A case study of leadership of

kindergarten principals in Hong Kong

Tricia Kwok Sai Wong

B.SS. (University of East Asia),

M.Ed. (University of Georgia)

Centre for Learning Innovation

Queensland University of Technology

Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy

2006

i

A CASE STUDY OF LEADERSHIP OF

KINDERGARTEN PRINCIPALS IN HONG KONG

KEYWORDS: LEADERSHIP, KINDERGARTEN, WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP,

CULTURE

ABSTRACT

Little attention has been paid to how kindergarten principals in Hong Kong

enact their leadership and how their leadership is related to the gender of the

principals and to the culture of the society. This study therefore aimed to document

and explore how two kindergarten principals in Hong Kong conducted their

leadership in respect of what they did, why they did so, and how they experienced

their leadership, with a view to understanding the leadership conduct of these

principals and to shedding light on the issues of women and the role of culture in

school leadership.

Both participants were female. One of the leaders was the principal of a non

profit-making kindergarten which had joined the government’s subsidy scheme, and

the other was a principal of a profit-making kindergarten that had not joined the

scheme. A series of in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the

principals along with observations of what they did on specific days as well as an

analysis of documents the principals used in their work. Rich and thick data were

obtained regarding what these principals did in leading staff to offer an education to

children, and the beliefs, values and motives underlying their leadership. Both

principals exercised strong and direct control over what to teach children, how

teachers engaged in their teaching, and the activities designed to promote the

kindergartens to the public to recruit children. They did so because of their beliefs

about the importance of these matters for defining the kind of education to offer to

children, their determination to lead well, and their perception of staff being

ii

insufficiently competent and motivated. Both exerted much less control on matters

perceived as less important to enhancing the survival of the kindergartens. One of

the principals was concerned about adverse effects of how staff viewed her

leadership, which arose from the strong control she exercised. In light of her

perception of the propriety of caring behaviour towards others in a kindergarten, she

exhibited caring and teamwork behaviour aimed partly at minimising the adverse

effects of her strong control. The other principal was not concerned about negative

effects on staff of the strong and direct control she exercised, but still demonstrated a

range of behaviour, including caring and teamwork behavior, to motivate staff to

perform.

The findings show that these leaders considered a host of factors in enacting

their leadership, and thus suggest that current theorizing of women in leadership

needs to capture an extended range of complex factors that may influence how

female leaders conduct and experience their leadership. In addition, the findings

add to current theorizing about the motives underlying the enactment of leadership,

in that control was enacted to conform to cultural expectations and to ensure

adequate staff performance, while caring was enacted to minimize the adverse

effects on staff of control or as means to motivate staff. The findings also show that

the two leaders made active use of culture to influence staff, and experienced

tensions coming from competing cultural values and norms. These are aspects that

have not been addressed by current theorizing of the role of culture in school

leadership.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

Abstract i

Table of Contents iii

List of Tables vi

List of Figures vi

List of Appendices vii

Statement of Original Authorship viii

Acknowledgements ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Research problem and background for addressing the problem 1

1.1.1 Leadership of principals at primary and secondary schools

in western societies: Recent trends, research and issues

2

1.1.2 Leadership of heads in preschool settings in western

societies: Research and issues

8

1.1.3 Leadership of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong 12

1.2 Chapter outline 17

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 19

2.1 School education in Hong Kong 19

2.2 Leadership: Definition and theories 24

2.3 Changes in the role of primary and secondary school principals in

western societies

32

2.3.1 Research on leadership of primary and secondary school

principals in western societies

35

2.3.2 Relevance to the present study 39

2.4 Leadership of female school principals 40

2.4.1 Access and on-the-job hindrances 41

2.4.2 Possibility of the operation of similar hindrances in

kindergartens in Hong Kong

43

2.4.3 The way female school principals enact their leadership 44

iv

2.4.4 Forces influencing leadership of female principals 47

2.5 Impact of the culture of a society on school leadership 50

2.5.1 Culture and leadership of school principals 51

2.5.2 The impact of culture on school leadership 52

2.5.3 Rationale for examining culture in the leadership of

kindergarten principals in Hong Kong

58

2.5.4 Culture and kindergarten principals in Hong Kong 60

CHAPTER THREE: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 63

3.1 Conceptual framework 63

3.1.1 Leadership of women school principals 63

3.1.2 Competition among kindergartens 67

3.1.3 Government’s Kindergarten Subsidy Scheme 69

3.1.4 Culture of Hong Kong society 72

3.2 Aims, research questions and significance of this study 74

CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY 77

4.1 Research approach 77

4.2 Participants 80

4.3 Data collection 82

4.3.1 Interviews 84

4.3.2 Observation 87

4.3.3 Use of documents 90

4.4 Data analysis 91

4.5 Issues and limitations 93

4.5.1 Trustworthiness 93

4.5.2 Ethics 97

4.5.3 Transferability 97

4.5.4 Limitations of the study 99

CHAPTER FIVE: AMY’S LEADERSHIP 101

5.1 The kindergarten 101

5.2 Forces of change 102

v

5.3 Direct and strong control 107

5.3.1 Work roles in the kindergarten 107

5.3.2 Command structure 108

5.3.3 Work culture Amy was promoting in staff 110

5.3.4 Curriculum and teaching approach 114

5.3.5 Monitoring teacher actions 120

5.3.6 Activities for parents 122

5.3.7 Other aspects of operation of the kindergarten 129

5.3.8 Summary 133

5.4 Concerns of exercising control: Expression of caring and teamwork 133

CHAPTER SIX: BETTY’S LEADERSHIP 140

6.1 The kindergarten 140

6.2 Forces of change 141

6.3 Enhancing the competitiveness of the kindergarten 146

6.4 Ensuring adequate staff performance 156

6.4.1 Work role and command structure 157

6.4.2 Control exercised over the study curriculum and teaching

approach

159

6.4.2.1 Control over the decision making process 159

6.4.2.2 Monitoring teacher action 164

6.4.2.3 Betty’s experience of exercising control over

the study curriculum and teaching approach

167

6.4.3 Control exercised over extra-curricular activities 171

6.4.4 Motivating staff to perform 175

6.5 Summary 182

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSIONS 184

7.1 Women in leadership 185

7.2 Implications of the findings on theorizing of leadership 187

7.3 Impact of systemic context: Government subsidy scheme and

competition among kindergartens

192

7.4 The role of culture in school leadership 196

vi

7.5 Conceptual framework employed 202

7.6 Methodology used 206

7.7 Conclusion 207

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER FOUR

Table 1 Interview schedule for Amy 85

Table 2 Interview schedule for Betty 85

Table 3 Observation schedule for Amy 88

Table 4 Observation schedule for Betty 89

Table 5 Elements of field notes 89

Table 6 Descriptions of data codes 92

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Dimmock and Walker’s view of forces impacting on school

processes

55

Figure 2 Cheng’s view of multi-level cultures in school processes 57

Figure 3 Element of framework: Motives, beliefs and perceptions of

principals

65

Figure 4 Elements of framework: Leader attributes and leadership frames 67

Figure 5 Elements of framework: Leader attributes, leadership frames

and competition among kindergartens

69

Figure 6 Elements of framework: Leader attributes, leadership frames,

competition among kindergartens and government subsidy

scheme

72

Figure 7 Elements of framework: Leader attributes, leadership frames,

competition among kindergartens and government subsidy

scheme and role of culture

76

Figure 8 Elements of framework: Leader attributes, leadership frames,

competition among kindergartens and government subsidy

scheme and role of culture

202

Figure 9 Impact of subsidy scheme on competitiveness 204

Figure 10 Impact of culture on systemic contextual elements 206

vii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Types of leadership theories 209

Appendix B Research on leadership of school principals in

Hong Kong

211

Appendix C Information statement 215

Appendix D Consent form 216

Appendix E Case study protocol 217

Appendix F Checklist for observation 218

Appendix G Form for making observation field notes 219

Appendix H Questions for the interviews 220

Appendix I Use of documents 222

Appendix J Transcriptions 224

Appendix K An example of mapping system 231

Appendix L Examples from the coding system 232

Appendix M Identification number of statements 233

Appendix N Ethical clearance 236

REFERENCES 237

viii

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the

best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature: __ ______

Date: _____16 February 2006__________

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study would never have been completed without the support of many

individuals. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my Principal Supervisor, Prof.

Collette Tayler, for her guidance and invaluable support for the past few years.

Collette is very professional and has been extremely willing to share with me her

immensely rich but integrated knowledge not just on leadership, but on diverse areas

of early childhood studies. She has been very kind and considerate. She always

provided extended help and care to me.

My Associate Supervisor, Prof. Susan Grieshaber, has been very supportive and

understanding. She gave me insightful ideas and constructive guidance on various

different aspects of the study.

I also wish to thank Dr. Nadine McCrea, Dr. Merv Wilkinson, Dr. Barry

Burdon, Dr. Ali Black, Dr. Lisa Ehrich, and Dr. Daphne Meadmore, who provided

advice and suggestions with regard to my study and academic development.

Further, I appreciate the Hong Kong Institute of Education for providing support in

many different ways.

I would also like to thank the principals who allowed me to work with them in

the study. They devoted much of their time in the process when I collected data.

Without their sincere help and sharing, this study would never be completed.

