the time? Besides each word or
phrase, select:
“Yes” if it describes your job
“No” if it does not describe it
“?” if you cannot decide
__ Good
__ Undesirable
__ Better than most
144
__ Disagreeable
__ Makes me content
__ Excellent
__ Enjoyable
__ Poor
- - - - -
Organizational performance
How would you compare your school’s performance over the past 3 years to that of similar
schools? What about. . .
Quality of services or programs?
Development of new services or programs?
Ability to attract teachers and school leaders?
Ability to retain teachers and school leaders?
Satisfaction of parents?
Relations between management and other employees?
Relations among employees in general?
- - - - -
Final question before clicking the “Submit” button:
Would you like to receive the findings of this research study? If yes, please enter your email
address below. Your email address will remain confidential.
- - - - -
Message after clicking the “Submit” button:
Thank you for completing the survey. I appreciate the time you spent working on each section. I
hope that after analyzing the data, the research will make a meaningful contribution to the
international school community. Cheers, Wayne
145
Appendix D: Consent Form
146
Consent Form
You are being asked to take part in a research study being conducted by Wayne Russell under the
supervision of Dr. Catherine Cameron. The title of the study is:
Head of School’s Leadership Style, Principal’s Job Satisfaction, and International School’s
Organizational Performance
Before agreeing to participate in the study, the investigator must explain: (a) the purpose of the
study; (b) the study’s procedures and duration; (c) any potential and foreseeable risks; (d) any
potential discomforts and benefits of participating in the research; (e) whether any
steps/activities incurred during participating are experimental; and (e) how confidentiality and
privacy will be maintained.
The purpose of this study is to assess the organizational performance of accredited international
schools. The leadership style of the heads of international schools and the job satisfaction of
principals who report directly to these heads will also be measured. Whether or not there are any
relationships between the above-mentioned constructs will be determined.
The survey will take approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete. During the survey, you will
be asked general demographical questions about yourself, your head of school, and your school,
followed by questions about your head of school’s leadership style, your job satisfaction, and
your school’s organizational performance.
All collected data will remain anonymous. No one will be able to identify participants; nor will
anyone be able to determine information about an individual participant. All collected data will
be securely stored on a computer and will remain in the personal possession of the researcher.
Personal data such as a participant’s name will be encoded by the researcher in such a way that
the data can be retrieved without directly revealing the identity of participants. Survey data will
be destroyed after five years.
There are no known risks if you decide to participate in this research study, nor are there any
costs for participating in the study. The information participants provide will help the
investigator understand how leadership styles and job satisfaction impact the organizational
performance of international schools. The information collected may not benefit you directly,
but what is learned from this study should provide general benefits to the international school
community.
Further, if you would like to learn about the results of this study, you may request a summary of
the results from the investigator at wayne.russell@my.calsouthern.edu.
Your participation in this survey is voluntary. Even if you decide to participate, you may
withdraw without penalty at any point during the survey. You may also choose not to answer
specific questions during the survey or ask to exclude portions of the survey from the study.
147
The California Southern University Institutional Review Board (IRB) has reviewed the request to
conduct this project and enlist up to 145 participants. If you have any concerns about your rights
in this study, please contact Dr. Brett Gordon of the California Southern University IRB at (954)
802-8147 or email brett.gordon@my.calsouthern.edu.
Participant Bill of Rights
As a participant, you have the following rights. These rights include, and are not limited to, the
following:
• the right to be informed of the purpose and nature of the study;
• the right to understand the procedures and processes involved with being a participant;
• the right to understand the potential risks of participating;
• the right to understand how participation may benefit stakeholders;
• the right to be informed regarding the voluntary nature of participation;
• the right to have information struck/removed from data collection;
• the right to withdraw from participation without prejudice;
• the right to print a copy of the electronically signed consent form;
• the right to freely participate without the intervention of force, fraud, bribery, extortion,
deceit, fear, or undue influence; and
• the right to consult with the IRB regarding any concerns.
Statement of Consent
I agree to participate in the study and to the use of my feedback/data as described above.
Further, I agree to print a copy of this consent form, for my records, if I deem appropriate.
[Type your name below. This will serve as your electronic signature.]
148
Appendix E: Site Permissions
149
Copied and redacted below is an example of an email thread between the researcher and a head
of school, seeking site permission to administer the survey.
From: David SHIRLEY <david_shirley@ssis.asia>
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2021 10:56 PM
To: Wayne Russell <Wayne.Russell@mycalsouthern.onmicrosoft.com>; Ramida DIN
<ramida_din@ssis.asia>; Steven GAYNOR <steven_gaynor@ssis.asia>
Subject: Re: Shanghai Singapore International School permission to conduct doctoral study
Dear Wayne,
Yes, you have approval to contact the Principals.
I copied them into this email.
Yours sincerely
David
David SHIRLEY, Head of School
Shanghai Singapore International School
+86 13161523170 https://www.ssis.asia
301 Zhujian Road, Minhang District, Shanghai, China 201106
中国上海市闵行区朱建路301号邮政编码201106
From: Wayne Russell <Wayne.Russell@mycalsouthern.onmicrosoft.com>
Sent: Sunday, 17 October 2021 3:40 AM
To: David SHIRLEY <david_shirley@ssis.asia>
Subject: Shanghai Singapore International School permission to conduct doctoral study
Hi, David.
I hope you are enjoying your new role at SSIS.
For my dissertation, I’m conducting a quantitative study with school principals and vice
principals in China. The variables in the study include leadership styles, job satisfaction, and
organizational performance. Data will be collected within the next six weeks through an online
survey. The survey will take between 10 and 15 minutes to complete. I'm attaching the IRB
approval, consent form, and survey instrument.
To ensure ethical research practices, my university requires site permissions for any studies
involving schools. Could you please reply back to this email if I have permission for your
principals and/or vice principals to complete an online survey?
If you have any questions or wonderings about the study, please let me know.
Have a great rest of your day, David.
Wayne
151
Appendix F: IRB Approvals
152
This study received IRB approval. The approval number is 290621-52696.
153
Appendix G: Permission to Use Questions in Delaney and Huselid’s Study
154
From: John Delaney <jdelaney@american.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 12:48 PM
To: Wayne Russell <Wayne.Russell@mycalsouthern.onmicrosoft.com>;
mark@markhuselid.com <mark@markhuselid.com>
Subject: RE: Permission to use organizational and market performance questions
Dear Wayne,
Thanks for your message. Because the items noted in our study were from the National
Organization Study, which was funded by the US government, I believe that the items are in the
public domain and you are welcome to use them. Good luck with your dissertation. Let me know
if you have questions.
Best,
John
From: Wayne Russell <Wayne.Russell@mycalsouthern.onmicrosoft.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 12:53 PM
To: John Delaney <jdelaney@american.edu>; mark@markhuselid.com
Subject: Permission to use organizational and market performance questions
Dear, Dr. Delaney and Dr. Huselid.
I'm working on my dissertation. My dependent variable is organizational performance. To
measure organizational performance, may I please use the questions related to perceived
organizational performance and perceived market performance in your 1996 study?
Have a good rest of your week.
Sincerely,
Wayne
California Southern University
155
Appendix H: MLQ Licenses
156
