educational management administration & leadership-2014-minckler-school leadership that

8/19/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership-2014-Minckler-School Leadership That

1/23

Article

School leadership thatbuilds teacher social capital

Cheri Hoff Minckler

Abstract

This quantitative study explores the relationship between school leadership and the developmentand sustenance of teacher social capital. The literature review discusses aspects of leadershiptheory to elucidate understanding of how leadership influences teachers’ working relationships.

Quantitative methodology and analyses ascertain the correlation between Leithwood et al.’sdimensions of transformational leadership and the author’s dimensions of teacher social capital.Study findings indicate significant, positive moderate to high moderate correlations between:(1) transformational leadership and the environmental conditions nurturing teacher social capital;(2) leadership and teacher social capital; and (3) leadership and teacher collective efficacy (TCE).An additional major finding is the perception of higher levels of transformational leadership amongteachers in middle performing and high performing schools as compared to the perceptions of teachers in low performing schools. This study provides evidence of the importance of trans-formational leadership in the development of teacher social capital within a school. High levels of teacher social capital should result in positive outcomes of student achievement, teacher quality

and teacher job satisfaction. The study findings, interpretations and conclusions contribute to bothschool leadership and school improvement literature and should inform discussions about lead-ership development and the impact of leadership on teacher working relationships.

Keywords

collective efficacy, school leadership, teacher social capital, transformational leadership

Introduction

What leaders think, do and say matters (Sparks, 2005). Research tells us that school leaders work indirectly through: (1) their influence on teachers; and (2) their effect on the learning environment

to improve both teacher quality and student achievement (Griffith, 2003; Leithwood et al., 2008;

Ross and Gray, 2006a). Consequently, one must ask, what are the dispositions, knowledge and

skills demonstrated by effective school leaders, those leaders who have been able to bridge the gap

between mediocrity and achievement by optimizing the teaching function? Another important

question is how do these leadership attributes and practices influence teachers to make the most

Corresponding author:

Cheri Hoff Minckler, Production Regulatory Services, LLC, 400 Lancaster Dr, Lafayette, LA 70506, USA.Email: [email protected]

Educational Management

Administration & Leadership

2014, Vol. 42(5) 657–679ª The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1741143213510502

emal.sagepub.com

657

at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 25, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://emal.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://emal.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav


2/23

of teacher social capital? The purpose of this quantitative study is to answer these questions in

order to gain better understanding of the leader’s role in the development and sustenance of teacher

social capital. To address the first question, the literature review discusses aspects of leadership

theory with respect to leadership influences on teachers’ working relationships. To answer the sec-

ond question, quantitative methodology and analysis have been used to ascertain the correlation between leadership (particularly transformational) and teacher social capital.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

In the course of fulfilling the purpose of the study, social capital literature has been reviewed to

develop a definition of teacher social capital. Contributions from literature and research in social

capital theory, community psychology, leadership and education have culminated in a model that

identifies: (1) the attributes of an environment where teacher social capital can germinate and

thrive; (2) the dimensions of teacher social capital; (3) outcomes of a system of teacher social cap-

ital; and (4) the role of leadership in fostering teacher social capital. In order to test the conceptual

model, a measurement instrument was developed to operationalize teacher social capital. This

instrument was used in conjunction with measures of leadership and teacher efficacy to gather data

necessary to answer the research questions and test the hypotheses.

Definition of Teacher Social Capital

Lin (2001: 29) combines ideas from Bourdieu (1985) and Coleman (1988) to define social capital

as the ‘resources embedded in a social structure that are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive

actions’. Lin’s definition captures key elements involved in creating value from relationships –

available resources, the social network itself and actions that mobilize the resources. For the purpose of this study, using Lin’s definition as a foundation, teacher social capital is defined as the

resources available to and used by a teacher by virtue of membership of social network(s) to pro-

duce outcomes that are beneficial to the teacher, her students and ultimately to the school commu-

nity as a whole (Minckler, 2011). The primary network comprised of the teacher and his peers and

the resources accessible through this network constitute teacher bonding social capital (TBOSC).

TBOSC is operationalized in the Teacher Social Capital Scale (TSCS) (Minckler, 2011) as a func-

tion of sense of community and attributes of the school culture, such as norms and values that sup-

port effective teaching and learning. Teacher bridging social capital (TBRSC) refers to resources

accessed through the external networks (outside of the school) to which a teacher belongs. TBRSC

is operationalized through items on the TSCS that address participation in external social networks.

Conceptual Model

The key to understanding social capital is in recognizing that relationships have value, and that this

value may be considered a form of capital. Answering the question, ‘Under what conditions do

teacher relationships become a form of capital valuable to the school?’, assists in identifying the com-

ponents of a conceptual model of teacher social capital. Relationships have value to the individual

when his or her associations accomplish two major goals: (1) help the individual accomplish things

he or she cannot do alone (task or instrumental outcomes); and (2) satisfy the individual’s belonging

needs (an expressive outcome). To accomplish the task or instrumental outcomes, participants in therelationship share or exchange both tangible (teaching materials) and intangible resources

658 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5)

658


http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/


3/23

(information). Over time, networks of individuals form to increase the quantity and quality of

resources available for exchange within the group. Group members access these resources to accomplish individual and group objectives. Additionally, the group develops norms to regulate behaviors

in order ‘to ensure group survival, facilitate task accomplishment, contribute to group morale, or

express the group’s central values’ (Feldman, 1984: 52). Social capital theory is concerned with the

structure and function of this broader network of exchange relationships in the creation of value.

Based upon the above understanding of social capital, a conceptual model of a system of teacher

social capital has been developed that includes: (1) environmental conditions that enable valuable

relationships to develop; (2) the features of a network conducive to meeting both the instrumental

and expressive needs of the teacher participants; (3) actions that activate social capital; (4) actions

that preserve and increase social capital; and (5) outcomes that result from teacher social capital.

Figure 1 presents the elements of the system of teacher social capital (Minckler, 2011). The ratio-nale for and conceptualization of the relationships among the variables are explained in detail else-

where (Minckler, 2011; Minckler et al., 2010).

Leadership

Northouse (2007: 3) defines leadership as ‘a process whereby an individual influences a group of

individuals to achieve a common goal’. This definition of leadership is directly relevant to a dis-

cussion of the leader’s role in developing social capital. This study considers leadership as a pro-

cess of interaction between and among the leader and followers that shapes organizational culture

and influences group and individual behaviors to produce desired school outcomes. According toHodson (2005: 44), competent leadership is recognized an ‘an important precondition for creation

Participation

OUTCOMES

Group

Positive Satisfiers

Instrumental Outcomes

Teacher Collective Efficacy

IndividualPositive Satisfiers

Instrumental Outcomes

Expressive Outcomes

Teacher Self Efficacy

Social network Sense of Community

Resources

NeighboringOpportunity

Motivation

Ability

Bonding Social Capital

Bridging Social Capital

ACTIONS

SOCIAL

STRUCTURES

PRECONDITIONS/

ENERGIZERS

External

Social

Networks

Figure 1. A conceptual model of a system of teacher social capital (Minckler, 2011).