Finally, I would like to extend my appreciation and gratitude to my family, in

particular my husband and my daughter, for their encouragement and patience.

With their support, I have the strength to overcome the difficulties in completing the

study.

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides the background to this study. It identifies the research

problem and the rationale for addressing the problem (Section 1.1). This is followed

by an outline of the chapters of this thesis (Section 1.2).

1.1 Research problem and background for addressing the problem

There is a need for an in-depth understanding of how kindergarten principals in

Hong Kong perceive and enact their leadership. The information is pertinent to

addressing the issues of leadership of women and the impact of the culture of a

society. A kindergarten in Hong Kong, according to the Hong Kong Government,

refers to a physical setting wherein children three to six years of age are given,

through a group of qualified staff and a relaxing and pleasurable learning

environment, care and education aiming to promote in children a balanced

development in cognition, physical fitness, emotional and social well-being, and

aesthetic appreciation (Education and Manpower Bureau, 2003, 2004). In reality,

however, kindergartens in Hong Kong vary in respect of the qualifications of the

staff they have and the emphasis they place on specific aspects of development.

Most kindergartens attach greater importance to the training of scholastic skills (Rao

& Koong, 2000). Leadership is defined as the influence exercised by the person

holding a formal position of leadership in formulating goals for the group concerned

and in aligning the group to work towards the goals (Kotter, 1996). Accordingly,

leadership in the context of kindergartens in Hong Kong in this study refers to the

leadership exercised by the kindergarten principals.

Research on school leadership in many western societies has focused

predominantly on primary and secondary school principals, due in part to the

attention being paid in recent years to the changing role of these principals and

large-scale restructuring towards site-based management. The trend towards

site-based management in western societies and related research on leadership of

school principals is outlined in Section 1.1.1, including the two issues of women in

leadership and the impact of the culture of a society. This research is relevant to

the current study because kindergarten principals in Hong Kong also practise

2

site-based management. For example, the challenges that primary and secondary

school principals in western societies experienced in site-based management and the

factors that influenced their leadership provided insights for understanding what

kindergarten principals in Hong Kong do as leaders, why they do so, and how

leadership enactment is related to the two issues in question. Leadership in early

childhood education in western societies is then highlighted, along with the two

issues of women and culture (Section 1.1.2). This information, in light of the

similarity in the kind of education offered and similarity in the groups of children

involved, enabled further insights for exploring the leadership enactment and

perceptions of Hong Kong kindergarten principals, including how their leadership

related to the issues of women in leadership and culture. Next, several topics are

examined including kindergarten education in Hong Kong, the status of research on

leadership of kindergarten principals, the issues of women in leadership and the

impact of culture, and how these issues call for an in-depth understanding of the

leadership of kindergarten principals in the Territory (Section 1.1.3).

1.1.1 Leadership of principals at primary and secondary schools in western

societies: Recent trends, research and issues

The past two decades have witnessed similar, large-scale changes in the

structure and operation of primary and secondary schools in western countries such

as Australia, Britain and the U.S.A. (e.g., Barber, 1996; Bush & Bell, 2002;

Chapman, 1996; Cheng, 2002; Fullan, 1993; Leithwood, 1994; Rowan, 2000; Reavis

& Griffith, 1992). Bearing in mind differences between countries, from the late

1980s, partly as a result of the economic downturn and the influence of

neo-conservative ideology on government, there were widespread

government-mandated movements towards de-centralizing the operations of schools

in the form of site-based management (Bush & Bell, 2002). The forms that

decentralization took and the time it started varied from country to country, but the

general trend has been towards giving schools greater control over their internal

operations, towards making schools more responsive and accountable to the

communities they serve, and towards making schools more responsive to market

forces in recruiting and serving students. Britain has continued to maintain a strong

control over aspects of the operation of schools (Bush & Bell, 2002), such as

3

government inspections of schools and control over curriculum, while most other

countries show much less control by the central government (Barber, 1996).

As a result of site-based management, school principals have greater

responsibility and control, along with greater accountability, in operating their

schools (e.g., Cranston, Ehrich & Billot, 2002; Foskett & Lumby, 2003; Hayes, 1995;

Riley & Macbeath, 2003; Wohlstetter, 1991; Wohlstetter & Mohrman, 1993). In

essence, principals need to devise long-term goals for their schools, communicate

with their staff in relation to government-mandated reform initiatives, involve staff

in joint decision making, motivate and transform their staff into a new organic entity

to achieve the goals set, relate to many more stakeholders such as parents and the

central government bureaucracy, and market their schools to recruit sufficient

numbers of students (Cranston et al., 2002). Thus school governance has changed

to a local level and leadership teams have been developing within schools (Bell &

Rowley, 2002).

In light of the changing roles of the principals, theorizing and research have

moved from transactional to transformational leadership of principals, which, despite

varied versions, views principals as developing goals for the schools, and motivating

and involving staff in a way that transforms them to perform at their best to achieve

the goals set (Gronn, 2002; Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 2002; Leithwood, Chapman,

Corson, Hallinger, & Hart, 1996; Silins, 1992, 1994; Silins & Mulford, 2002).

Research has been conducted to investigate the extent of transformational leadership

that was practiced (Hallinger & Heck, 1996), how leadership was influenced by

contextual variables such as the socioeconomic status of the surrounding community,

and parental involvement (Silins & Mulford, 2002); and the impact of principal

leadership on school organisation, school culture, student outcomes and teachers'

work (Hallinger & Heck, 2002). Related research has also examined how

leadership of principals played out in relation to different facets of restructuring

towards site-based management, such as managing teaching and learning, managing

human resources, managing finance, managing external relationships, and managing

uncertainties (Bennett & Anderson, 2003; Bush & Bell, 2002; Duignan & Collins,

2003; Ginsberg & Davis, 2003; Leithwood et al., 1996; Leithwood, Tomlinson &

Genge, 1996).

4

Research findings on the principalship related to restructuring, and those before

the reforms, have led to some well-established principles concerning leadership of

primary and secondary school principals. One of the principles is the impact of the

leadership of school principals on teachers, students, and school organisation. For

instance, in relation to teacher outcomes, research conducted in Australia, Britain,

and U.S.A. indicates that the leadership of primary and secondary school principals

has significant bearing on various aspects of teachers’ work and experience.

Leadership of the principals has been found to influence how strongly teachers

identified with their school, such as their internalisation of the school vision (Webb

& Vulliamy, 1996), developing a sense of mission and a work culture (Nias,

Southworth & Yeomans, 1989), and developing a positive climate among fellow

teachers (Brady, 1985; Iannaccone & Jamgochian, 1985; Wallace and Hall, 1994).

Leadership of the principals has also been found to influence the teaching practices

and performance of teachers, such as acceptance and use of innovative practices in

the classroom (Leithwood & Montgomery,1986), satisfaction with the school

curriculum (Brady, 1985), and acceptance of and willingness to implement a new

program (Sharman, 1987). In addition, leadership of principals has been shown to

influence teachers’ evaluations of their work and their role as teachers, such as

commitment to and satisfaction with their work (Baker & Dellar, 1999; Barnett,

McCormick & Conners, 2001; Wallace & Hall, 1994), morale (Cheng, 1994; Cheng,

1996; Cheng & Cheung, 1999; O’Donoghue & Dimmock, 1998), self-esteem (Blase,

Dedrick & Strathe, 1986; O’Donoghue & Dimmock, 1998), and self-perceived

professionalism (O’Donoghue & Dimmock, 1998).

Another well-established principle relates to the significant impact of context

on principal leadership, such as level of schooling, type of school, socioeconomic

status and cultural makeup of the community from which a school draws its students,

parental involvement and government reform initiatives (Oplatka, 2001; Reay & Ball,

2000). For instance, Barnett et al. (2001) showed that symbolic leadership of the

principals, referring to measures taken to signify the importance of the organisation

and its goals and missions, has adverse effects on teachers’ performance more at the

secondary level than at the primary level. This was because teachers in secondary

schools needed time for improving their teaching more critically than did teachers in

5

primary schools. Instead, they had to spend time on implementing activities

designed by the principal to signify the importance of the school’s mission.

Yet, a number of issues in relation to principal leadership are barely considered,

two of which are relevant to the present study. They are leadership of female

principals and impact of the culture of a society. With regard to leadership of

female principals, from the 1980s onwards, some female scholars in various western

societies have advanced the view that male-dominated school systems have subtly

discriminated against female teachers in moving to more prestigious administrative

positions, proposing that there were ‘glass ceilings’ preventing females from

reaching administrative positions (Ebrahimi, 1999; Edson, 1988; Hill & Ragland,

1995; Marshall & Mitchell, 1989; Reay & Ball, 2000; Smulyan, 2000; Yeakey, 1986).

Examples of such hurdles were the existence of widely held social stereotypes that

women were too weak to be real leaders, and a lack of female mentors or models.

Equally important was the view that, despite individual differences, female

principals, as a result of their socialization and family experience, prefer a

collaborative way of leading, exercising influence through sharing power with and

through others, in place of males’ preference for exercising control over others

(Fennell, 1999). Those scholars (Sachs & Blackmore, 1998; Fennell, 1999;

Helgesen, 1990; Limerick & Anderson, 1999; Shakeshaft, 1987; Strachan, 1999)

maintained that females were historically barred by the male-dominated system from

contributing to how school leadership was conceived and how leadership should be

enacted. Two consequences have been identified. First, a feminine, collaborative

style demonstrated by female school principals was devalued by their male

counterparts (Shakeshaft, 1987). Second, proper and effective school leadership

was viewed mainly as dominance and control, reflective of a male-dominated school

system (Smulyan, 2000).

