Leadership behaviour kwazulu natal sally hobden

Gender & Behaviour, 10(2), December 2012
Copyright © Ife Center for Psychological Studies/Services, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
- 4883 -
The Leadership Behaviour of the School Principal: An
Exploratory Study in Five Special Schools in Kwazulu-Natal
Lingesperi Naidoo
Nithi Muthukrishna*
Sally Hobden
School of Education, University of KwaZulu-Natal,
Private Bag X03, Ashwood 3605. South Africa
Abstract
This study examined the leadership behaviour of the
school principal at five special schools in the province of
KwaZulu-Natal. A quantitative survey was conducted
involving 50 teachers (11 male; 39 female) across the five
schools. The Likert-scale survey questionnaire used in the
study comprised 37 items categorised along five
dimensions of leadership: collegial relationships;
communication of vision and goals; professional and
personal growth; shared decision making, and recognition
of professional skills and accomplishments. The data was
analyzed using multiple statistical procedures, including
mean point value, standard deviation, t-test of significance
and one-way-analysis of variance (ANOVA). The findings
revealed that there is limited evidence of the leadership
factors and characteristics examined in the study at the
five schools. There were interesting differences by gender
in responses of teachers on whether the key leadership
characteristics were displayed by their school principals.
The findings suggest a strong need for re-culturing of the
special schools in the direction of participatory and
transformative leadership styles and a sharing of power.
Key words: school leadership, gender, school principal,
special schools.
Introduction
* Corresponding author: Professor Nithi Muthukrishna, School of Education, University of
KwaZulu- Natal, Private Bag X03, Ashwood, 3605. South Africa. Email: muthukri@ukzn.ac.za

Gender & Behaviour, 10(2), 2012
- 4884 -
The impact of the leadership behaviour of the principal on a school‘s
ethos, culture and motivational climate are explicit and implicit in
research globally (for example, Barbour, Clifford, Corrigan-Halpern et
al., 2010; Grobler, Bisschoff & Beeka, 2012; Kocolowski, 2010; Rice,
2010). Internationally, effective schools research shows that good
principals influence a variety of school outcomes such as student
achievement, motivation of teachers, well-articulated school vision
and goals, effective allocation of resources, development of
organizational structures to support instruction and learning as well
as emotional well-being of staff (Davies, Hammomd, LaPointe &
Meyerson, 2005; Raihani, 2007; Rice, 2010). The role of the school
leader is complex and leadership varies from school to school. Many
scholars have argued that there is no one best way to lead as
leadership styles are linked to context, and there are often webs of
contextual influences operating (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006; Leech &
Fulton, 2008; Raihani, 2008).
There are many leadership models proposed in the literature, for
example, an autocratic style; a bureaucratic style, an invitational
leadership style, a charismatic style; participatory leadership, and a
transformational style (see for example, Kamper, 2008; Murphy,
2008; Swanepoel, 2008; Van der Mescht & Tyala, 2008). Drawing
largely on literature on participatory and transformational
leadership, researchers have proposed a core set of leadership
practices which are valuable in school contexts (Bass & Riggio, 2006;
Day, Simmons, Hopkins, et al., 2010; Dinham, 2004; Hallinger,
2011; Leithwood & Riehl, 2005; Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris &
Hopkins, 2006). Three key behaviours are found in this core set: (1)
developing consensus about goals and priorities which includes
building a shared vision and creating high performance expectations;
(2) developing people including offering intellectual stimulation,
providing support, and modelling important values and practices;
and (3) redesigning the organization which includes creating and
maintaining shared decision-making structures and processes;
building collaborative cultures, and building relationships with
parents and the wider community. A number of qualities essential for
effective leadership in schools are highlighted in the literature. The
most important of these are the creation of a climate so that teachers
can have opportunities to feel more adequate as professionals; see
greater significance, possibilities and responsibilities in their roles;
perceive the situation as one in which improvement is not only

Naidoo, L. et al.: Leadership Behaviour of the School Principal
- 4885 -
possible but highly valued, and feel that their contributions to the
achievement of organizational goals are recognised and valued.
There have been numerous empirical studies conducted
internationally that have investigated leadership practices in
schools, including the role of the school principal in creating
sustainable school environments (for example, Juma, Enose,
Simatwa & Ayodo, 2011; Bentley, 2011; Germaine & Quinn, 2006;
Kamper, 2008; Msila, 2012; Mestry & Singh, 2007; Zame, Hope &
Repress; 2008). However, the majority of studies reviewed were
undertaken in ordinary school settings. Very few studies explored
leadership practices in special school contexts. Naidoo (2012)
conducted a critical review of empirical studies on the leadership of
the school principal in the last decade undertaken in the African
context. Of the twenty four (24) studies identified, none investigated
the leadership of the school principal in the special school sector. The
study reported in this article aimed to address this gap and
investigated the issue of school leadership in five special school
settings.
Since 1994 when the new democratic government came into power,
South Africa has seen a precipitation of education legislation and
policies which without doubt has had an impact on school leadership
behaviour and practices. These include inter alia, the South African
Schools Act of 1996; Education White Paper 6: Building an Inclusive
Education and Training System (Department of Education, 2001);
Curriculum 2005 (Department of Education, 1997); the Revised
National Curriculum Statements (Department of Education, 2002),
and the National Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements -
Grades R-12 (Department of Education, 2011). In the area of special
education, in the last few years there have been various Education
White Paper 6 implementation strategy documents that have directly
impacted on special schools, for example, National Strategy on
Screening, Identification, Assessment and Support (SIAS) –
Operational Guidelines (Department of Education, 2008a); Guidelines
to Ensure Quality Education and Support in Special Schools and
Special School Resource Centres ((Department of Education, 2008b);
Conceptual and Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of
Inclusive Education: District Support Teams (Department of
Education, 2007), and Guidelines for Responding to Learner
Diversity in the Classroom through Curriculum and Assessment
Policy Statements (Department of Education, 2012). While all these