Minckler: School leadership that builds teacher social capital 659

659




4/23

of social capital and organizational trust based on mutual gains’. Collaboration among people both

uses and generates social capital. The quality of leadership determines whether this capital is spent

on personal pursuits or is harnessed for organizational effectiveness.

Transformational Leadership in the School Setting. A number of researchers have studied leadership inthe school setting (Barnett and McCormick, 2004; Leithwood, 1992; Ross and Gray, 2006a) in an

effort to determine the degree to which school leaders are transformational and to determine the

effect of transformational leadership on school performance. According to Leithwood et al.

(2008: 27), ‘School leadership is second only to classroom teaching as an influence on pupil learn-

ing.’ Additionally, researchers have determined that the leaders’ impact is mediated through the

teaching function (Griffith, 2003; Leithwood et al., 2008). Leithwood et al. (2008: 32) also suggest

that ‘school leaders improve teaching and learning indirectly and most powerfully through their

influence on staff motivation, commitment, and working conditions’. Ross and Gray (2006a:

813) report that principals ‘influence student achievement indirectly by creating the organizational

conditions through which improved teaching and learning will occur’. Leithwood (1992: 2–3)recognizes that transformational school leaders are in ‘continuous pursuit of three goals: (1) Help-

ing staff members develop and maintain a collaborative, professional school culture; (2) fostering

teacher development; and (3) helping teachers solve problems together more effectively.’ By 2000,

Leithwood and Jantzi (2000: 114) expanded the school transformational leadership model to

include seven dimensions of transformational leadership: ‘Building school vision and establishing

school goals; providing intellectual stimulation; offering individualized support; modeling best

practices and important organizational values; demonstrating high performance expectations; cre-

ating a productive school culture; and developing structures to foster participation in school deci-

sions’. The transformational leader works through all aspects of the school system – the people, the

culture and the structure – to achieve organizational goals.As posited, transformational leadership works through relationships to accomplish organiza-

tional goals. According to Leithwood (1992), transformational leadership harnesses both individ-

ual and collective action by exercising power through people not over them. Consequently, one

may reasonably expect the transformational leader to play a pivotal role in creating and sustaining

the conditions necessary to foster teacher social capital, a system built on relationships. This study

focuses on how the transformational leader influences each component of the system of teacher

social capital through actions that reflect the dimensions of transformational leadership identified

by Leithwood and Jantzi (2000).

Research Questions and HypothesesTable 1 presents the research questions and hypotheses related to leadership and teacher social cap-

ital. Figure 2 presents the hypothesized relationships in graphic form. (Note: relationships among

other variables in the figures, for example, TBOSC and teacher self-efficacy are discussed in Min-

ckler [2011].)

Methodology

Data Source

Data for the study are derived from a convenience sample of 13 schools in two school districts insoutheastern Louisiana and one middle school in north Louisiana. Teachers ( N ¼ 465; 65%


660




5/23

collective response rate for participating schools) within the middle and high schools in these dis-

tricts completed a survey set designed to measure their perceptions about the degree to which the

components of a system of teacher social capital are prevalent in their respective schools. Table 2

presents the number and percentage of participants from each school. Schools have been coded to

preserve anonymity. The school code in the first column identifies each school first by school dis-

trict (1, 2, or 3); then by school type (h ¼ high school or m ¼ middle school); next by a letter that

distinguishes one school from another within the school district (a, b, c, d, or e); and lastly by a

group number based on school performance score (SPS) (1¼

low, 2¼

middle, 3¼

high). (Note:Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to group schools according to SPS.)

Table 1. Research questions and hypotheses.

Research question HypothesisInstrument(s) ormeasure Method of analysis

What role doestransformationalleadership perform in thedevelopment of a systemof teacher social capital?

1.1 There is a statisticallysignificant, positiverelationship betweentransformationalleadership and the pre-conditions/energizers of teacher social capital

The leadership itemsin the School CoreTasks Survey (c);Teacher SocialCapital Scale

Bivariate correlation

1.2 There is a statisticallysignificant, positiverelationship betweentransformational

leadership and TBOSC

The leadership itemsin the School CoreTasks Survey (c);Teacher Social

Capital Scale


1.3There is a statisticallysignificant, positiverelationship betweentransformationalleadership and TBRSC

The leadership itemsin the School CoreTasks Survey (c);Teacher SocialCapital Scale


1. 4 There is a statisticallysignificant, positiverelationship betweentransformationalleadership and TCE

The leadership itemsin the School CoreTasks Survey (c);Teacher EfficacyBelief Scale-

Collective


1.5 There is a statisticallysignificant, positiverelationship betweentransformationalleadership and TSE

The leadership itemsin the School CoreTasks Survey (c);Teacher Self Efficacy Scale


Does transformationalleadership contribute toschool performance?

2.1 There is a statisticallysignificant differencebetween the meanleadership score of lowperforming schools and

high performing schools

The leadership items inthe School CoreTasks Survey (c);School PerformanceScore

Analysis of variance(ANOVA);MultivariateAnalysis of variance

(MANOVA)


661




6/23

S t r e n g t h o f C o

r r e l a t i o n

C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f

i c i e n t

S m a l l ( W e a k )

r = . 0

t o . 2

9

M e d i u m ( m o d

e r a t e )

r = . 3

0 t o . 6

9

L a r g e ( s t r o n g )

r = . 7

0 t o 1 . 0

P a r t i c i p a t i o n

T e a c h e r

B r

i d g i n g

S

o c i a l

C

a p i t a l

A c t i v a t e d

B r i d g i n g T e a c h e r S o c i a l C a p i t a l

. 6 4

6

C o r r e l a t i o n

. 7 4 4

. 4 4 1

. 3 8 2

. 3 6 9

. 3 8 8

P r e c o n d i t i o n s

/ e n e r g i z e r s

( m o t i v a t i o n ,

o p p o r t u n i t y ,

a b i l i t y )

. 6 8 6

T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l

L e a d e r s h i p

. 2 6 5

. 5 7 0

. 6 2 6

. 4 5 3

. 3 8 0

T e a c h e r

B o n d i n g

S o c i a l

C a

p i t a l

N e i g h b o r i n g

T e a c h e r

C o l l e c t i v

e

E f f i c a c y

T e a c h e r

S e l f

E f f i c a c y

. 2 8 7

F i g u r e

2 .

C o r r e l a t i o n s a m o n g t h e v a r i a b l e s i n t h e h y p o t h e s i z

e d m o d e l o f t h e s y s t e m

o f t e a c h e r s o c i a l c a p i t a l .

662




7/23

Instrumentation

The following instruments comprised the survey set used to measure the key variables in the

study.