Subsequent research on leadership of female school principals has

concentrated on principals’ leadership styles. Such research showed that in some

western societies, female principals exhibited a caring, nurturing and less dominant

style of leading (Hall, 1996). Other research, however, showed that female leaders

adopted a controlling style, due partly to the requirement of their leadership role in

motivating and coordinating staff to achieve the goals set (e.g., Dobbins & Platz,

6

1986). Yet other studies (e.g., Collard, 2001) revealed female principals as

exhibiting an androgynous leadership style comprising both masculine and feminine

features, probably due to the complex interplay between being female and the job

requirements of being a leader. It was also shown that instead of adopting a

consistent style of leadership, some female principals displayed different ways of

leading in different situations (e.g., Thompson, 2000). Thus, different ways of

leading have been documented in female school principals, and different

explanations have been offered as to why female school leaders showed or did not

show a collaborative style. However, it is still unclear which of the explanations is

more tenable and in what contexts in explaining why female principals enact one

way of leading over others.

The second issue pertains to an area of school leadership that has not been

systematically explored -- the influence of the culture of a society. The culture of a

society refers to the key values, beliefs and practices that are internalized and upheld

by members of the society (Dimmock, 1998). The role of context in school

leadership, such as socioeconomic and cultural background of the students and

extent of parental involvement, has been well established (Hallinger & Leithwood,

1996). However, such contexts have been confined to the immediate surroundings

of the schools. The impact on school leadership of government-mandated school

restructuring towards site-based management that began in the late 1980s in many

western societies, such as involvement of teachers and external parties in decision

making through consensus building, and heightened attention to external relations

indicates clearly the impact of the wider social and political context on conception

and enactment of principal leadership. The view of some female scholars that a

female conception and enactment of leadership was long excluded in the theorizing

of school leadership in a male-dominated social system (Smulyan, 2000) is another

case of how school leadership is influenced by the wider social and political contexts

within which schools are situated. Such social and political influences are

consistent with, but go far beyond, the type of influence on principal leadership of

the local context of the schools, such as socioeconomic status and cultural

characteristics of the community.

Influence of the wider social and political context has been conceptualised as

the exosystem in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model of school functioning,

7

wherein functioning of schools is influenced by such forces as social and political

systems. The exosystem is in turn embedded within the macrosystem or the culture

of the society, and refers to the set of core attitudes, beliefs and values a society has

developed. According to this model, schooling is inevitably embedded within the

culture of the society, in that school structures and processes are influenced by,

reflect, and in turn perpetuate culture. One important implication of this is that

different societies, due to differences in cultural makeup, may have different goals,

structures and processes in schooling, including different conceptions of school

leadership, different conceptions of behaviours that are considered as appropriate for

the leaders, and different conceptions of effective leadership.

A number of examples are suggestive of the impact of culture on school

structures and processes, though not on leadership of the principals. One example

is the nature and type of curriculum that schools select, which represents what the

society values, considers as important, and wants the coming generations to know

about or to internalize (Cheng, 2000). Further, the impact of culture on schooling

within a society can be seen from some cross-cultural research. For instance,

students in Hong Kong were shown to approach learning through rote-learning and

recitation and to value the product of learning over the process of learning, whereas

students in the U.S.A. were shown to emphasise memorization much less, and to

value the process of learning over product (Dimmock & Walker, 2000). Dimmock

and Walker (2000) considered such differences to reflect the variations in the two

cultures in terms of what is considered important to learn, and of how learning can

be achieved, with people in Hong Kong valuing discipline and exertion of efforts

whereas people in the U.S.A. valued creativity and understanding. Thus, within

each of these two societies, the processes and goals of learning reflect the culture of

the society.

While culture is conceptualized as exerting a pervasive impact on schooling in

Bronfenbrenner’s model, little systematic research has been done on its influence on

school structure and processes, including principal leadership, within a society and

across cultures. Little is therefore known about how culture influences school

leadership specifically, and how such influences are mediated. However, in recent

years, some theorizing and research on this topic has begun (Cheng, 2000; Dimmock

& Walker, 2000).

8

1.1.2 Leadership of heads in preschool settings in western societies: Research

and issues

Though much research has been undertaken on aspects of early childhood

education in many western societies, such as governance (Bredekamp, 1989; Ellison

& Barbour, 1992; Gammage, 1999, 2000; Powell, 1989), financing (Fleer &

Waniganayake, 1994), teacher training (Fleer & Waniganayake, 1994; Tayler, 1992,

2000) and parental involvement (Ferguson & Prentice, 2000), less attention has been

paid to school leadership in early childhood education. This is probably related to

the way such education has historically been structured and operated. In many

countries, a wide variety of services are involved in providing early childhood care

and education for young children, such as family day care, day care centres and

kindergartens (Hujola & Puroila, 1998). Many of these settings involve a small

number of staff members, some of whom work on a part-time basis. Despite

differences from country to country, the key function of early childhood education is

the provision of care for children and this is emphasized more than the teaching of

academic oriented subjects (Hujola & Puroila, 1998). The administrators and staff

in such settings are predominantly females who work together closely in teams

offering quality care to children (Hujola & Puroila, 1998). Generally, the provision

of care for children, the small number of staff and the long tradition of cooperation

among the staff may have made the notion of leadership of centre directors or

kindergarten principals less significant (Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2003).

In the 1970s to the 1980s, as governments in many western countries began to

offer financial support to early childhood education, the size of operation of many

early childhood educational settings grew significantly (Hayden, 1996; Rodd, 1996).

Despite the decrease in support from the government in the 1990s, the number of

children attending early childhood education continued to grow (Hayden, 1996;

Rodd, 1996). As a result, many of these settings developed a more refined

hierarchy of staff, with centre directors or kindergarten principals being given

greater responsibility to oversee and administer the operation of centres or

kindergartens. The leadership of directors or kindergarten principals became more

relevant to the success of the operation of centres or kindergartens (Hayden, 1996).

9

Jorde-Bloom (1992) advanced the view that the leadership of centre directors

played a significant role in ensuring the quality of childcare programs for children.

Later work advanced similar views, based on the literature of principal leadership at

primary and secondary schools and extending this to offer advice to centre directors

and kindergarten principals about what they could do to provide effective leadership

(e.g., Jorde-bloom, 1997; Waniganayake, 1998). Relevant to the leadership of

centre directors or kindergarten principals were the responsibilities of developing

long-term goals; decision making; recruiting, motivating, evaluating staff and

promoting their development; resolution of conflicts among the staff; and

establishing linkages with the surrounding community (Hayden, 1996, Rodd, 1994).

Given the important impact of the leadership of principals on student and teacher

outcomes at the primary and secondary school level, effective enactment of such

duties and responsibilities by the preschool leaders will likely enhance the quality of

education at the preschool level.

So far only limited research has been conducted on the leadership of centre

directors or kindergarten principals (Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2003; Hayden, 1996;

Henderson-Kelly & Pampjhilomn, 2000; Humphries & Senden, 2000; Jorde-Bloom,

1995, 1997; Rodd, 1994; Waniganayake, Morda, & Kapsalakis, 2000). It has

already been shown that centre directors or kindergarten principals were perceived as

the formal leaders of the centres or kindergartens, and that the style of leadership that

was preferred by the centre directors or kindergarten principals was collaborative.

For instance, Henderson-Kelly and Pamphilon (2000) conducted in-depth interviews

with three female childcare directors to explore the type of leadership that they

enacted or with which they could identify. The style of leadership that emerged

was based on connection with others, empowerment, reciprocity, collaboration, and

an understanding of children and families.

A recent publication on leadership in early childhood education proposed that

leadership of centre directors or kindergarten principals should include not just

leading their staff to achieve the goals and objectives set, but should go beyond the

centres to forge linkages between research and practice (Culkin, 2000), and to

promote the advancement of early childhood education (Kagan & Neuman, 2003).

Such leadership was viewed as residing not just in centre directors and kindergarten

principals, but also in other individuals who promote the field of early childhood

10

education, such as researchers. However, research reported by Culkin (2000) on

these aspects of leadership and on how centre directors and kindergarten principals

lead their schools was not extensive. Another recent publication also reveals

insufficient empirical attention paid to leadership of centre directors or kindergarten

principals (Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2003). Thus, so far, systematic research

attention has not been paid to how centre directors and kindergarten principals

perceive and enact their leadership, how their leadership is influenced by factors

inside and outside of the work settings, and how their leadership may impact on the

organisational culture and climate of the setting, and on various teacher and child

outcomes.