- 4886 -
policies initiatives foreground democracy, participatory decision
making, social justice, inclusivity and gender equity, policy changes
in the main have been a significant contributor to the low morale of
staff in schools (Oglesby, 2006). It has been suggested that new
initiatives emanating from the Department of Education have had an
adverse effect on the motivational climate in special schools (Eloff,
Irma & Kgwete, 2007; Pather, 2008). One of the reasons is that most
stakeholders in schools do not understand or poorly interpret the
philosophical change and the practical implications of policy change
(Timmons & Muthukrishna, 2007; Pather, 2008; Wilderman &
Nomdo, 2007).
Thus, in the context of changes in special school policies and
practices since 1994, the exploratory study reported in this article
focussed on nature of leadership provided by school principals in
special schools. The key research question was: What are teachers‘
experiences of the leadership behaviour of the school principal in the
context of their own special schools?
THE STUDY
Research context and sampling
This small scale exploratory study involved five special schools in the
Province of KwaZulu-Natal. From a population of 64 special schools
in KwaZulu-Natal, 5 special schools were chosen for the study
through a process that involved both convenience and purposive
sampling. Firstly, the intention was to ensure that a fair range of
disabilities was represented. Secondly, schools were chosen on the
basis of proximity and accessibility. Each of the 5 schools
represented a different disability: School A - school for the Deaf;
School B - school for the Blind; School C - a prevocational school for
children with learning difficulties; School D - a school for the
physically disabled (which also caters for learners with cerebral
palsy); and School E - a school that caters for learners who are
intellectually impaired. Ten teachers from five different special
schools were chosen randomly to participate in the study.
Data collection
The study comprised a survey design. Drawing on literature on
transformational leadership, a structured questionnaire, the
―Principal Leadership Behaviours Questionnaire‖ was developed as
the research instrument, and was completed by the sample of

- 4887 -
teachers. Part one of the questionnaire focussed on biographical
information. This information was vital in establishing the gender,
age, qualifications, number of completed years of teaching, post level
as well as the classification of the school (according to category of
disability). Part two comprised 37 items describing the school
principal‘s leadership behaviour to which teachers had to respond on
a three point Likert scale: agree, uncertain, disagree. Teachers had to
respond according to the extent to which the items applied to each
individual teacher‘s experience of his/her own school principal.
These 37 items could be categorised according to five leadership
factors/variables: shared decision making; collegial relationships;
communication of visions and goals, professional and personal
growth; and recognition of professional skills and accomplishments.
Cronbach‘s alpha coefficient reliability estimate for the whole scale
(37 items) was 0.959 indicating a high level of internal consistency. A
reliability coefficient of .70 or higher is considered acceptable in most
social science research situations (Miller & Neil, 2002). The scale
Collegial supportive relationships also displayed high levels of internal
consistency (.939). However, the other four scales displayed
marginal internal consistency: Recognition of Professional Skills and
Accomplishments = .512 (5 items); Shared Decision Making = .626 (6
items); Communication Goals and Visions = .688 (4 items). This may
be considered a limitation of this study. However, the decision made
to include the specific items and factors was based on an in-depth
study of the literature in the field of educational leadership.
Data analysis
The data was analyzed using multiple statistical procedures,
including the mean point value, standard deviation, t-test of
significance and one-way-analysis of variance (ANOVA). The SPSS
statistical package was used. Teachers were required to respond to
these key factors on a scale of 1 being agree, 2 being disagree and 3
being uncertain. In order to allow for more intuitive interpretation of
the data, the data was recoded to -1 disagree, 0 uncertain and +1
agree.
Ethical considerations
Participant and school anonymity was assured, and participation by
the teachers was voluntary. Informed consent was obtained from the
Department of Education, and each of the school principals. All five
school principals viewed the study as an important project, and

- 4888 -
indicated that the findings had the potential to feed into
transformative initiatives at the schools. To protect the identity of the
schools they will be referred to as: School A (School for the Deaf);
School B (School for the learners with Learning Difficulties); School C
(School for Physically Disabled); School D (School for the Blind), and
School E (School for the Intellectually Impaired).
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
Demographic characteristics of the teachers in the study
Table 1 presents the characteristics of the schools and the teachers.
Fifty teachers (11 male; 39 female) participated in the study.
Table 1: Selected Characteristics of the Teachers (n=50)
Characteristics Frequency Percentage
School and category of disability
School for the Deaf 10 20
Pre-vocational School for children with
learning Difficulties 10 20
School for the Physically Disabled 10 20
School for the Blind 10 20
School for the Intellectually Disabled 10 20
Gender
Male 11 22
Female 39 78