Leadership. Teachers’ perceptions of school leadership were assessed using 31 items from the38-item School Core Tasks Survey (c) (SCTS-L) (Leithwood et al., 2001). The principal researcher

eliminated seven items considered redundant or irrelevant (to the sample population). The SCTS-L

is a subsection of the management and leadership component of a comprehensive school monitor-

ing system developed by Leithwood et al. (2001). In developing the leadership items, Leithwood

et al. used a conceptualization of the school and school district as a learning organization (Senge,

1990) and school leadership as transformational. Transformational leaders foster the development

of a learning organization through their beliefs, values and actions. The items address eight dimen-

sions of transformational leadership: provides vision and/or inspiration, models behavior, provides

individualized support, provides intellectual stimulation, fosters commitment to group goals,

encourages high performance expectations, provides contingent reward and strongly encouragesindividual improvement.

Teacher Social Capital. TBOSC and TBRSC were measured using the 56-item TSCS (Minckler,2011). Twenty-six items assess the preconditions/energizers – the teachers’ perceptions of the

presence of: (1) opportunities to work together to plan, teach and learn from one another, and make

decisions about curriculum; (2) motivation to both improve teaching and learning and to collabo-

rate to do so; and (3) teachers’ abilities, the skills and knowledge to teach effectively. Twenty-five

items address four dimensions of TBOSC – effective teaching beliefs and practices, collaboration,

community identity, and culture of community. Five items address TBRSC, the degree to which

teachers are linked to people or organizations outside the school that contribute to their effective-ness as teachers.

Table 2. Respondent schools and percentage of teachers completing the survey.

School code SPSTotal number of teachers

in the schoolNumber of

completed surveysResponserate (%)

1Ha-3 123.3 107 44 411Hb-3 117.1 92 57 631Hc-2 105.7 97 88 911Hd-1 73.6 60 58 971Ma-2 108.6 30 13 431Mb-1 104.4 40 25 631Mc-1 103.8 45 37 821Md-2 116.9 35 35 1001Me-3 124.5 50 41 822Ha-1 82.2 36 2 62Hb-1 72.4 27 24 892Hc-1 80.7 40 7 182Ma-1 104.4 40 14 353Ma-1 101.1 20 20 100

Total 719 465 65


663




8/23

Teacher Efficacy. The teacher efficacy variables (collective and self) are identified in the study asoutcomes of transformational leadership and teacher social capital. Hoy et al. (2002: 79) define

teacher collective efficacy as ‘the perception of teachers in a school that the efforts of the faculty

as a whole will have a positive effect on student learning’. Teachers with a strong sense of collec-

tive efficacy set goals that are more challenging, apply greater effort and are more persistent whenfacing obstacles. As a result, the school is more likely to achieve success. TCE is measured using

the 10-item teacher efficacy belief scale-collective (Olivier, 2001).

Teacher self efficacy (TSE) ‘can be defined as a teacher’s individual belief in their capabilities

to perform specific teaching tasks at a specified level of quality in a specified situation’ (Dellinger

et al., 2008: 752). TSE acknowledges the myriad tasks involved in the process that must be per-

formed well in order to achieve the outcome of high levels of student performance. TSE is mea-

sured using the 10-item TSE scale developed by Schwarzer et al. (1999).

Data Analysis

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze the data. The following

quantitative analyses were performed to examine the psychometric characteristics of the study

measures, test the proposed research hypotheses and answer the research questions:

descriptive statistics for the sample (measures of central tendency and dispersion) to provide

a snapshot of teacher perceptions of leadership, social capital and teacher efficacy among

the middle and high schools in the study sample population;

a series of bivariate correlations utilizing Pearson product moment procedures to examine

correlations among the variables in the study to test the conceptual model (including the cor-

relation between transformational leadership and teacher social capital); and

the use of analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multivariate analysis (MANOVA) to deter-

mine whether there were significant differences in leadership, teacher social capital and

efficacy beliefs between teachers in low, average and high schools.

Prior to conducting the bivariate correlations and the analyses of variance, preliminary analyses

were conducted to test assumptions. Greater detail on the data analysis is reported in Minckler

(2011).

FindingsFindings with interpretation are presented by research question for the analyses relevant to the rela-

tionships between leadership and the components of the system of teacher social capital. Findings

relevant to the relationships among other variables in the study are presented in Minckler (2011).

Research Question 1

What role does transformation leadership perform in the development of a system of teacher social

capital? To answer this research question, relationships were hypothesized between the leadership

variable and the variables forming the system of teacher social capital: preconditions/energizers,

TBOSC and TBRSC. A series of bivariate correlations assessed the relationships among the vari-ables. The following guidelines were used to interpret the strength of correlation: small (negligible


664




9/23

to weak), |r | ¼ 0.0 to 0.29; medium (low moderate to high moderate), |r | ¼ 0.30 to 0.69, and large,

|r | ¼ 0.70 to 1.0.

Hypothesis 1.1.There is a statistically significant, positive relationship between (transformational) leadership

and the preconditions/energizers of teacher social capital. Table 3 presents the correlations

among the seven leadership subscales and the three preconditions/energizers subscales.Correlations between the subscales ranged from a low moderate correlation of 0.371 (pro-

vides individualized support/ability) to a high moderate correlation of 0.636 (provides

intellectual stimulation/opportunity). Within the leadership subscales and opportunity,

correlations ranged from a moderate correlation of 0.497 (models behavior/opportunity)

to a high moderate correlation of 0.636 (provides intellectual stimulation/opportunity).

Within the leadership subscales and motivation, correlations ranged from a medium cor-

relation of 0.406 (provides individualized support/motivation) to a moderate correlation of

0.515 (encourages high performance/motivation). Within the leadership subscales and

ability, correlations ranged from a low moderate correlation of 0.371 (provides individua-

lized support/ability) to a moderate correlation of 0.460 (encourages high performance/ability). Of the 28 correlations, all were positive, significant (r < 0.01) and moderate rang-

ing from 0.371 (provides individualized support/ability) to 0.636 (provides intellectual sti-

mulation/opportunity). The overall relationship between leadership and preconditions/

energizers was significant (r < 0.01), positive and high moderate in magnitude (r ¼ 0.646,

see Table 4). Hypothesis 1.1 has been confirmed.

Interpretation. The principal researcher hypothesized that transformational leadership worksthrough preconditions (opportunity, motivation and ability) to establish the environment under

which bonding and bridging social capital can thrive. In particular, school leadership certainly has

more control over opportunity than do the teachers in the school. Teachers must have the place, thetime and the imperative to form collaborative relationships. The transformational leader performs a

Table 3. Summary of correlations between multiple factor subscales of leadership and preconditions/energizers (n ¼ 293–458).