Given the claimed importance of the leadership of centre directors or

kindergarten principals in ensuring the successful and effective implementation of

childcare service (Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2003; Hayden, 1996; Jorde-Bloom,

1992; Kagan, 2000), and the important effects of principal leadership on teacher and

student outcomes at the primary and secondary level, more attention needs to be paid

to how centre directors and kindergarten principals enact their leadership. In

addition, as many centre directors or kindergarten principals are childcare workers or

kindergarten teachers who have been promoted to a leadership position, they have

undertaken childcare or teacher training but have not received training in leadership

skills (Hayden, 1996). Given such conditions, they may not be sufficiently

prepared to lead effectively. Coupled with the difficulties they may encounter in

balancing their work with family concerns, as documented in the case of many

female primary and secondary school principals (Blackmore, 1999; Helgesen, 1990),

such leaders may also encounter a host of other difficulties in enacting their

leadership. Information about the leadership of centre directors and kindergarten

principals would allow not just an understanding of how such leaders enact their

leadership, but would also facilitate the design of in-service programs for enhancing

the work experiences of such individuals.

The issue of women in leadership is especially relevant to an understanding of

leadership of early childhood centre directors and kindergarten principals, as the

great majority of centre directors and kindergarten principals in most countries are

female. The research conducted so far about the leadership of centre directors and

kindergarten principals has shown that they demonstrated a collaborative style

11

(Hayden, 1996; Henderson-Kelly & Pamphilon, 2000; Rodd, 1994). However,

little such research has been undertaken. Why do centre directors or kindergarten

principals exhibit a collaborative way of leading? Is such a way of leading related

to the gender of the leaders, or is it related to characteristics of the preschool settings,

such as providing nurturing care to young children, or leading a group of staff who

are females?

With regard to the influence of culture on the leadership of centre directors or

kindergarten principals, it can be extrapolated from Brofenbrenner’s ecological

model (1979) that early childhood education, much the same as primary and

secondary education, is essentially embedded within the culture of a society. It

follows that leadership processes, an aspect of early childhood education, are

inevitably influenced by culture. An important implication of the model is that

different societies, due to differences in cultural makeup, may have different

conceptions of leadership for centre directors and kindergarten principals; different

conceptions of proper leadership behaviours, and different views of leadership

effectiveness. However, no research to date seems to have been done on the

influence of culture on the leadership of centre directors and kindergarten principals.

Some cross-cultural research on aspects of early childhood education other than

leadership is suggestive of the impacts of culture. For instance, it has been shown

that societies that value early learning of scholastic skills have kindergartens that

teach children basic writing and reading skills, whereas societies that do not value

learning of scholastic skills at such an early age have kindergartens that avoid the

teaching of basic writing and reading (Bush, 1996). Thus, what is taught in

kindergartens within a society is influenced by what is viewed as important to

children by society. Likewise, societies that view young children more as public

assets tend to have strong government control and financing of early childhood

education, whereas societies that view young children as properties of their families

tend to have less government control and financing of early childhood education

(Cohen & Pompa, 1996). Assuming the inevitable influence of culture on

leadership in early childhood education, attention needs to be paid to examining how

the perception and enactment of leadership by centre directors and kindergarten

principals is influenced by the culture of a society.

12

1.1.3 Leadership of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong

Early childhood education in Hong Kong has historically been separated into

childcare centres and kindergartens, with the former under the regulation of the

Social Welfare Department of the Government, and the latter under the supervision

of the Education Department (Education Department, 1993; 1994; 1995). The

government has not been actively involved in the operation and financing of

childcare centres and kindergartens in the Territory, with all centres and

kindergartens being operated by private bodies (Lau, Lee, Wan, & Wong, 2003).

The Government has formulated guidelines on curriculum and operation for

kindergartens (Education Department, 1996, 2000, 2002), but as the guidelines are

general in content and non-prescriptive, kindergartens in the Territory are given a

high degree of freedom in how they wish to operate. In effect, the centres and

kindergartens determine what they wish to provide or teach, recruit individuals they

see fit to work in the centres or kindergartens, and set the fees for the services they

offer. As a result, different kindergartens in Hong Kong adopt different curricula of

studies, use different teaching approaches, adopt different languages of instruction,

employ individuals with different qualifications, have varying teacher to child ratios,

schedule different numbers of hours of schooling on a typical school day, and charge

different amounts for school fees and related expenses (Tse & Opper, 1992). By

and large, childcare centres and kindergartens in the Territory are given a high

degree of freedom to operate in the way they wish, as long as they comply with

government regulations concerning building safety and hygiene, and do not deviate

much from the government guidelines on curriculum and operation.

Most kindergartens are small in size and operation, with many having less than

200 children (Education Department, 2002). As there is a morning session for one

group of children and an afternoon session for another group of children, and as the

same teachers teach in both sessions, the number of staff remains quite small.

Many kindergartens have 5 to 8 teachers (Education Department, 2002). Some of

the teachers working in kindergartens have undertaken teacher training, mainly a

Qualified Kindergarten Teacher Education (QKT), which is a two-year, initial,

in-service program for serving kindergarten teachers. Teachers in kindergartens in

general earn much less than their counterparts in primary schools. The great

majority of the teachers are females. The government has, however, recently begun

13

to exert more control over the operation of kindergartens in terms of qualifications of

individuals who can teach in kindergartens, the provision of training to teachers, and

the provision through the Government Subsidy Scheme of financial support to

non-profit making kindergartens in exchange for compliance with specific conditions

(Education Commission, 2000; Education Department, 1995). Principals in

kindergartens are usually promoted from among the teachers, and all are required by

the government to have completed a Certificate of Education (CE). As with the

case of the teachers, the government has, until recently, paid little attention to the

training of kindergarten principals in terms of leadership.

With regard to leadership of kindergarten principals in the Territory, no

research has been conducted to date, despite the existence of kindergartens for

decades. In light of research in western societies and in Hong Kong showing the

important impact of the leadership of primary and secondary school principals on

teachers, students and the schools (e.g., Baker & Dellar, 1999), and in light of the

early childhood research in western societies, though not extensive, demonstrating

the significance of leadership of centre directors or kindergarten principals on the

success of the programs being offered (e.g., Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2003), it is

reasonable to expect that the leadership of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong

would have an important bearing on their kindergartens, teachers and children. If

this is the case, information about how kindergarten principals in the Territory

perceive and enact their leadership is needed whether it is for the purpose of

understanding what they do and why, assessing their performance, designing

in-service programs to enhance their professional experience, designing pre-service

programs to train potential candidates for the principalship, or building a knowledge

base on the topic.

With regard to the issue of women in leadership, research on the leadership of

female primary and secondary school principals has not produced a consistent

picture of the style of leadership that the principals exhibited, with some employing

a collaborative style (e.g., Hall, 1996), others a dominant style (e.g., Dobbins &

Platz, 1986), still others an androgynous style (e.g., Collard, 2001), and yet others

fluctuating between different styles (Oplatka, 2001). Explanations have been

advanced for why female principals display different leadership styles. It has been

suggested that the way of leading exhibited or employed by female principals

14

reflects (a) personal attributes of the principals, such as values and motives they hold

or have; and (b) the principals’ perceptions of forces and expectations coming from

the school system, and societal and cultural contexts (Fitzgerald, 2003; Helgesen,

1990; Limerick & Anderson, 1999). Often, the forces and expectations impose

competing demands on the principals, who need to maintain some balance in making

decisions as to how to adjust and behave in enacting their leadership (Reay & Ball,

2000).

Accordingly, the way kindergarten principals in Hong Kong conduct their

leadership represents personal attributes of the principals, such as the importance

they attach to scholastic skills for children’s development, and the way they interpret

and experience the demands and forces coming from the kindergarten context. For

instance, with regard to personal attributes of the principals, it can be speculated that

kindergarten principals in Hong Kong might have developed feminine identities

reflective of the influence of the highly patriarchal Chinese culture (Leung, 1996),

and thus might display a collaborative way of leading staff. With regard to forces

coming from the kindergarten context, it is possible that the low job-related

competence and commitment of staff (Rao & Koong, 2000) might lead the principals

to exercise strong control over staff, much in line with propositions of situational

theories (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Hersey & Blanchard, 1982). Hence,

research about the leadership of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong needs to

focus not just on what the principals do, but also on (a) how personal attributes of the

principals influence how they lead, and (b) how such individuals perceive forces and

demands coming from the school and surrounding contexts. This, therefore, calls

for an in-depth documentation, from the perspectives of these leaders, of what they

do and why they do so, which is the approach adopted in this study.

On the issue of the influence of the culture of a society, kindergarten education,

much like primary and secondary education, can be regarded as being embedded

within the culture of Hong Kong society. Accordingly, leadership of the

kindergarten principals, such as how leadership is defined and what is considered as

proper leadership behaviour, would be influenced by, reflect, and in turn, perpetuate

the culture of the society. In examining cultural similarities and differences,

Hofstede (1991) studied management practices of business executives in 50

countries, including Hong Kong. He classified culture in terms of five cultural

15

dimensions, which represented conglomerations of core values, beliefs and norms of

the societies. The dimensions proposed were power distance (referring to the

distribution of power within a society, with societies of high power distance

indicating that greater inequality of power distribution is expected and accepted in

the social institutions of the societies); the extent of masculinity in males and extent

of femininity in females; future versus present orientation; uncertainty tolerance; and

individualism-collectivism (referring to the extent to which a person is inner-directed

or other-directed, with collectivist societies being those that attach greater

importance to the group than to individual members). Hong Kong was said to be

different from other western societies in respect of being higher in power distance,

higher in future orientation, higher in uncertainty tolerance and more collectivistic.