- 4889 -
Teacher perceptions about the leadership behaviours of the
school principal
The first part of the analysis examined the data by school. Table 2
and Figure 1 show that teacher ratings of their principals‘ leadership
behaviours in respect of the factors examined in the study were
rather low. In addition, teacher ratings differed markedly between
Schools A and C on the one hand, and School B; School D and
School E on the other hand. In Schools A and C more teachers
agreed that principals did use the specific leadership characteristics
targeted under the five dimensions (the scale being + 1.00: agree; 0
– uncertain; -1.00 - disagree). However, the mean scores in these two
schools were rather low. The highest mean scores were for the factor,
Recognition of Professional Skills and Accomplishments: School A (M
= 0, 48; SD = .63), and School C (M = 0, 58; SD = .54). These factors
were rated as more evident by teachers in these two schools than by
teachers in the other three schools. In School A the factor least
evident according to teacher ratings was Communicates Goals and
Teaching experience
0-5 Years 3 6
6-10 Years 5 10
11-15 Years 11 22
16-20 Years 13 26
More than 20 years 18 36
Post Level
1 41 82
2 7 14
3 2 4
Age
0-25 2 4
26-30 8 16
31-35 4 8
36-40 20 40
41-45 10 20
46-50 3 6
51-55 3 6

- 4890 -
Visions (M=0, 18; SD = .83), and in School C the factor was Shared
Decision Making (M=0, 18; SD = .76).
However, in School B, School D and School E the negative mean
scores indicate that, on average, the teachers disagreed with the
statements which describe good leadership by the principal. The
majority of the teachers in their ratings indicate that there is no
evidence of the five leadership factors in their principals‘ leadership
styles.
Across the three schools, the factors least evident was Collegial
Supportive Relationships: School B (M = -0, 46; SD = .17; School D (M
=-0, 62; SD = .19); School E (M = -.61; SD = .20), suggesting School D
had the lowest rating.
Table 2: Teacher perceptions of leadership characteristics by factor
and school Report
.2278 .1750 .3600 .3833 .4750
10 10 10 10 10
.66844 .83375 .63105 .62386 .63955
-.4611 -.2250 -.3800 -.1500 -.3000
10 10 10 10 10
.16779 .62860 .17512 .22839 .22973
.3667 .5500 .4600 .1833 .5750
10 10 10 10 10
.66316 .69522 .58916 .75951 .54070
-.6167 -.3500 -.1000 -.3667 -.4750
10 10 10 10 10
.19502 .21082 .14142 .25820 .24861
-.6111 -.4750 -.1200 -.3500 -.4750
10 10 10 10 10
.19598 .41583 .16865 .19954 .29930
-.2189 -.0650 .0440 -.0600 -.0400
50 50 50 50 50
.60696 .68848 .50352 .54478 .62344
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
School
School A
School B
School C
School D
School E
Total
Collegial
supportive
relationships
Communicates
goals & visions
Professional &
personal growth
Shared decision
making
Recognition of
professional skills
&
accomplishments

- 4891 -
Figure 1: Teacher perceptions of leadership behaviours by school
(N=50)
The mean scores give an indication of the overall opinions of the
teachers, but do however obscure the variations in the data. It is
helpful to consider the box and whisker plots shown in Figure 2
which indicate the diversity of opinion within a particular school.

4892
Figure 2: Box whisker graph showing teacher ratings of leadership behaviours of the school principal
by school (N=50)

4893
The data for School A and School D will be explained as examples.
The dark line within the box represents the median of the data so
that half the scores lie below this line, and half above. In School A,
on the scale Collegial supportive relationships, half the teachers at
that school scored above 0, 5 indicating moderate agreement that the
leadership characteristic or behaviour was present. However, the
lower ―whisker‖ descends to -0, 8 indicating that at least one of the
teachers approached disagreement that this leadership characteristic
was present.
In School D, on the same Collegial Supportive relationships scale, no
teacher reached a positive score indicating agreement that this
leadership characteristic was present. The two cases (48 and 41) that
come closest to agreement are indicated as outliers which mean that
their scores are markedly different to the other teachers in the
school. The small box and short whiskers indicate that the scores of
the teachers in that school are very close, in other words the teachers
concur in their disagreement of evidence of that leadership
characteristic.
Figure 2 enables one to examine the variations and other patterns in
the data. The table shows the spread of means for each factor in the
five data groups (schools) around their medians (50th percentile),
using a "box" and "whiskers" to break down each data group by
percentile. In Schools A in respect of the factor Recognition of
Professional Skills and Accomplishments, the median is reflected as 0,
5. This shows that 50% of average ratings (average scores on the
four items) were below 0,5, and in School C it is reflected as 0,8
(50% of the mean ratings of the four items were below 0,8 ). More
teachers in School C agreed that this factor was evident.
Teacher perceptions of leadership behaviour by post level,
gender, and experience
In this section the data are analysed according to the perceptions of
teachers by gender, post level and experience across the five schools.
When the data is disaggregated according to these categories
interesting patterns and trends emerge.
Teacher perceptions by post level
Table 3 and Figure 3 show that when the data is disaggregated by
post level, teachers at post levels 1 and 3 on average, disagreed on all
items and factors with respect to whether the related leadership