Preconditions

Instrument/subscale Opportunity Motivation Ability

SCTS-L (Leadership)Provides vision and inspiration (4)a 0.552** 0.499** 0.435**Models behavior (6) 0.497** 0.459** 0.447**Provides individualized support (4) 0.508** 0.406** 0.371**Provides intellectual stimulation (3) 0.636**b 0.495** 0.401**Fosters commitment to group goals (3) 0.540** 0.454** 0.404**Encourages high performance (3) 0.563** 0.515** 0.460**Provides contingent reward (5) 0.546** 0.480** 0.405**Encourages individual improvement (3) 0.599** 0.478** 0.426**Total leadership (31) 0.616** 0.538** 0.487**

Notes: Italics indicate the highest correlation within a group of relationships. aNumber of items in the subscale. **p < 0.01 (2-tailed).


665




10/23

crucial role in developing the structures, both physical (for example, shared scheduling time) and

cultural (for example, norms of collegiality) that create the opportunities for groups of teachers towork together to create and use teacher social capital. The relationships between opportunity and

the leadership subscales indicated that the teachers in the study perceive opportunities for profes-

sional growth as an avenue for leaders to provide intellectual stimulation and to encourage indi-

vidual improvement and high performance. This finding tends to support the concept of the

leader’s influence through academic press (Hoy et al., 1998). Academic press encompasses lead-

ership practices of academic emphasis, resource support, and principal influence. By envisioning

the school as a learning organization, creating structures that enable the necessary practices, estab-

lishing high expectations and encouraging individual improvement, the transformational leader

shapes a school culture that values and builds capacity.

School leadership can also be expected to affect teacher motivation (Griffith, 2003; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2000; Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006; Webb, 2007). Study findings indicated a moderate

relationship between leadership and motivation, primarily influenced by the leader actions of

encouraging high performance, providing vision and inspiration, and providing intellectual stimu-

lation. One might reasonably suspect that where high performance is not expected or encouraged,

motivation is apt to be low. The significant, moderate correlations between: (1) motivation and

providing intellectual stimulation; and (2) motivation and providing contingent reward, support the

research of others, that is, transformational leaders develop intrinsic motivation in their followers

through inspiration, individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation (Griffith, 2003;

Leithwood and Jantzi, 2000; Webb, 2007).

The relationships between ability and the eight leadership subscales were low moderate, indicat-ing that teachers did not see their knowledge and teaching skills strongly influenced by school lead-

ership. The weakest correlation between the subscale of provides individualized support and ability

particularly supports this interpretation. The strongest correlation, a moderate correlation between

encourages high performance and ability supports the findings of Phillips (as cited in Bower and

Powers, 2009) who posits that high expectations are a critical element of academic press.

Hypothesis 1.2.There is a statistically significant, positive relationship between transformational leadership

and TBOSC. Table 5 presents the summary of intercorrelations between the multiple fac-tor subscales of leadership and TBOSC. Correlations between the leadership and TBOSC

Table 4. Correlations among the major study variables of total leadership, a total preconditions/energizers,a

total TBOSC,a TBRSC, TCE, and TSE (n ¼ 285–458).

VariableTotal

leadershipTotal

preconditionsTotal

TBOSC TBRSC TCETSE(10)

Total leadership (31)b 0.646** 0.570** 0.265** 0.686** 0.382**Total preconditions/energizers (26) 0.744** 0.388** 0.656** 0.432**Total TBOSC (25) 0.369** 0.626** 0.453**TBRSC (5) 0.287** 0.380**TCE (10) 0.441**

Notes: aComposite variables formed by combining all subscale items. bNumber of items included in the variable.**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


666




11/23

subscales ranged from a low moderate correlation of 0.351 (provides individualized sup-

port/collaboration) to a moderate correlation of 0.497 (models behavior/culture of com-

munity). Within the leadership subscales and the TBOSC subscale of effective teaching

beliefs and practices, correlations ranged from a low moderate correlation of 0.366 (provides

individualized support/effective teaching beliefs and practices) to a moderate correlation of

0.478 (encourages high performance/effective teaching beliefs and practices). Within theleadership subscales and the TBOSC subscale of collaboration, correlations ranged from

a low moderate value of 0.351 (provides individualized support/collaboration) to a moderate

value of 0.453 (provides intellectual stimulation/collaboration). Within the leadership sub-

scales and the TBOSC subscale of community identity, correlations ranged from a moderate

correlation of 0.405 (provides individualized support/community identity) to a moderate

correlation of 0.471 (provides intellectual stimulation/community identity). Within the lead-

ership subscales and the TBOSC subscale of culture of community, correlations ranged from

a moderate value of 0.454 (provides contingent reward/culture of community) to a moderate

value of 0.497 (models behavior/culture of community). All 32 correlations were positive

and significant (r < 0.01). The overall relationship between leadership (31 items) and TBOSC (25 items) was significant (r < 0.01), positive and moderate in magnitude (r ¼

0.570, see Table 4). These findings have confirmed Hypothesis 1.2.

Interpretation. Study findings suggest that school leaders may have a greater impact on TBOSC byestablishing the conditions under which it can flourish than by directly influencing it. However,

organizational theory and research also indicates that school leaders influence the social structure

of the school through cultural mechanisms such as mission, vision, values and norms. Whether the

norms and values of the network of teachers support collaboration, capacity building and student

achievement is ultimately up to leadership. Leaders shape the organizational culture through con-

sistency and alignment of words, attitude and actions. Leaders influence and modify group normsthrough ‘what they focus their attention on, how they react to crises, the behaviors they role model,

Table 5. Summary of intercorrelations between multiple factor subscales of leadership and TBOSC;(n ¼ 425–459).

Teacher bonding social capital

Instrument/subscaleEffective teaching beliefs

and practices (6)Collaboration

(8)Communityidentify (7)

Culture of community (4)

LeadershipProvides vision and inspiration (4)a 0.446** 0.440** 0.431** 0.477**Models behavior (6) 0.426** 0.405** 0.445** 0.497**Provides individualized support (4) 0.366** 0.351** 0.405** 0.458**Provides intellectual stimulation (3) 0.445** 0.453** 0.471** 0.461**Fosters commitment to group goals (3) 0.432** 0.427** 0.426** 0.451**Encourages high performance (3) 0.478** 0.444** 0.466** 0.490**Provides contingent reward (5) 0.414** 0.420** 0.419** 0.454**Encourages Individual Improvement (3) 0.443** 0.452** 0.467** 0.474**

Total Leadership (31) 0.498** 0.492** 0.513** 0.554**

Notes: Italics indicates highest correlation within a cluster. aNumber of items in the subscale. **p < 0.01 (2-tailed).