Assuming the validity of Hofstede’s findings, the culture of Hong Kong can be said

to be different from those of western societies. If conceptions of leadership

behaviour and conceptions of leadership effectiveness are contingent on culture, it

follows that the meaning and practices of school leadership in Hong Kong, including

that of kindergarten principals, may be different from those of western societies. If

this is the case, an understanding of the role or impact of the culture of Hong Kong

society is paramount for accurate understanding of kindergarten leadership in the

Territory.

Though no research has been undertaken about leadership of kindergarten

principals in Hong Kong, some conjectures can be made about the impact of culture

on principal leadership. For instance, people in Hong Kong, reflecting their

Chinese heritage, uphold and consider it 'natural' and proper that the society be

organized in the form of a social hierarchy with individuals in the higher social and

educational strata holding more prestige, power, and authority than those in the

lower hierarchy (Leung, 1996). They also view those who are in the higher strata

as more able and moral (Leung, 1996). Reflective of such values and of the

organisation of the society, it is possible that kindergartens in Hong Kong are

hierarchally organized, with the principals at the top of the hierarchy, being given

formal power and authority to lead staff in ways they desire. The perceived

propriety of a top-down power hierarchy and relations may lead principals to be

dominant and controlling, yet benevolent towards staff, much like an autocratic,

kind, father figure, and may lead the teachers to accept the authority of the

16

principals, to be reserved and unwilling to voice their opinions, and to be reticent in

questioning the decisions the principals have made. Indeed, Dimmock (1998)

commented that the school reform efforts launched by the Hong Kong Government

towards involving teachers in decision making in site-based management in primary

and secondary schools were not compatible with the high power-distance orientation

and practices of Hong Kong society, and thus would likely not be able to achieve the

positive effects as intended. Dimmock suggested that teachers would find their

participation in school decision making improper and unnatural, and thus would not

be wholeheartedly involved in such decision making, and would not develop a sense

of ownership of their school.

Another example relates to a core value that Chinese people hold, which is

achieving success through learning and efforts from an early age (Hofstede, 1991;

Leung, 1996). In accord with such a value, parents in Hong Kong prefer to send

their children to a kindergarten that provides a great deal of instruction on reading,

writing and counting, or request kindergartens to give such instruction, so that their

children can move to a good primary school and develop a good foundation for

future success. There is, in effect, a perception held by many parents that good

kindergartens are those that provide much instruction on writing and counting,

whereas inferior kindergartens are those that do very few of these tasks (Chan, 2002;

Ho, Liu & Lau, 2002). It has already been found that most kindergartens in Hong

Kong teach children to write simple words and do counting (Chan, 2002; Opper,

1992), tasks which may be considered inappropriate for children in kindergartens in

many western societies. The principals then, in addressing the demands of parents

for purposes of recruiting children to the kindergarten, may offer a curriculum that

includes a certain amount of teaching of writing and counting, may convince the

teachers of the importance of teaching these skills, and may monitor teacher

performance and student outcomes in writing and counting, thus placing priority on

instructional leadership. Thus, the cultural dimension of achieving success through

efforts from an early age may influence not just what is taught in the kindergarten,

but also the aspect of leading staff that kindergarten principals see as important.

The culture of a society refers to the key values, beliefs and practices that are

internalized and upheld by members of the society. As such, culture influences

leadership through the values, beliefs and practices that the leaders consider relevant

17

in leading others in their society. It follows, therefore, that if one is to understand

the influence of the culture of Hong Kong society on the leadership of kindergarten

principals, the approach to be taken is to document not only what the principals do,

but also the key cultural values and beliefs they hold that are relevant to the

perception and enactment of their leadership. Accordingly, in attempting to

understand the leadership of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong, the present study

adopts the approach of documenting, from the perspective of the principals, what

they do and how their practices are linked to the key cultural beliefs and values they

hold.

1.2 Chapter outline

Chapter One has presented the research problem, relevant background on

leadership of school principals, principles established, issues arising, and

implications of the issues for leadership of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong.

Chapter Two provides a literature review, with a definition of leadership, key

theories of and research about school leadership, theorizing and research about the

leadership of female school principals and the implications for leadership of

kindergarten principals in Hong Kong. It also discusses theorizing and research

about the influence of the culture of a society on school leadership. Chapter Three

distils from the literature reviewed in Chapter 2 to furnish a conceptual framework

that was used in conceiving leadership and understanding the forces shaping

leadership.

Chapter Four first identifies the qualitative research approach utilized in this

study. It then describes the particulars of the participants and the procedures

employed for data collection and analyses. Chapter Five presents the story of the

first participant, Amy. Her leadership is characterised by the themes of control and

caring, each of which is examined in relation to how she perceived and enacted her

leadership with respect to the study curriculum, teaching approach, activities

designed for parents, and other aspects of the operation of the kindergarten.

Chapter Six presents the story of the second participant, Betty. Her leadership is

characterised by the themes of control and motivating staff, each of which is

examined in relation to how she perceived and enacted her leadership with respect to

the study curriculum, teaching approach, extra-curricula activities for children, and

18

other aspects of the operation of the kindergarten. Chapter Seven, the last chapter,

offers conclusions, implications, and limitations of this research.

19

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter first outlines the status and context of school education in Hong

Kong to provide a context for examining the leadership of the principals (Section

2.1). This is followed by a definition of leadership, the rationale for focusing on

leadership, and key theories of leadership (Section 2.2). Section 2.3 reviews

changes in the leadership role of primary and secondary school principals in western

societies in the last two decades as a result of reform towards school-based

management, the leadership of school principals in Hong Kong, and the implications

for leadership of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong. The next section (Section

2.4) highlights research about the leadership of female primary and secondary school

principals in western societies, and the implications for the leadership of

kindergarten principals in Hong Kong, all of whom are female. The last section

examines theories and research about the influence of the culture of a society on

school leadership, and implications for the present study (Section 2.5).

2.1 School education in Hong Kong

This section outlines the key features of primary, secondary and kindergarten

education in Hong Kong to provide details of the setting within which kindergarten

principals in the Territory conduct their leadership.

In September 1971, the government of Hong Kong began to provide free

primary education to children in the Territory (Hong Kong Government Archive,

1997). In 1978, the government made free education up to secondary 3 compulsory

(Hong Kong Government Archive, 1997). To enable children to receive nine years

of free and compulsory education, the government built and funded more schools

and also financed those operated by non-government organisations. This expansion

resulted in the government exerting increased control over curriculum of studies,

operational procedures and staffing.

From the early 1990s, the government began to adopt school re-structuring in

the form of school-based management, modelled after what was done in some

western countries such as Australia and the U.S.A. (Cheng, 2000). In 1991 when

20

this new management reform was first launched, it was optional for schools to

participate. However, in 1995, the government specified that schools receiving

financial support from the government, which comprised the great majority of the

primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong, would have to practise school-based

management by the year 2000 (Cheng, 2000). Thus, like primary and secondary

schools in many western societies, the schools in Hong Kong have been undergoing

changes in the way the schools are managed. No change to the plan of

restructuring was made after the change of sovereignty of the Territory in 1997, as

the new government wished to maintain the status quo for at least fifty more years

(Hong Kong Government Archive, 1997).

As to kindergarten education, there were suggestions, in 1842 when Hong Kong

became a British colony, that the government could set up and sponsor early

childhood services (Hong Kong Government Archive, 1997). However, the

Colonial Office in London decided that early childhood education in Hong Kong

would be a luxury and the Government would not offer such services (Hong Kong

Government Archive, 1997). Such a stance became the foundation of the

government’s attitudes and policy towards early childhood education for the next

hundred years and more, which in essence led to the Hong Kong Government

playing virtually no role in early childhood education in the Territory from the 1840s

to the early 1980s (Lau et al., 2003). No early childhood centres of any kind were

set up by the government, nor did the government formulate any regulations or

guidelines related to the offering of early childhood education. At the same time,

the government encouraged voluntary organisations and private charity bodies to

provide early childhood services (Hong Kong Government Archive, 1997). A few

voluntary agencies such as religious and charity organisations began to provide

childcare services. Without any policies and regulations about early childhood

services, the organisations offering such services were given a free hand (Lau et al.,

2003).

The results of a comprehensive review of the educational system in the early

1980s led to some changes in government attitudes and policy about kindergarten

education. In the document ‘A Perspective on Education in Hong Kong: Report by

“Visiting Panel”’, Llewellyan (1982) (who led a review of the educational system in

Hong Kong) urged the government to pay more attention to improving kindergarten

21

education. As a result, the government began to offer some indirect assistance to

kindergartens through (a) adjusting rents and tax rates for non-profit-making

kindergartens; (b) allocating space in public housing estates to suitable

non-profit-making bodies for running kindergartens; and (c) providing in-service

training programs for teachers and furnishing advisory services to kindergartens

(Hong Kong Government, 1998; Education Department, 1994).