4894
characteristics were evident in their schools -the degree of
disagreement being most strong with level 3 teachers. At both these
levels the least evident factor was Collegial and Supportive
Relationships (Level 1, M = -.25, SD =.58; Level 3, M = -.58, SD = .61).
At post level 3 Communicates Goals and Visions (M = -.37, SD = .18);
and Recognition of Professional Skills and Accomplishments (M = -.38,
SD = .18) were also rated low by the majority of teachers.
Table 3: Teacher perceptions of leadership characteristics by post
level Report
-.2466 -.0671 .0293 -.1260 -.0854
41 41 41 41 41
.57401 .68013 .47867 .52146 .61900
.0635 .0357 .2000 .3810 .3214
7 7 7 7 7
.80917 .85912 .70238 .58305 .64087
-.6389 -.3750 -.2000 -.2500 -.3750
2 2 2 2 2
.03928 .17678 .00000 .11785 .17678
-.2189 -.0650 .0440 -.0600 -.0400
50 50 50 50 50
.60696 .68848 .50352 .54478 .62344
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Post level
1
2
3
Total
Collegial
supportive
relationships
Communicates
goals & visions
Professional &
personal growth
Shared decision
making
Recognition of
professional skills
&
accomplishments

- 4895 -
Figure 3: Teacher perceptions by post level.

- 4896 -
Although this data points to interesting trends, it must be
noted that a one way ANOVA reveals that none of the difference are
statistically significant at the 5% level. In other words, there is less
than 95% certainty that the differences in means can be attributed
to Post Level rather than the variations noted within the groups of
teachers at each post level.
It is interesting to note that Post level 3 teachers disagreed strongly
in the key area of collegial supportive relationships yet part of their
job responsibility is the creation of collegial supportive
relationships. However, a limiting factor in this analysis is that only
three participants in the study were at Post level 3. In the main
since 41 of the 50 participants were level 1 teachers. It seemed that
there is mean disagreement in all the key areas.
The positive mean scores for Post level 2 teachers indicated that two
key leadership characteristics were evident at their schools. Teachers
indicated that Shared Decision Making (M = .38, SD = .58) and
Recognition of Professional Skills and Accomplishments (M = .32, SD =
.64) were most evident.
Teacher perceptions by gender
Table 4 and Figure 4 reflect that there were differences by gender in
responses of teachers on whether the key leadership characteristics
were displayed by their school principals. Overall male teachers (n =
11) disagreed that any of the characteristics were evident in their
schools. The least evident characteristics were Collegial Supportive
Relationships (M = -.55, SD = .17) and Recognition of Professional
Skills and Accomplishments (M = -.41, SD = .23).
Overall the female teachers‘ ratings suggest that on average they felt
there was some evidence of four of the leadership characteristic at
their schools: Communicates Goals and Visions (M = .013, SD = .73 );
Professional and Personal Growth (M = .12, SD = .53); Shared
Decision Making (M = -.009, . SD = .60) and Recognition of
Professional Skills and Accomplishments (M = .06, SD = .66). Female
teachers did not believe that their principals displayed any of the
characteristics within the factor Collegial, Supportive Relationships (M
= -.12, SD = .65). These characteristics included: respects me as an
individual, listens to me attentively, reassures staff that they are
making a real contribution to the school and the child.

- 4897 -
Table 4: Teacher perceptions of leadership behaviours by genderReport
-.1268 .0128 .1231 -.0085 .0641
39 39 39 39 39
.65436 .72762 .53037 .59598 .66074
-.5455 -.3409 -.2364 -.2424 -.4091
11 11 11 11 11
.16633 .45101 .25009 .23995 .23110
-.2189 -.0650 .0440 -.0600 -.0400
50 50 50 50 50
.60696 .68848 .50352 .54478 .62344
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Gender
Female
Male
Total
Collegial
supportive
relationships
Communicates
goals & visions
Professional &
personal growth
Shared decision
making
Recognition of
professional skills
&
accomplishments

- 4898 -
Figure 4: Teacher perceptions of leadership behaviours by gender
An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the scores
on each leadership scale for males and females. There was no
significant difference in scores for males and females on the scales of
Communicates Goals and Visions and Shared Decision Making but
significant differences were found in the other three scales: Collegial
supportive relationships (p = 0.01); Professional and personal growth(p
= 0.03) and Recognition of professional skills and accomplishments (p
= 0.01). The scales showing difference were the more personal ones
related to personal relationships and affirmation. Males seemed to
respond more negatively on these scales.
Teacher perceptions by experience
Table 7 and Figure 5 disaggregate the data by years of teacher
experience. In general ratings were very low on all factors – the
highest rating across all the groups categorised by experience was
for the factors: Professional and Personal Growth and Communication
of Goals and Vision.
The results demonstrate that teachers with fewer years of teaching
experience were positive that their school principals displayed the
characteristics under the factors, Professional and Personal Growth
and Communication of Goals and Vision. These were teachers in the
0-5 year group and the 6-10 group. Teachers who had more than 11
years teaching experience were generally negative in their responses
on all five key dimensions. A one way between groups analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was conducted to explore the impact of teaching
experience on the perception of leadership characteristics, as
measured on the five scales created from the questionnaire (refer to
table 8). There was no statistical significance at the p <0.05 level for
the five different experience groupings.