667




12/23

and whom they attract to their organizations’ (Bass and Avolio, 1993: 113). The moderate correla-

tion between the leadership subscale of encourages high performance and the TBOSC subscale of

effective teaching beliefs and practices mirrors the finding of a moderate correlation between the

leadership subscale of encourages high performance and ability. These findings add support to the

interpretation that leaders affect teaching capacity through the establishment of high expectations.The moderate correlation between the leader subscale of encourages high performance and the

TBOSC subscale of collaboration indicated that the teachers in the study associate leader expec-

tations for high performance with their collaborative efforts to improve teaching and learning. The

moderate correlations between: (1) leadership/provides intellectual stimulation and TBOSC/colla-

boration; and (2) leadership/provides intellectual stimulation and TBOSC/community identity sug-

gested that teachers in the study recognize: (1) learning occurs when they are working together;

and (2) they generally identify themselves as members of a community of learners. These findings

support the concept of schools as learning organizations. Senge (1990: 3) defines learning organi-

zations as ‘organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they

truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspira-tion is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together’. The findings,

in particular, support Senge’s (1990: 356) conceptualization of the leader as a teacher who ‘fosters

learning for everyone’.

An additional finding of the study was the high moderate correlation between leadership/models

behavior and TBOSC/culture of community. This finding reinforces the importance of the leader as

role model (Bass, 1985, 1990). Through their actions, leaders demonstrate they value community and

consider the school as community with shared vision, norms and goals.

These findings confirmed the principal researcher’s hypothesis: In schools where leadership

models desired behavior, provides vision and inspiration, encourages high performance and fosters

collaborative relationships focused on increasing teacher capacity and improving student achieve-ment, TBOSC should be positively affected.

Hypothesis 1.3.There is a statistically significant, positive relationship between transformational leadership and

TBRSC. Table 6 displays a summary of correlations between the multiple factor subscales of

leadership and the one-dimensional factor, TBRSC. Correlations between the leadership sub-

scales and TBRSC ranged from 0.213 (small) for the provides vision and inspiration subscale

to 0.256 (also small) for the provides contingent reward subscale. All eight correlations were

positive (r< 0.01), significant and were categorized as small using the Cohen guidelines. The

overall relationship between leadership and TBRSC was significant (r < 0.01), positive and small in magnitude (r ¼ 0.265, see Table 4). Hypothesis 1.3 has been confirmed.

Interpretation. The small correlation may indicate that teachers in the study see participation in pro-fessional organizations or professional development outside of the school as more of a self-directed

activity than a leader-directed one. The lowest correlation of the eight possible was between leader

provides contingent reward and TBRSC (0.256), suggesting the absence of both leader support and

tangible rewards for participation in these external activities.

Hypothesis 1.4.

There is a statistically significant, positive relationship between transformational leadershipand TCE. Table 6 presents the summary of the correlations between the leadership


668




13/23

subscales and the one-dimensional factor of TCE. Correlations between the leadership

subscales and TCE ranged from a moderate 0.534 (Encourages Individual Improvement)

to a high moderate 0.666 (models behavior). All eight correlations were positive, signif-

icant (r < 0. 01) and moderate. The overall relationship between leadership and TCE was

significant (r < 0.01), positive and high moderate in magnitude (r ¼ 0.686, see Table 4).

Hypothesis 1.4 has been confirmed.

Interpretation. All correlations were moderate, confirming the principal researcher’s hypothesis that

in schools where transformation leadership is practiced, one could expect to find at least moderatelevels of TCE. Three subscales in particular, stand out as school leader behaviors related to TCE:

models behavior; provides vision and inspiration; and encourages high performance. These partic-

ular attributes also have a high moderate correlation to the four subscales of TBOSC. Apparently,

where leaders create a strong sense of community, establish and model high standards of perfor-

mance, and inspire teachers to live up to those standards, teachers’ collective beliefs in their ability

to get the job done are strengthened.

Hypothesis 1.5.There is a statistically significant, positive relationship between transformational leadership

and TSE. Table 6 presents the summary of the correlations between the Leadership sub-scales and the one-dimensional factor of TSE. Correlations between the leadership sub-

scales and TSE ranged from 0.305 (provides contingent reward) to 0.382 (encourages

high performance). All eight correlations are positive, significant (r < 0.01) and moderate.

The overall relationship between leadership and TSE is significant (r < 0.01), positive and

moderate in magnitude (r ¼ 0.382, see Table 4). The hypothesis has been confirmed.

Interpretation. The relatively low moderate correlation between leadership and TSE supports the possibility that the leader has a more indirect effect on teachers’ self-efficacy through the leaders’

influence on collegial support. Where the leader enables and assists the teachers to establish an

efficacious collaborative process, individual teachers both provide and receive the experiences and feedback they need to become more confident and capable in their abilities and more positive in

Table 6. Summary of correlations between multiple factor subscales of the SCTS-L with one dimensionscales of TBRSC (items on TSCS), TCE and TSE (n ¼ 307–459).

Instrument/subscale TBRSC (5) TCE (10) TSE (10)

LeadershipProvides vision and inspiration (4)a 0.216** 0.638** 0.316**Models behavior (6) 0.219** 0.666** 0.314**Provides individualized support (4) 0.226** 0.577** 0.313**Provides intellectual stimulation (3) 0.241** 0.565** 0.341**Fosters commitment to group goals (3) 0.213** 0.592** 0.342**Encourages high performance (3) 0.229** 0.616** 0.382**Provides contingent reward (5) 0.256** 0.548** 0.305**Encourages individual improvement (3) 0.231** 0.534** 0.322**Total leadership (31) 0.265** 0.686** 0.382**

Notes: Italics indicates highest correlation in the column. aNumber of items in the instrument or subscale. **p < 0.01

(2-tailed).


669




14/23

their attitude about teaching. For example, Whalstrom and Louis (2008: 259) state, ‘increasing the

visibility of classroom practice through frequent teacher observations of peers has been clearly

linked to such benefits as improved instruction, improved teacher self efficacy, and improved

teacher attitudes toward professional development’. These experiences (of peer observation) can

become common practice among the teacher social network when leadership expects and encourages planning for their occurrence, provides resources to support their occurrence, and assures a defined

process/format for the observation and the sharing of results.

The low moderate correlation between leadership and TSE is also consistent with the low mod-

erate correlation between the leadership subscale, provides individualized support, and the precon-

dition, ability. The teacher respondents did not appear to perceive their leadership as strongly

influencing either the teaching ability of teachers in the school or their own TSE.

Pictorial Representation of the Relationships Among the Study Variables. Figure 2 presents the bivariatelinkages among the study variables. The results displayed in Figure 2 show a pattern of relation-

ships among the variables representing leadership, teacher social capital and outcomes. Asexplained in the narrative, all relationships were determined to be statistically significant; how-

ever, the magnitudes of the correlation coefficients varied from small to large. In Figure 2, medium

correlations are italicized and large correlations are bold-faced. (Note: The positive correlations

between the major variables tend to support the viability of the model of a system of teacher social

capital.)

Research Question 2

Does transformational leadership contribute to school performance?

Hypothesis 2.1.There is a statistically significant difference between the mean leadership score of low per-

forming schools and high performing schools.

Multivariate and one-way analysis of variance were used to test this hypothesis. An insufficient

number of schools ( N ¼14) precluded exploring the data using the school as the unit of analysis.