In 1996, the government began to offer direct assistance to kindergartens

through the ‘Kindergarten Subsidy Scheme' (Education Commission, 2000;

Education Department, 1995). Under this scheme, the government pays

kindergartens a sum of money equivalent to a portion of the sum of school fees

attainable from the number of students enrolled in the school, on the condition that

kindergartens have at least 40% of the teachers holding the QKT certificate; that

teachers are paid in accord with the government’s master pay scale; that

kindergartens maintain a specific teacher to student ratio in the school; and that

kindergartens disclose their financial situation to the government (Education

Department, 1995). The scheme has been an optional one. It appears that the

government is attempting through this scheme, to exert some degree of control over

kindergartens and many kindergartens in Hong Kong appear to be hesitant to join the

scheme. As of 1999, some 286 of the 769 kindergartens in Hong Kong had joined

the scheme (Legislative Council, 2004). With the subsidy scheme and the recent

increasing attention paid to kindergarten education, as revealed in the Chief

Executive’s speeches on education (The 1997, 1998 and 1999 Policy Address by the

Chief Executive), it appears that the government is attempting to exert more control

over kindergarten education.

At present, pre-primary education in Hong Kong is not compulsory. All

kindergartens in Hong Kong are privately operated, either as for ‘profit’ business

ventures, or as ‘non-profit’ centres operated by charities or church organisations.

The great majority of the kindergartens offer two half-day sessions, usually from 9

o’clock in the morning to noon and from 1 o’clock to 4 o’clock in the afternoon, and

only a few kindergartens offer a whole-day program. The fees charged vary from

kindergarten to kindergarten (Education Department, 2002).

22

Kindergartens in Hong Kong are not mandated by the government to adopt a

specific curriculum or teaching approaches. Beginning from the 1980s, the

government offered guidelines on curriculum and teaching approaches (Education

Department, 1985; Education Department, 1996). These guidelines provide

information on the general operational procedures of kindergartens; suggest

curriculum goals and objectives and program planning procedures; and recommend

classroom activities, teaching methodologies, and safe physical environmental

features of kindergartens. However, because these guidelines are non-prescriptive,

kindergartens have adopted different curricula and employed different teaching

approaches and strategies. Inspectors from the Education Department visit

kindergartens regularly (Education Department, 2002) to provide advice and

information to principals and teachers on matters related to curriculum and

instruction.

One key reason that parents send children to kindergarten is to prepare them for

a smooth transition from kindergarten to primary schooling (Rao & Koong, 2000).

In light of recent, ongoing re-structuring of the study curriculum in primary schools

(Education Department, 2002), kindergartens in the Territory need to make rapid and

constant adjustments in their curriculum so as to attract children and ensure their

survival. The need for such adjustments is made more critical because of

increasing competition among kindergartens in recruiting children due to a continual

decline in birth rates in the Territory (Census and Statistics Department, Government

of Hong Kong, 1992, 2002), and thus a continual decrease in the number of young

children attending kindergarten.

In respect of teacher training, in 1981 the government mandated one of the four

teacher training institutes to offer a two-year, part-time, in-service training program

that would lead to the Qualified Kindergarten Teacher (QKT) certification for

practising kindergarten teachers (Education Department, 1996). However, the

government made it optional for teachers to undergo such training. At that time,

only a small percentage of the kindergarten teachers had completed the program

(Opper, 1992), which did not have any impact on their renumeration.

From the early 1990s, the government seems to have paid more attention to

providing training for kindergarten teachers. In 1994, all four colleges of education

23

were amalgamated to form the Hong Kong Institute of Education, and a range of

training programs were offered to serving kindergarten teachers and individuals

wishing to become kindergarten teachers. In 1995, a 2-year part-time training

program leading to the Certificate in Kindergarten Education (CE-KG) was launched

for QKT holders. In 1998, a 3-year full-time training program leading to the

conferment of the Certificate of Early Childhood Education (CE-ECE) was launched

for secondary school graduates who wished to teach in a kindergarten (The Hong

Kong Institute of Education, 1998).

Since the turnover of sovereignty to China in 1997, the government seems to be

paying more attention to training and competency of kindergarten teachers. In

1999, Mr. Tung, the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative

Region, announced that all new kindergarten principals would have to possess a

CE-KG qualification by September 2002 (The 1999 Policy Address by the Chief

Executive, 1999). In 2001, Mr. Tung stated that the government would soon be

examining the qualification of kindergarten teachers (The 2001 Policy Address by

the Chief Executive, 2001). In response to the government’s policy on increased

training for kindergarten teachers, all tertiary educational institutions in Hong Kong

that offer training programs for kindergarten teachers have been expanding their

programs (Education Department, 2002).

Increased training for kindergarten principals was also launched. In 1983, an

intensive QKT program was offered to upgrade the qualification of the kindergarten

principals (Education Department, 1995). Presently, the minimum qualification for

a kindergarten principal is completion of QKT (Hong Kong Government, 2000,

2004). Since 1995 the Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIE) has been offering

a Certificate of Education-Kindergarten Education (CE-KG) for QKT certificate

holders to upgrade their qualifications (The Hong Kong Institute of Education, 2002).

The emphasis of this program has been to provide further training to enhance the

teaching abilities of the principals, rather than to advance their leadership or

administrative abilities. It was not until 2001 that formal training was available for

kindergarten principals to assist in the improvement of leadership knowledge and

skills (Education Department, 2002). The program is, however, optional.

24

2.2 Leadership: Definition and theories

As the focus of this study is on leadership of two selected kindergarten

principals in Hong Kong, this section furnishes a definition of leadership and the

rationale for focusing on leadership.

There are a great number of definitions of leadership. In the context of

primary and secondary schools, leadership has been defined as processes and

practices enacted by leaders for inducing followers to act towards goals that

represent the values of both the leaders and followers (Schmuck, 1987). It has also

been defined as the processes through which leaders attempt to involve everyone in

pursuing a shared mission (Bennis & Nanus, 1985). Other definitions view

leadership as a process of introducing something new, such as a new vision or goal,

to improve present conditions (Sergiovanni & Elliott, 1975), or as practices enacted

by the leader to enable the group to make changes perceived to be better for the

group (Kotter, 1996). In the kindergarten setting, leadership has also been defined

variously. For instance, leadership is viewed as a set of reciprocal relationships, not

a static quality (Hallinger, 1992); as the ability to influence others, specifically in

getting others to reach challenging long-term goals (Chapman & O’Neil, 2000); or as

the processes related to providing long-term goals, developing a team culture, setting

goals, monitoring achievements, and facilitating the development of individuals

(Rodd, 1998).

Despite differences among the definitions, the features that are common to all

these definitions are processes and practices enacted by leaders in formulating

long-term goals, in designing and implementing activities to achieve the goals, and

in motivating and aligning group members to accept the goals and to implement the

mutually agreed activities. Therefore, leadership in this research is conceived as

the set of behaviours on the part of the person holding the designated leadership

position, namely the kindergarten principal in Hong Kong, for inducing long-term

changes perceived to be better or more adaptive for the group. It includes

formulating long-term goals, inducing acceptance of the goals by members of the

kindergarten, and designing and implementing activities to involve staff members

towards achieving goals.

25

Leadership is related to but distinct from management in key aspects (Fidler,

1997; Kotter, 1996). According to Kotter (1996), leadership involves (a)

establishing direction – developing goals for the future along with strategies for

producing the changes needed to achieve the goals; (b) aligning people –

communicating the direction to individuals for creating coalitions that understand the

goals and are committed to their achievement; and (c) motivating and inspiring

people in the right direction despite major political, bureaucratic and resource

barriers to changes by appealing to basic needs, values and emotions. In contrast,

managers engage in planning and budgeting, organizing and staffing, and problem

solving (Kotter, 1996). Thus, leadership practices establish a direction focused on

the bigger picture of how the different elements of the organisation are related and

where the organisation is heading, work on people’s values, and involve a longer

time frame. In contrast, management focuses on details, on maintaining daily

operation, and on relatively shorter time frame. Similarly, according to Fidler

(1997), leadership refers to the formative and proactive aspects of the direction of an

organisation’s affairs, whereas management refers to activities for maintaining the

current steady state.

Although a school principal is usually expected to both lead and manage the

school to provide an education for children (Fidler, 1997; Sharp & Walter, 1994),

this study focuses only on the leadership of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong

for two reasons. First, as the educational system in Hong Kong, at all levels of

schools, has been undergoing major changes for the past decade and will likely be

doing so in the near future, key adjustments and long-term developments are

envisioned for schools at all levels, including kindergartens. Under such

circumstances, leadership of kindergarten principals in the Territory, who are charged

with the designated responsibility of leading, is of paramount importance for

kindergartens in their role in (a) devising long-terms goals of where their

kindergartens might and could be heading; and (b) aligning staff to develop

concerted and sustained efforts to achieve the goals set. Second, as leadership

gives form and directions to management, leadership takes precedence over

management.

Over the past decades, a number of theories have been proposed to shed light

on the nature and process of leadership. Research about the leadership of primary

26

and secondary school principals in western societies and in Hong Kong, and research

that serves as tools for describing and analysing the leadership perceptions and

practices of the two kindergarten principals researched in this study is now discussed.

Four types of theories can be discerned, the key features of which are summarised in

Appendix A.

The first type refers to early theories of leadership which proposed that

individuals become leaders because they have specific personality traits or charisma

(Stogdill, 1950). The methodology used in research associated with those theories

involved studying biographies and other records of military, political and industrial

leaders, based on the view that by examining the personal qualities of people who

were considered great, it would be possible to identify any universal personal

qualities possessed by leaders but not by followers. It was found, for instance, that

leaders surpassed others in terms of capacity, achievement, responsibility,

participation, and status. However, this approach soon became obsolete in light of

studies which showed that people behave differently when they are in different

situations, suggesting that variables apart from personal qualities, such as intention

and situational constraints, mediated between personality and leadership practices

(Levine & Moreland, 1990; Steiner, 1974).