- 4899 -
Table 6: Teacher perceptions of principal‘s leadership behaviours by experienceReport
-.0741 .3333 .3333 .0556 .0000
3 3 3 3 3
.65105 .62915 .61101 .82215 .90139
-.1556 .0000 .3200 .0333 .0000
5 5 5 5 5
.84747 .63738 .54037 .67082 .82916
-.1970 -.2500 -.0727 -.0758 .0682
11 11 11 11 11
.59957 .76649 .51593 .55460 .56003
-.3376 -.1154 -.1231 -.0897 -.1538
13 13 13 13 13
.49403 .76114 .45854 .49822 .58219
-.1883 .0000 .1111 -.0741 -.0417
18 18 18 18 18
.66507 .64169 .49096 .55490 .64881
-.2189 -.0650 .0440 -.0600 -.0400
50 50 50 50 50
.60696 .68848 .50352 .54478 .62344
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Experience
0 - 5 years
6 - 10 years
11 - 15 years
16 - 20 years
More than 20 years
Total
Collegial
supportive
relationships
Communicates
goals & visions
Professional &
personal growth
Shared decision
making
Recognition of
professional skills
&
accomplishments

- 4900 -
Figure 5: Teacher perceptions of school principals‘ leadership behaviours by years of experience

- 4901 -
Teacher ratings of leadership behaviour of the principal:
Examining ranking values
Table 9 provides a picture of teacher ratings of their school principals with
respect to the specific leadership behaviour patterns under each of the five
factors. The ratings are low implying that the patterns are displayed at a
minimal level. If one examines the ranking values, the five leadership
behaviours rated the highest were:
□ Offers constructive criticism of unsatisfactory work
□ Encourages staff members to participate in professional activities
especially in regard to inclusive education
□ Respects me as an individual;
□ Gives recognition to each staff member for his/her special
contribution to special education
□ Actively models/supports staff development;
In other words, these behaviour patterns are somewhat evident. Three of
these items belong to the dimension or factor: Personal and Professional
Growth; one to Recognition of Professional Skills and Accomplishments; and
one to Collegial, Supportive Relationships.
The five leadership characteristics of the 37 in the questionnaire rated
lowest were:
□ Follows through on promises made
□ Reassures staff that they were missed during their absence
□ Solves conflicts successfully
□ *Makes every effort to understand each staff member‘s frustrations
□ *Takes responsibility for the orientation of new staff
□ Keeps staff abreast with developments in special education
Two of the above items (marked *) were tied. The above suggests that these
leadership behaviours or characteristics are rarely displayed by the school
principal. Four of these leadership behaviours belong to the factor:
Collegial, Supportive Relationships. Two belong to the factor: Personal and
Professional Growth.
If one ranks the composite means for the five factors, the ranking emerges
as follows:
1. Professional and Personal Growth (M = .04; SD = .50)

- 4902 -
2. Recognition of Professional Skills and Accomplishments (-.04; SD = .62)
3. Shared Decision Making (M = -.06; SD = .54)
4. Communicates Goals and Visions (M = -.07; SD = .69)
5. Collegial Supportive Relationships (M =- .22; SD = .61).
Results reflect that the leadership behaviours that relate to the above
factors are minimally displayed at their schools by the school principal if
one examines the low mean ratings. The above suggests that students
rated leadership characteristics that related to Collegial, Supportive
Relationships and Communicates Goals and Visions as the most unlikely to
be evident in their schools. These are important behaviours associated with
teacher motivation according to literature reviewed in chapter two.

- 4903 -
Table 9: Teacher perceptions of leadership behaviours of the principal (N= 50)
Factor and items
Item
Number
M SD
Ranking
Collegial, supportive relationships
Follows through on promises made 4 -.48 .839 37
Reassures staff that they were missed during their
absence
9 -.42 .785
36
Reassures staff that they are making a real contribution
to the school and child
11 -.22 .910
22
Respects me as an individual 12 .28 .904 3
Respects the opinion of staff 13 .02 1.000 11
Listens to me attentively 14 -.22 .887 22
Keeps in confidence things disclosed in confidence by
staff members 17 -.08 .900
14
Provides sufficient time for collegial interaction 18 -.26 .853 26
Believes in the trustworthiness of each staff member 19 -.20 .857 19
Makes every effort to understand each staff member‘s
frustrations
20 -.40 .782
32
Treats all staff members equally 22 -.36 .851 29
Makes himself/herself available to staff members 23 .16 .934 6
Attempts to understand what a staff member is saying
from his/her perspective
29 -.20 .926
19
Adopts a non-judgemental attitude when a staff member
explains his/her position
30 -.36 .776
29
Considers underlying emotions when staff members voice
their views
31 -.34 .772
28
Endeavours professionalism in all communication
activities (never back-biting)
32 -.22 .864
22
Admits to mistakes he/she makes 35 -.24 .870 25
Solves conflicts successfully 36 -.40 .857 33
Composite Mean
-.22
(SD = .61)
Communicates Goals and Vision for the School