However, teachers were grouped according to the school’s performance score (SPS) to look for

mean differences in the study variables (leadership, TBOSC, TBRSC, TCE, TSE and SPS) among

teachers working in low, middle and high performing schools. To organize teachers into groups,

each teacher was assigned the SPS of his or her school. SPSS (the statistical software) was permit-ted to determine the thresholds for the three groups based on the SPS scores for the teachers

involved in the study: Group 1, the low performing group, all teachers whose schools scored less

than or equal to (


15/23

of variance/covariance matrices (Leech et al., 2008). Instead, a modified precondition variable

(MOTABIL) created by combining the two component variables of motivation and ability was

used. Table 7 presents the number and percentage of teachers assigned to each group after making

this modification. A significant difference was found, Wilks’ L ¼ 0.945, F (388, 776) ¼ 1.843,

r ¼ 0.038, multivariate Z2¼ 0.028, observed power ¼ 0.931. Levene’s test of equality of error var-

iances indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated for both TCE

(r ¼ 0.016) and leadership (r ¼ 0.011); consequently, results for these two variables should be

viewed with caution. Examinations of the coefficients for the linear combinations distinguishing thethree SPSgroupsindicated thatleadership (b¼5.216,r¼0.015,Z2¼0.015), TBOSC (b¼3.141,

r¼ 0.036, Z2¼ 0.011), TCE (b¼1.755, r¼ 0.014, Z2¼ 0.015) and MOTABIL (b¼2.962,

r ¼ 0.002, Z2 ¼ 0.024) contributed most to distinguishing the groups, more specifically, distin-

guishing the low performing Group 1 from Groups 2 and 3. The MANOVA indicates a small,

significant leadership effect on SPS.

One Way Analysis of Variance. Univariate ANOVA for the leadership variable was conducted as afollow-up test to the MANOVA. Using the Bonferroni method for controlling Type I error rates

for multiple comparisons, ANOVA was tested at the 0.017 level. In the process of conducting the

ANOVA, the principal researcher tested the appropriate assumptions and conducted post hoctests for the study variables. More detailed information is available in Minckler (2011). Table 8

presents the number and percentage of teachers assigned to each group by SPSS. The Levene

statistic indicated that the data violated the assumption of equal variance among the groups;

therefore, the Welch and Brown-Forsythe statistics have been reported. Both the Welch statistic

( F (2, 282) ¼ 6.344, r¼ 0.002, Z2¼ 0.029 (a small effect size)) and the Brown-Forsythe statistic

( F (2, 416) ¼ 6.600, r ¼ 0.002) indicated there was a statistically significant difference among

the groups. The interpretation of the magnitude of the effect size used Cohen’s guidelines (Leech

et al., 2008): small ¼ 0.10, medium ¼ 0.24 and large ¼ 0.37.

Post hoc comparisons using the Games-Howell test indicated that the mean score for Group 1

(M¼

92.08, SD¼

19.82 ) was significantly different from Group 2 (M¼

98.93, SD¼

13.96), r¼

0.002. Group 1 was not significantly different from Group 3 ( M ¼ 97.57, SD ¼ 18.35), r ¼ .034.

Table 7. Allocation of teachers according to SPS for MANOVA.

Group/SPS Frequency Percentage Cumulative percentage

1


16/23

Group 2 did not differ significantly from Group 3. Although the Group 1 mean differed signifi-

cantly from Groups 2 and 3, the effect size was quite small.

Interpretation. Previous studies on the relationship between leadership and student achievement

have tended to show that leader’s impact on teaching and learning is indirect and is mediated through the teaching function (Griffith, 2003; Leithwood et al., 2008; Ross and Gray, 2006a).

Ross and Gray (2006a: 813) report that principals ‘influence student achievement indirectly

by creating the organizational conditions through which improved teaching and learning will

occur’. The results of the current study suggest that leaders may also have a direct, albeit small

effect on student performance.

Major Findings and Conclusion

This section presents the main findings and conclusions of the study relative to school leadership.

Major Finding Number One

Significant, positive relationships were evident between leadership and each of the major facets of

teacher social capital (preconditions/energizers, TBOSC and TBRSC).

Preconditions/energizers. Correlations between the leadership and preconditions/energizers sub-scales ranged from a moderate correlation between leadership/provides individualized support and

preconditions/ability to a high moderate correlation between leadership/ provides intellectual sti-

mulation and preconditions/opportunity.

Conclusion. Although correlations cannot be construed as causation, it is reasonable to suppose thatthe findings support the hypothesis that transformational leadership works through preconditions/

energizers (opportunity, motivation and ability) to establish the environment under which teacher

social capital thrives. Teachers must have the place, the time and the imperative to form collabora-

tive relationships, and they must have resources to share. The transformational leader performs a

crucial role in developing the structures, both physical (for example, shared scheduling time) and

cultural (for example, norms of collegiality) that create the opportunities for groups of teachers to

work together to create and use teacher social capital. The relationships between opportunity and

the leadership subscales, in particular indicate that teachers in the study perceive opportunities for

professional growth as an avenue for leaders to provide intellectual stimulation and to encourageindividual improvement and high performance. This finding tends to support the concept of the

leader’s influence through academic press (Hoy et al., 1998). Academic press encompasses lead-

ership practices of academic emphasis, resource support and principal influence. By envisioning

the school as a learning organization (Louis, 2006; Senge, 1990), creating structures that enable

the necessary practices (Hord, 1997), establishing high expectations (Leithwood and Jantzi,

2000), and encouraging individual improvement (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2000), the transforma-

tional leader shapes a school culture that values and builds capacity.

Study findings also support earlier research indicating that leadership may also affect teacher

motivation (Griffith, 2003; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2000; Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006; Webb, 2007).

Findings indicate that the strongest relationships between leadership and motivation involve theleader actions of encouraging high performance, providing vision and inspiration, and providing


672




17/23

intellectual stimulation. Study findings support the research of others, that is, transformational lead-

ers develop intrinsic motivation in their followers through inspiration, individualized consideration,

and by providing intellectual stimulation (Griffith, 2003; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2000; Webb, 2007).

The moderate relationships between preconditions/ability and the eight leadership subscales

suggest that teachers in this study do not see their knowledge and teaching skills strongly influenced by school leadership. The low moderate correlation between the leadership subscale of provides indi-

vidualized support and the preconditions/ability particularly supports this interpretation. This finding

and interpretation also support Hoy et al. (1998), who, as previously mentioned, conclude that leaders

influence ability more indirectly through academic press. Additionally, the significant, moderate cor-

relation between leadership/encourages high performance and preconditions/ability tends to support

the findings of Phillips (as cited in Bower and Powers, 2009) who posits that high expectations are a

critical element of academic press.

TBOSC. The overall relationship between leadership and TBOSC is significant, positive and mod-

erate in magnitude. The correlations among the subscales of each variable are significant, positiveand moderate.