Thus, for example, how leadership is influenced by attributes of staff has not

been addressed. Another weakness of those theories is that as they focus on

personal attributes of leaders instead of on what they do, they do not shed light on

what leaders actually do that enables them to lead effectively. Despite such

shortcomings, those theories highlight the possible importance of personal attributes

of leaders and how such personal attributes may influence what leaders do. As

mentioned earlier in relation to female leaders enacting a collaborative style of

leading, one explanation for this way of leading was the feminine identities that the

leaders have developed, which comprised specific values, motives and dispositions.

Such an explanation refers to personal attributes of the leaders. This being the case,

explanations revolving around personal attributes of leaders may still be useful in

shedding light on what leaders do and why. In this study, attention was paid to

interpreting what the two participating leaders did, whether or not personal attributes

had a bearing on the way they led, and why, and how they experienced their

leadership.

27

The second type of theory focused on situational factors, especially facets of

the leader-subordinate relationship, which leaders need to consider in order to

determine how to lead. Fiedler’s (1967) contingency theory proposes that

considerations of the three factors of position power, leader-member relations and

task structure influences whether the leader adopts a task-oriented or a

relation-oriented style of leading staff. The combination of the three factors results

in nine possible scenarios, in which, for some, a relation-oriented style is needed,

whereas for others, a task-oriented style is appropriate. For instance, when the

leader perceives that he or she has strong position power, has good relations with

staff, and that the structure of the task on which the staff is working is well defined,

then the leader would not need to work much on developing good relations with the

staff. Instead s/he can concentrate mainly on the task in question, showing

therefore a task-oriented style.

A theory that offers a more refined understanding of the role of the

subordinates of an organisation in influencing the way the leaders might lead is

Hersey and Blanchard’s (1982) situational theory. These researchers utilise the

task and relationship behaviours that Fiedler identified, and then combine these two

sets of behaviours into four leadership styles of telling (high task-low relationship),

selling (high task-high relationship), participating (low task-high relationship), and

delegating (low task-low relationship). According to Hersey and Blanchard (1982),

successful leaders consider the level of maturity of their subordinates, as defined by

their willingness and ability to perform the tasks concerned, and then employ an

appropriate style of leadership. For instance, when subordinates are perceived to be

unable and unwilling to perform the task concerned, successful leaders tend to adopt

the ‘telling’ or a controlling style.

A theory that pays attention to more attributes of the subordinates and more

facets of the situation is House’s path-goal theory (1971). Accordingly, there are

several styles of leadership a leader can deploy, intentionally or unintentionally,

including a directive style, a supportive style, a participative style, and an

achievement-oriented style. Style of leadership can exert its impact on

performance and satisfaction of the subordinates, but its effect is moderated by

situational factors (task structure, formal authority system, work group) and personal

factors associated with the subordinates (locus of control, experience, perceived

28

ability). For instance, directive leadership results in greater job satisfaction in

subordinates when the task structure is unclear than when the task structure is well

defined. House (1971) also proposes that leaders can deploy the different styles

flexibly, in the sense that a leader can display any or all of the styles, depending on

the nature of a particular situation.

While attention was paid to understanding the interaction among factors

related to the leaders, to the situations and to the followers, there was also renewed

interest that focused on specific forms of relationships between the leaders and their

followers. Hollander’s (1985) transactional theory views the leader-subordinate

relationship as a process of exchange wherein leaders gain support, compliance and

work effort of subordinates by offering them tangible rewards and assistance, and by

fulfilling their psychological needs. Effective leadership thus rests on the leaders’

willingness and abilities to reward subordinates for their contributions and to correct

those who do not contribute to accomplishing the group goals. Burns’ (1978)

theory of transformational leadership views leaders as engaging with others in such a

way that the leader and the followers raise one another to a higher level of

motivation and morality, so that in such a relationship, purposes are shared, power

bases are linked, leadership becomes moral, and followers are united to achieve

higher goals. Bass (1985) offers similar ideas, proposing that transformational

leaders induce transcendental interests in followers and raise their need and

aspiration levels. Bass’s model differs from Burns’ in de-emphasizing moral

implications of the leaders, and in the role of the leaders in expanding the array of

needs and wants in the followers. Bennis and Nanus (1985) also propose that

transformational leaders shape and elevate followers' motives and goals to achieve

significant changes through shared interests and collective efforts. Common to all

conceptions of transformational leadership is the notion of empowerment, referring

to the leaders’ active and creative exchanges of power with followers so that the

shared vision and goals can be achieved through elevated and collective efforts.

There are, however, different views of 'empowerment'. Conger and Kanungo

(1988) view empowerment as the behaviour of the leader for enhancing feelings of

self-efficacy among the organisational members. Others see empowerment in a

more positive light, as one of the elements of moral leadership for addressing the

inherent need for competence or intrinsic motivation of individuals (e.g., Thomas &

29

Velthouse, 1990), or as serving positively for the achievement of the organisation

through higher job commitment, higher job satisfaction, better decisions, and faster

implementations, compared with a more top-down form of administration (Harvey,

1997; Lee, 2000). Konczak, Stelly and Trusty (2000) reviewed a number of

studies and highlighted the ways leaders can empower their staff, which included

sharing power with subordinates, emphasising accountability of outcomes,

encouraging independent decision making, sharing information and knowledge, and

encouraging risk taking and providing positive feedback. A number of researchers

have also discussed the role and ways of empowering teachers in the realm of

instructional leadership (e.g., Lofthouse, 1995). One important dimension

associated with empowerment is the notion that the leaders should create proper

structure and processes in their schools by which empowerment of their staff can be

achieved and realised.

This group of theories can be viewed as moving away from focusing solely on

the attributes of leaders to conceiving leadership as a relational process between

leaders and subordinates, with attention being focused therefore on aspects of such a

relationship, including attributes of subordinates, nature of the tasks the subordinates

are working on, nature of the power relationship between the leader and subordinates,

and the way of leading enacted by the leader. Thus, situational theories focus on

how a leader can or should lead in light of staff attributes and task characteristics,

while transactional theories examine reward and punishment that can be deployed by

leaders to motivate staff and to ensure successful task performance.

Transformational leadership focuses on what the leaders do to change staff into an

organic entity for successful task accomplishment. Insofar as leadership is about

how leaders relate to and influence staff, which necessarily implies attention to

leader-staff relations, this group of theories can be viewed as an improvement over

the first group of theories. However, this group of theories does not seem to have

paid sufficient attention to how leaders carry out their work and how they experience

the way they lead. For example, when leaders consider it proper to act in a

controlling manner, do they know how to do so? Would they be distressed in

exercising control over staff, particularly if the exercise of control is inconsistent

with their personal values of being caring towards others? As this group of theories

focuses predominantly on leadership in relation to staff performance within the

30

group, they might also have overlooked how leaders deal with forces coming from

outside the group. For example, school principals need to lead staff relating to

teaching and guiding students, but they also need to handle demands from parents

and from the government. How school leaders address such demands has not been

addressed by this group of theories.

This study drew on the propositions of this group of theories regarding the

importance of such factors as staff attributes and the nature of the task in influencing

leadership by examining whether or not and in what way the leadership of the two

participating principals was shaped by their perceptions of staff attributes and by the

nature of the tasks that staff were working on. Recognising the possible

weaknesses of this group of theories regarding experience of the leaders in reaction

to the way they lead, and the work of the leaders in relating to parents and the

government, this study also examined how the two participating principals viewed

what they did and how they perceived and addressed demands and forces from

outside the kindergartens.

The third type of theories adopts a more organisational perspective, positing

that most organisations are complex entities, and to lead such organisations

successfully, leaders are confronted with a wide array of tasks of a varied nature.

Leadership is conceived as multi-dimensional. Examples of such models are

Sergiovanni’s (1984) five forces of leadership, Bolman and Deal’s (1984, 1992, 2003)

four leadership frames and Cheng’s (1994) five dimensions of leadership. The

models of Serviovanni, Bolman and Deal, and Cheng are very similar and discuss

the major aspects of the work of leaders in their attempts to lead a group to function

effectively and to adapt to changing circumstances.

For instance, in Bolman and Deal’s (1984, 2003) conception of leadership

frames (structural, human resource, political and symbolic), the four frames are

defined as beliefs, frameworks or worldviews held by leaders which guide and shape

how they interpret four different aspects of the operation of an organisation, and

determine the actions leaders take in leading their group towards goal

accomplishment. The structural frame refers to the leader’s view of how a group is

or can be organized or structured, while the human resource frame refers to the

leader’s perceptions and work in satisfying the needs and expectations of group

31

members. The political frame refers to the work of the leader in resolving conflicts

among staff and the symbolic frame refers to the set of concepts, beliefs, faith, and

values created by the leader to reduce ambiguity, resolve confusion, increase

predictability, and provide direction to members.