- 4904 -
Factor and items
Item
Number
M SD
Ranking
Set specific goals to work towards in light of lack of
direction in special education at present
1 .12 .961
7
Is prepared to redesign work loads to accommodate the
specific needs of the special child
7 .08 .944
8
Sets well defined levels of staff performance 8 -.38 .830 31
Ensures that staff members know exactly what is
expected of them
34 -.08 .922
14
Composite Mean
-.07
(SD = .69)
Professional and Personal Growth
Offers constructive criticism of unsatisfactory work 3 .48 .789 1
Takes responsibility for the orientation of new staff 16 -.40 .833 32
Encourages staff members to participate in professional
activities especially in regard to inclusive education
25 .36 .875
2
Actively models/supports staff development 26 .18 .919 5
Keeps staff abreast with developments in special
education
37 -.40 .904
32
Composite Mean
.04
(SD = .50)
Shared Decision Making
Encourages staff to participate in decision making 6 -.20 .958 19
Accepts suggestions made by staff members 21 -.10 .931 16
Trusts staff members by delegating responsibilities to
them
24 .04 .925
10
Promotes teamwork 27 .08 .922 8
Listens to suggestions from staff members 28 -.06 .935 13
Willingly seeks advice from staff members 33 -.30 .863 27
Composite Mean
-.06
(SD = .54)
Recognition of Professional Skills and
Accomplishments
Gives recognition for work well done 2 -.04 .968 12
Gives independence to staff when they do their work well 5 -.18 .919 17

- 4905 -
Factor and items
Item
Number
M SD
Ranking
Gives recognition to each staff member for his/her special
contribution to special education
10 .24 .916
4
Shows confidence in my abilities 15 -.18 .825 17
Composite Mean
-.04
(SD = .62)

- 4906 -
Discussion of Findings
The study reported in this article examined the leadership behaviour
of the school principal in selected special schools in KwaZulu-Natal.
The findings revealed that teacher ratings were very low on all five
leadership dimensions or factors: shared decision making; collegial
relationships; communication of visions and goals, professional and
personal growth; and recognition of professional skills and
accomplishments. Yet studies suggest that these dimensions and the
values embedded in them are key characteristics of effective schools
(see, for example, Mestry & Singh, 2007; Hoog, Johansson &
Olofsson, 2005; Bennell & Akyeampong; Chen & Nan Chun, 2007).
The findings suggest that there may be a lack of professional
development programmes for school leaders at the five special
schools. It seems that key insights on school leadership from
research over the past two decades that should inform any kind of
school leadership training and development are not impacting
practice on the ground in the schools in this study. If principals are
not formally trained in leadership skills, it is difficult to acquire these
skills on their own. Van der Mescht & Tyala (2008) argues that
leadership practices that involve distribution of responsibilities, a
shared vision, and participatory decision making are more likely to
succeed. There was little evidence of these practices in the five
special schools if one assesses the rating of the teachers. Mestry &
Singh (2007) emphasize that principals who have a strong driving
vision and are able to transfer this to a binding staff vision will be
better able to attain goals. Collier and Esteban (2000) stressed the
need for empathetic dialogue, open communication, and the
maintenance of relationships of trust. Hargreaves & Fink (2003)
argue that one way for leaders to leave a lasting legacy is to ensure
that leadership in a school is developed with and shared by others.
The findings in the study point to the need for ―reculturing‘ of the five
schools in the study. Reculturing focuses on cultural rather than
structural change and involves a range of strategies to be used in
order to bring about cultural change in a school (MacNeill, 2005).
Schools as organizations are complex adaptive systems that operate
in a particular social context (Painter-Moreland, 2008). There is a
need to constantly examine and reconsider how the habits, values,
beliefs, and expectations that inform the cultural dynamics within an
organization‘s culture are shaped and sustained. In the context of
schools as organizations, if the habits and behaviour of principals