Conclusion. Study findings suggest that school leaders have a greater impact on TBOSC by estab-lishing the conditions under which it can flourish. However, organizational theory and research

also indicate that school leaders influence the social structure of the school through cultural

mechanisms such as mission, vision, values and norms. School leaders affect the social structure

of the school through cultural mechanisms such as mission, vision, values and norms. Whether the

norms and values of the network of teachers support collaboration, capacity building and student

achievement is ultimately up to leadership. Leaders shape the organizational culture through con-

sistency and alignment of words, attitude and actions. Leaders influence and modify group normsthrough their emphasis, actions and hiring practices (Bass and Avolio, 1994). The significant, mod-

erate correlation between leadership/encourages high performance, and TBOSC/effective teaching

beliefs and practices mirrors the finding of a significant, moderate correlation between leadership/

encourages high performance and preconditions/ability and supports the interpretation that leaders

impact teaching capacity through the establishment of high expectations. the significant, moderate

correlation between leadership/encourages high performance and TBOSC/ Collaboration indicates

that the teachers in the study associate leader expectations for high performance with the work

teachers do together to improve teaching and learning. The significant, moderate correlations

between: (1) leadership/provides intellectual stimulation and TBOSC/collaboration; and (2) lead-

ership/provides intellectual stimulation and TBOSC/community identity indicates that teachers inthe study recognize that: (1) their major learning occurs when they are working together; and (2)

they generally identify themselves as part of a community of learners. These findings support the

concept of schools as learning organizations, particularly, Senge’s (1990: 356) conceptualization

of the leader as a teacher who ‘fosters learning for everyone’.

An additional finding of the study was the significant, moderate correlation between the lead-

ership/models behavior and TBOSC/culture of community reinforcing the importance of the leader

as role model (Bass, 1985, 1990). Through their actions, leaders demonstrate that the school is a

community with shared vision, norms and goals.

The Moderate Correlation between the Composite Measure of Leadership and the Composite Measure of TBOSC. This finding confirms the principal researcher’s hypothesis: In schools where leadership


673




18/23


19/23

Conclusion. The low moderate correlation between leadership and TSE supports the possibility thatthe leader has a more indirect effect on teachers’ self-efficacy via his/her influence on collegial

support. Where the leader enables and assists the teachers to establish an efficacious collaborative

process, individual teachers engage in the experiences and receive feedback they need to become

more confident and capable in their abilities and more positive in their attitude about teaching. If this process does not exist, TSE is likely to be underdeveloped. For example, Whalstrom and Louis

(2008: 459) indicate that frequent teacher peer observations have been ‘clearly linked to . . .

improved teacher self efficacy.’ These experiences can become common practice among the

teacher social network when leadership expects and encourages deliberate planning, a defined pro-

cess, collegial relationships, and collective and individual participation.

Major Finding Number Three

Results of the MANOVA indicated that the mean perceived leadership measure for the teachers in

low SPS schools was significantly lower than the average leadership values for both teachers per-forming in middle SPS schools and in high SPS schools.

Conclusion. Previous studies on the relationship between leadership and student achievement havetended to show that leader’s impact on teaching and learning is indirect and mediated through the

teaching function (Griffith, 2003; Leithwood et al., 2008; Ross and Gray, 2006a). The results of the

current study suggest that leaders may also have a direct, albeit very small direct effect on student

performance.

Implications for School Leadership

The study findings provide insights into school leadership useful in improving both leader and

teacher effectiveness. The small, but significant relationship between leadership and school perfor-

mance contributes new knowledge to the study of school leadership. Heretofore, research has indi-

cated that the leader’s impact on student performance has been indirect, through the teaching

function. The findings of the current study suggest that the emphasis upon improved leadership

(developing the knowledge, behaviors and attitudes of transformational leaders) may provide

direct payoff in terms of improved school performance. Additionally, these transformational lead-

ership skills are significantly, moderately correlated with TBOSC, which are also related signifi-

cantly to school performance (Minckler, 2011).

Additional implications for leadership are presented in the paragraphs that follow, organized bycomponents of the system of teacher social capital.

Preconditions/energizers

According to Leithwood et al. (2008: 27), ‘School leadership is second only to classroom teaching

as an influence on pupil learning’. Additionally, researchers have determined that the leaders’

impact is mediated through the teaching function (Griffith, 2003; Leithwood et al., 2008). The iden-

tification of preconditions/energizers (opportunity, motivation and ability) introduces levers that

school leaders can use to develop a school environment where teacher social capital flourishes. The

study results reinforce the importance of creating access channels so that the individual teachers’abilities or resources become accessible to the teaching community. These channels are created when


675




20/23

opportunity, desire (or motivation) and imperative converge and teachers begin to collaborate to

share resources and increase the teaching capacity of the school. When these relationships are delib-

erate (formalized), the impact is more likely to be effective. By identifying the conditions under

which social capital forms and can be sustained, the model of a system of teacher social capital

exposes additional tools leaders can use to improve the teaching function and ultimately studentlearning.

TBOSC. TBOSC and its four dimensions provide a model of teacher working relationships thatshould achieve results. Guidance for leaders in reinforcing three of the dimensions is presented

here. This information is not new but reinforces the findings of others.

Culture of Community; Beliefs and Practices of Effective Teachers. Particularly through their actions,leaders demonstrate that the school is a community with shared vision, norms and goals. By using

their influence and by establishing expectations, leaders assist teachers in identifying the beliefs

and practices of effective teaching that will achieve results of improved teacher quality and studentlearning.

Collaboration. Collaboration requires a broadening of the scope of the traditional understanding of teaching abilities. In addition to content knowledge and pedagogical skills, teachers need to be

competent collaborators. A host of skills is necessary, including communication, conflict resolu-

tion, teambuilding, team leadership and problem solving. The learning and practice of these skills

could be incorporated into a professional development and team meeting plan.

TBRSC The small correlation between leadership and TBRSC may indicate that teachers in the study see

participation in professional organizations or professional development outside of the school as

more of a self-directed activity than a leader-directed one. If these activities can be used to increase

the teaching quality of the individual teacher, leaders need to increase the opportunity and/or moti-

vation for teachers to participate. In order for these activities to increase the teaching capacity of

the school, leaders need to create mechanisms that assure the incorporation of new learnings into

the resource pool.

TSE

Findings of the study may support the importance of using deliberate mechanisms for increasing

TSE. The moderate correlations found in the study between: (1) teacher social capital and TSE and

(b) leadership and TSE suggest that existing training and development practices may not provide

enough of Bandura’s (1997) four influences: mastery experiences; vicarious experiences; social

persuasion; and positive experiences. To address Bandura’s postulates, school leaders can directly

affect TSE by developing processes that: (1) assure teachers receive the training and practice they

need to develop skill; (2) provide teachers with opportunities to observe other teachers who can

serve as role models; (3) use observations from leaders and peers to provide positive feedback

to help build confidence; and (4) provide mentor and peer support to help foster positive experi-ences that will result in reduced stress and greater job satisfaction.