- 4907 -
and teachers are informed by a culture in which there is limited
shared participation, support, recognition, respect, communication
and collegiality, then leadership needs to be re-examined. Although
the male participants in the study rated their principals negatively on
all five dimensions of leadership, the female teachers‘ ratings
suggested that on average they felt there was some evidence at their
schools of leadership characteristics: Communicates Goals and
Visions; Professional and Personal Growth; Shared Decision Making
and Recognition of Professional Skills and Accomplishments. However,
they did not believe that their principals displayed any of the
characteristics within the factor Collegial, Supportive Relationships.
These characteristics included: respects me as an individual, listens
to me attentively, and reassures me that I am making a real
contribution to the school. This suggests that the female teachers
valued the social and emotional aspects of collegiality in their
interactions with their principals, and experienced this dimension of
principal leadership negatively. Studies have shown that teacher
collegiality has a positive impact on their commitment to the school
as an institution and to school success (Shah, 2012; Jarzabkowski,
2002). It is not possible to draw any conclusions on gender
differences given the small sample of male teachers in the study. The
study suggests that the issue of collegiality in the context of special
schools is an area for further research.
There was limited evidence of shared decision making in the
leadership behaviours of the five principals in the study. The sharing
of power has significant implications for building an effective school.
A transformative leader is the kind of leader who is willing to
relinquish and share power with others and is able to generate a
community of leaders in which every member becomes a leader in
some way, at some time (Botha, 2006; Kocolowski, 2010; Singh,
2005). Therefore the principals and teachers need training and
empowerment so that they can take their role in a new power sharing
process.
Conclusion
This study has important implications for the development of the
principal as a leader in special schools. Special schools are complex
organizations more so in South Africa currently as they are in the
process of major policy changes. As a result a tremendous amount of
anxiety exists around the future of special schools and the changing
leadership roles. The present study has important implications for

- 4908 -
professional development of school principals and whole school
development in the five special schools examined. Key leadership
behaviours seen as critical to the development of effective schools
and for promoting teacher motivation and morale are rarely displayed
in the schools according to teachers in the study.
Professional training programmes for school principals need to draw
on debates on participative and transformative (Ali & Botha, 2005;
Kamper, 2008; Kocolowski, 2010). Empowerment of teachers and
principals can be done through providing opportunities for
cooperative actions, training in the collaborative managerial
functions of the school, creating a climate for risk taking, providing
opportunities for collegiality, recognition of professional success,
development of group process skills, and the development of
communication skills. In addition it must be understood that if
teachers are to be part of the vital decision making process at school
then they need to be given space to make decisions and their
decisions should be valued.
A limitation of the study is that it was small scale in nature. Only ten
teachers in each of the five schools were participants. The study did
not explore an interesting facet, that is, to establish the principals‘
perceptions of their own leadership behaviour. A principal‘s
questionnaire and interviews with the five principals could have
yielded very valuable information that would have enhanced the
quality of the study.

- 4909 -
References
Ali, F. & Botha, R. J. (2005). The role, importance and effectiveness of
school leaders in contributing to public school improvement in
South Africa. Retrieved on January 10, 2009, from
www.sajournalofeducation.co.za/index.php/saje/article/view
/84/40 - 2k
Barbour, C., Clifford, M. & Corrigan-Halpern et al. (2010). What
experience from the field tells us about school leadership and
turn around? Retrieved December 12, 2010, from
http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/leadership_turnaround_scho
ols.pdf
Bass, B., & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leadership, (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Bennell, P. & Akyeampong, K. (2007) Teacher motivation in sub-
Saharan Africa and South Asia London: DFID.
Bentley, K. L. (2011). An investigation of the self-perceived principal
leadership styles in an era of accountability. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Tampa: College of Education,
University of South Florida.
Botha, N. (2006). Leadership in school-based management: A case
study in selected schools. South African Journal of Education,
26(3), 341-353.
Chen, C. & Nanchung, H. (2007). An empirical study of Chinese
leadership and the relationship between leadership and
motivation. World Transaction on Engineering and Technology
Education, 6, 1, 27-48.
Collier, J. & Esteban, R. (2000). Systemic leadership: Ethical and
effective. The Leadership and Organizational Development
Journal 21(4), 207–215.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M. & Meyerson, D. (2005).
School leadership study: Developing successful principals. The
Wallace Foundation
Day, C., Simmons, P., Hopkins, D. et al. (2010). Ten strong claims
about effective school leadership. Nottingham: National
College for Leadership of Schools and Children‘s Services
Department of Education. (1997). Curriculum 2005: Lifelong learning
for the 21st century. Pretoria: Department of Education.
Department of Education. (2001). White Paper 6: building an inclusive
education and training system. Pretoria: Department of
Education.
Department of Education. (2002). Revised National Curriculum
Statements (NCS). Pretoria: Department of Education.

- 4910 -
Department of Education. (2007). Conceptual and operational
guidelines for the implementation of inclusive education:
District Support Teams (DST). Pretoria: Department of
Education.
Department of Education. (2008a). National Strategy on Screening,
Identification, Assessment and Support (SIAS) – Operational
guidelines. Pretoria: Department of Education.
Department of Education. (2008b). Guidelines to ensure quality
education and support in special schools and special school
resource centres. Pretoria: Department of Education.
Department of Education (2011). National Curriculum and
Assessment Policy Statements grades R to 12. Pretoria:
Department of Education.
Department of Education (2012). Guidelines for responding to learner
diversity in the classroom through curriculum and assessment
policy statements. Pretoria: Department of Education.
Dinham, J. (2004). Principal leadership for outstanding educational
outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(4), 338-
356.
Eloff, I. & Kgwete, L. K. (2007). Childhood education: South African
teachers‟ voices on support in inclusive education. Retrieved
September 25, 2008, from http:// www.studentvillage.co.za.
Germaine, S., & Quinn, D. (2006). Investigation of tacit knowledge in
principal leadership. The Educational Forum, 70(1), 75-89.
Grobler, B., Bisschoff, T., Beeka, A. (2012) Changing perceptions of
teachers regarding the importance and competence of their
principals as leaders. South African Journal of Education, 32,
40-55.
Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of
empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration,
49(2), 125 – 142.
Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2003). The seven principles of sustainable
leadership. Retrieved on January, 10, 2009, from
http://www2.bc.edu/~hargrean/docs/seven_principles.pdf
Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D.(2006). Sustainable leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hoog, J., Johansson, O. & Olofsson, A. 2005). Successful
principalship: The Swedish case. Journal of Educational
Administration, 43(6) 595-606.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessio
nid=46C082.

- 4911 -
Jarzabkowski, L. M. (2002). The social dimensions of teacher
collegiality. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 3 (2), 1–20.
Juma, J. K. A., Enose M.W. Simatwa, E. M. W. & Ayodo, T. M. O.
(2011). Assessment of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction
among female principals in public secondary schools in
Kenya: a case study of Rachuonyo North and South Districts.
Educational Research, 2(12), 1810-1820.
Kamper, G. (2008). A profile of effective leadership in some S. A. high-
poverty schools. Retrieved July 10, 2010, from
http://www.sajournalofeducation.co.za/index.php/saje/articl
e/view/145
Leech, D. & Fulton, C. R. (2008). Faculty perceptions of shared
decision making and the principals‟ leadership behaviours in
secondary schools in a large urban district. Retrieved
December, 10, 2008, from
http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol62003/leech.pdf
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A. & Hopkins, D.
(2006). Successful school leadership: what it is and how it
influences pupil learning. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownl
oad/RR800.pdf
Leithwood, K. & Riehl, C. (2005). What we know about successful
school leadership. In W. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new
agenda: Directions for research on educational leadership (pp.
22-47). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
MacNeill, N. (2005). Teachers‟ perceptions of principals‟ leadership in
school renewal process. Retrieved 12 February 2009, from
http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/mac05079.pdf
Mestry, R. & Singh, P. (2007). Continuing professional development
for principals: A South African perspective. South African
Journal of Education. 27(3), 447-490.
Msila, V. (2011). School management and the struggle for effective
schools, Africa. Education Review, 8(3), 434-449.
Murphy, J. (2008). Transformational change and the evolving role of
the principal: Early empirical evidence. In J. Murphy & K. S.
Louis (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from
transformational reform efforts (pp. 20-53). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press
Naidoo, M. (2012). Understanding principal leadership in the African
context: A critical literature review. Unpublished manuscript.
Ashwood, Durban: School of Education, University of
KwaZulu-Natal.

- 4912 -
Painter-Morland, M. (2008). Systemic leadership and the emergence
of ethical responsiveness. Journal of Business Ethics (4), 509-
524.
Pather, S. (2008). Demystifying the notion of ‗inclusion‘ in the context
of a rural school and its communities in South Africa. In
Muthukrishna, N. (Ed.), Educating for social justice and equity:
Pathways and transitions in an African context (pp. 59-74). New
York: Nova Sciences Publishers.
Raihani, G. D. (2008). An Indonesian model of successful school
leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(4), 481-
496.
Rice, J.K. (2010). Principal effectiveness and leadership in an era of
accountability: what research says? National Center for
Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, 9.
Washington: Calder Urban Institute.
Shah, M. (2012). The impact of teachers‘ collegiality on their
organizational commitment in high- and low-achieving
secondary schools in Islamabad. Pakistan Journal of Studies
in Education, 2(2), 130-156.
Singh, P. (2005).Use of the collegial leadership model of emancipation
to transform traditional management practices in secondary
schools. South African Journal of Education, 2 5(1), 11-18.
South African Schools Act of 1996
Swanepoel, C. (2008).The perceptions of teachers and school
principals of each other‘s disposition towards teacher
involvement in school reform. South African Journal of
Education, 28, 39-51.
Timmons, V. & Muthukrishna, N. (2007). Inclusive Education – a
global perspective. Paper presented at 13th International World
Congress of the International Association for the Scientific
Study of Disability (IASSID), 3-6 August, Cape Town.
Van Der Mescht, H. & Tyala, Z. (2008). School principals‘ perceptions
of team management: A multiple case- study of secondary
schools. South African Journal of Education, 28, 221-239.
Wilderman, R.A. & Nomdo, C. (2007). Implementation of Inclusive
Education: How far are we? Retrieved on 10 January, 2009
from http://www.idasa.org.za
Zame, M.Y., Hope & W. C. & Repress, T. (2007) .Educational reform
in Ghana: The leadership challenge. International Journal of
Educational Management, 22(2), 115-128.

Copyright of Gender & Behaviour is the property of IFE Centre for Psychological Studies and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Leadership behaviour kwazulu natal sally hobden

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Leadership behaviour kwazulu natal sally hobden

Similar to Leadership behaviour kwazulu natal sally hobden (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Leadership behaviour kwazulu natal sally hobden