676




21/23

Summary

This paper has presented the results of a study exploring the relationship between leadership and

teacher social capital and other variables identified in the conceptual model of a system of teacher

social capital. The study used Leithwood et al.’s (2001) measure of transformational leadership

and the newly developed TSCS (Minckler, 2011) in conjunction with measures of TCE, and TSE

to explore the relationships. Study findings indicate high-moderate, positive correlations between:

transformational leadership and (1) the environmental conditions that nurture teacher social cap-

ital, (2) TBOSC, and (3) TCE. An additional major finding is the perception of higher levels of

transformational leadership among teachers in middle performing and high performing schools

as compared to the perceptions of teachers in low performing schools.

This study provides evidence of the importance of transformational leadership in the develop-

ment of teacher social capital within a school. High levels of teacher social capital should result in

positive outcomes of student achievement, teacher quality and teacher job satisfaction. The study

findings, interpretations and conclusions contribute to both school leadership and school improve-

ment literature and should inform discussions about leadership development and the impact of

leadership on teacher working relationships.

Acknowledgement

I wish to thank Dianne F. Olivier, Assistant Professor of Educational Foundations and Leadership, University

of Louisiana at Lafayette for her encouragement and support.

References

Bandura A (1997) Self Efficacy: The Exercise of Control . New York, NY: Freeman.

Barnet K and McCormick J (2004) Leadership and individual principal-teacher relationships in schools. Edu-cational Administration Quarterly 40(3): 406–434.

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass BM (1990) From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision. Organiza-

tional Dynamics 18(3): 19–31.

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1993) Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administra-

tion Quarterly 17: 112–121.

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (eds) (1994) Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational

Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Bourdieu P (1985) The forms of capital. In Richardson J (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the

Sociology of Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 214–258.Bower HA and Powers JD (2009) What is rigor?: a qualitative analysis of one school’s definition. Academic

Leadership Live: The Online Journal 7(4). Available at: http://www.academicleadership.org/article/

What_is_Rigor_A_Qualitative_Analysis_of_One_School_s_Definition.

Brinson D and Steiner L (2007) Building Collective Efficacy: How Leaders Inspire Teachers to Achieve (Issue

Brief). Washington, DC: Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.

Coleman J (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology 94(Sup-

plement): S95–S120.

Dellinger AB, Bobbett JJ, Olivier DF and Ellett CD (2008) Measuring teachers’ self efficacy beliefs: devel-

opment and use of the TEBS-Self. Teaching and Teacher Education 24: 751–766.

Feldman DC (1984) The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review9(1): 47–53.


677


http://www.academicleadership.org/article/What_is_Rigor_A_Qualitative_Analysis_of_One_School_s_Definitionhttp://www.academicleadership.org/article/What_is_Rigor_A_Qualitative_Analysis_of_One_School_s_Definitionhttp://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://www.academicleadership.org/article/What_is_Rigor_A_Qualitative_Analysis_of_One_School_s_Definitionhttp://www.academicleadership.org/article/What_is_Rigor_A_Qualitative_Analysis_of_One_School_s_Definition


22/23

Griffith J (2003) Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turn-

over, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration 42(3): 333–356.

Hodson R (2005) Management behaviour as social capital: a systematic analysis of organizational ethnogra-

phies. British Journal of Industrial Relations 43(1): 41–65.

Hoy WK, Sweetland SR and Smith PA (2002) Toward an organizational model of achievement in highschools: the significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly 38: 77–93.

Hord S (1997) Professional Learning Communities: Communities of Continuous Inquiry and Improvement .

Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Available at: http://www.sedl.org/pubs/

change34/2.html.

Leech NL, Barrett KC and Morgan GA (2008) SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Interpretation , 3rd

edn. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Leithwood KA (1992) The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 49(35): 8–12.

Leithwood KA, Aitken R and Jantzi D (2001) Making Schools Smarter: A System for Monitoring School and

District Progress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Leithwood K, Harris A and Hopkins D (2008) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management 28(1): 27–42.

Leithwood KA and Jantzi D (2000) The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions

and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration 38(2): 112–129.

Lin N (2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Louis KS (2006) Changing the culture of schools: professional community, organizational learning, and trust.

Journal of School Leadership 16(5): 477–489.

Minckler CH (2011) Teacher social capital: the development of a conceptual model and measurement frame-

work with application to educational leadership and teacher efficacy. Dissertation, University of Louisiana

at Lafayette. Proquest document id: 915643477.Minckler CH, Trahan MP and Olivier DF (2010) A conceptual model of teacher social capital. Paper pre-

sented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Northouse P (2007) Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Olivier DF (2001) Teacher personal and school culture characteristics in effective schools: Toward a model of

a professional learning community. PhD dissertation, Louisiana State University.

Pallant J (2007) SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows , 3rd

edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Piccolo RF and Colquitt JA (2006) Transformational leadership and job behaviors: the mediating role of core

job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal 49(2): 327–340.

Ross JA and Gray P (2006a) School leadership and student achievement: the mediating effects of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education 29(3): 798–822.

Ross JA and Gray P (2006b) Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values:

the mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 17(2):

179–199.

Schwarzer R, Schmitz G and Daytner G (1999) Teacher self efficacy. Available at: http://userpage.fu-berlin.

de/*health/teacher_se.htm.

Senge PM (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. London: Doubleday.

Sparks D (2005) Leading for transformation in teaching, learning, and relationships. In: DuFour R, Eaker R

and DuFour R (eds) On Common Ground . Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree, 155–176.

Webb K (2007) Motivating peak performance: leadership behaviors that stimulate employee motivation and performance. Christian Higher Education 6: 53–71.


678


http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/2.htmlhttp://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/2.htmlhttp://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/teacher_se.htmhttp://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/teacher_se.htmhttp://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/teacher_se.htmhttp://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/teacher_se.htmhttp://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/teacher_se.htmhttp://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/teacher_se.htmhttp://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/2.htmlhttp://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/2.html


23/23

Whalstrom KL and Louis KS (2008) How teachers experience principal leadership: the roles of professional

community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(4):

458–49.

Author biography

Cheri Hoff Minckler holds undergraduate degrees in sociology and in petroleum engineering

from the University of Southwestern Louisiana (now the University of Louisiana at Lafayette) and

a master’s in science education from the University of Florida. She was awarded a doctor in edu-

cation degree in December 2011. She has worked in the oilfield in positions ranging from roust-

about to production engineer. She taught in the public school system in Florida and has more

recently taught online courses for offshore personnel in petroleum geology, drilling and produc-

tion. Dr Minckler has over 25 years of training and consulting experience, and as the president

of Production Regulatory Services, LLC, works with companies in a variety of industries in theareas of leadership and human resource and organizational development.


679

educational management administration & leadership-2014-minckler-school leadership that

Documents