Those theories have moved from a narrow focus on leader-subordinate

relationship to a broader conception of the aspects of work leaders would need to

handle in leading a group of individuals to accomplish the goals set. The aspects of

work that have been proposed by the different theories (Bolman & Deal, 1984, 1992,

2003; Cheng, 1994; Sergiovanni, 1984), which are quite similar among the three

theories, seem to have captured the range and facets of work that that a leader is

confronted with. In addition, the facets proposed appear to be applicable to the

leadership for all kinds of groups. As such, Bolman and Deal’s model (1984, 1992,

2003), as detailed in Chapter 3, was used as a heuristic device in gathering data with

the two participating principals.

The fourth type of theories refers to a variety of theories, all of which tend to

focus on one or more specific aspects of leadership. An example is Firestone and

Wilson’s (1985) instructional leadership, which proposes a comprehensive scheme

of what leaders can do to promote instructional effectiveness. It includes

developing effective bureaucratic and structural linkages in terms of policies, rules

and procedures for emphasizing the importance of instruction; developing effective

interpersonal linkages between the leader and his or her staff in relation to

instructional matters; and developing effective cultural linkages in respect of

formulating symbolic mechanisms for emphasising the importance of teaching.

Another example is Smith and Andrew’s (1989) theory of instructional leadership

which offered similar ideas by proposing that effective instructional leaders are those

who provide relevant instructional and support resources, communicate the

importance of instructions to their staff, and maintain a visible presence on

instructional matters. Likewise, Krug (1992) views instructional leadership as

comprising the five components of defining a mission for teaching, managing

curriculum and instruction, supervising teaching, monitoring student progress, and

promoting an instructional climate.

32

An element of ethics is imputed into school leadership by Sergiovanni (1991).

He was of the view that as schools are likely to be explicitly or implicitly

contributing to the moral development of their students, the leaders of the schools

should also be moral leaders. Questions have since been raised concerning whether

the education of students should be organized in a moral way, whether the leader

should have certain moral attributes, and whether the management of schools as

moral institutions should be conducted in a moral manner (Fidler, 1997). Likewise,

Duignan and Macpherson’s (1992) notion of educative leadership points to the

importance of reflection and judgment of what is of value and what is significant in

the education of children, part of which includes the moral quality of leaders and

moral processes of what is done in schools.

In the present study, the key concepts advanced by these four groups of

theories were drawn on in interpreting and analyzing the data gathered from the two

participating principals. For example, what the two participating principals did in

relation to what was taught to children and how they were taught, were interpreted

against the elements of instructional leadership.

2.3 Changes in the role of primary and secondary school principals in western

societies

Because kindergarten principals work in the school education sector and

because the literature specifically addressing kindergarten principals is limited, this

section first addresses changes in the role of primary and secondary school principals,

and then describes the theorizing and research that have been undertaken about the

leadership of such principals. It will be seen that in the last two decades in many

western societies, school administration has changed towards school-based

management, and the leadership of primary and secondary school principals is

characterised more and more as transformational. Such changes have important

implications for understanding the leadership of kindergarten principals in Hong

Kong, as kindergartens in the Territory can be considered as practising school-based

management.

In the past one hundred years, school principals in western countries can be

said to have played several roles at the same time, but also to have played one or

33

more of those roles much more prominently during specific periods of time (Bell,

1999; Hallinger, 1992; Leithwood & Hallinger, 2002). In the U.S.A. in the 1970s

when the federal government funded a number of programs for minority groups, the

principals had to oversee and coordinate the programs internally, cope with demands

from federal officials about how the programs were to be run, and relate to white

parents who opposed the presence of minority students in the school (Glasman,

1988). In the 1980s, the principals had to meet with demands not only from the

U.S.A. government, but also from court decisions that had to do with education,

while also facing changing relationships with teachers arising from their increased

collective bargaining power (Glasman, 1988).

In the 1990s in the U.S.A., in recognition of the failure of the efforts that were

launched in the 1980s to improve student performance, policy makers, teachers and

parents began to examine and question the assumptions and operation of the existing

education system (Hallinger, 1992). It was felt by policy makers and the public

that changes were needed in the organisational structure of the school system and in

professional roles and goals of the country’s public education (Hallinger, 1992).

Restructuring of school systems towards school-based management was made,

wherein the authority over curriculum and instructional decisions was decentralized

from the district level to the school site. Further, the role of the teachers and

parents in decision making processes was expanded, and greater importance was

attached to innovative instruction and active student learning (Hallinger, 1992). As

a consequence, the role of principals changed from an expert in curriculum and

instruction to one of facilitating and transforming teachers, parents and others into an

organic entity for problem identification, goal formulation, development of effective

instructional strategies, and goal achievement. Such a role calls for the enactment

of the type of leadership termed transformational (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978), which

was described earlier.

Similar re-structuring towards site-based control also occurred in Australia, at

different paces in different parts of the country (Caldwell, 1995, 1998). Caldwell

(1998) documented the pervasive changes to the educational system in Australia

from the 1970s to the 1990s and then reviewed how changes in the educational

system impacted on the role of the school principals, including the leadership role.

Accordingly, school principals in Australia in the 1970s operated in a highly

34

centralized, social democratic system, with a centrally determined curriculum.

There was little opportunity for schools to influence the way resources were

allocated to and within schools. Parents and the local community were excluded

from the decision making process, and a hierarchical pattern of authority dominated

in schools. Principals did not need to plan ahead. However, by 1990, as a result

of school-based management, principals were working in a highly decentralized,

corporate managerial system, aiming to address the needs of students. A hierarchal

pattern of authority was purportedly disappearing, as the principals were mandated

to consult with a variety of individuals and groups for decision making by consensus.

Handling huge administrative workloads, strategic planning, taking charge of one’s

agenda, addressing the professional needs of teachers and students and being

responsive to the national agenda were of paramount importance.

In England, large-scale reforms similar to those undertaken in Australia and the

U.S.A. were introduced by the government in 1988 (Bell, 1999; Bush, 1999; Hall &

Southworth, 1997). With regard to the work of school principals, Southworth

(1998) found that headteachers felt that the reform called for multiple changes to be

implemented at the same time, and were initially unsure of what to do as the process

of change was unclear and their past experience in handling change was not relevant.

Many felt that they did not have ownership of the changes, and that they were asked

to manage the changes and to lead others to adopt the changes. They were given

much greater financial, personnel and site power and responsibilities, but were also

mandated to involve more parties and stakeholders to arrive at decisions, all of

which increased their administrative duties and workload on different fronts.

Despite the heavy workload and difficulties they faced, most principals enjoyed the

greater power and control they had, which compensated to some extent for the loss

in control over curriculum. The assessment of the schools and publication of the

results led principals to focus on professional matters related to teaching and

learning, which created a tension between management and professional leadership.

Most principals felt that they wished to move their school forward, but also felt that

they were impeded by huge demands on their time by administration and a host of

external regulations and competing demands of various stakeholders.

Thus, despite differences among the countries, reforms toward school-based

management resulted in significant changes in the role of principals, with principals

35

taking on greater responsibility in running schools, playing both a professional and

administrative role, involving more internal and external parties in decision making,

and being more responsive to external demands.

2.3.1 Research on leadership of primary and secondary school principals in

western societies

Changes in the role of school principals appear to be paralleled by changes in

the focus of research. This section presents research about principal leadership in

some western societies and in Hong Kong.

The emphasis of research on school principals in the 1980s in western societies

such as Australia, Britain and the U.S.A., was on instructional leadership, signifying

a change of role from the previous managerial one (Leithwood, 1996). The

principal was seen as the primary source of knowledge for the development of the

educational program for the school (Leithwood, 1996). Principals were expected to

be knowledgeable about curriculum and instruction, to be able to design and

coordinate the school curriculum, to supervise classroom instruction and to intervene

directly and guide the teachers to make instructional improvements (Leithwood &

Hallinger, 2002). They were also expected to be able to communicate high

expectations of achievement to teachers and students, and to closely monitor student

progress (Krug, 1992). Training programs for principals were set up to assist them

to develop the necessary skills and knowledge for implementing instructional

leadership at their schools (Leithwood, 1996).

The research paradigm that was employed to study principals’ instructional

leadership was predominantly the structural-functional paradigm (Heck, 1991).

This paradigm views leadership as being confined to the designated leadership role

of principals, that is, leaders as individuals having certain attributes or acting in

certain ways; and leaders functioning to influence organisational performance

(Ogawa & Bossert, 1995). Research on principal leadership was therefore targeted

at attributes of the principals, and linkage of what the principals did with

organisational performance, such as teachers’ job performance and job satisfaction,

and student performance (Heck, 1991).

36

Subsequent theorizing of principals’ instructional leadership posited more

complex, indirect relationships among situational contexts, principals’ personal

variables, principals’ administrative behaviour, and school outcomes (Blase & Blase,

1998). Two examples of theorizing of the multiple components and complex

processes involved in the instructional leadership of principals included Getzels,

Lipham, and Campbell (1968) and Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, and Lee (1982). In

Bossert et al’s (1982) theory, for instance, external variables (such as the community

within which the school is situated) and personal characteristics of the principal

(such as leadership style) were viewed as antecedents that could influence the

leadership behaviour of the principals. The principals’ actions were proposed to

affect student outcomes through (a) designing and supervising the structure of the

school organisation; and (b) building effective school culture and climate (defining

the school mission, creating a positive learning atmosphere, and supervising and

coordinating the school’s instructional program). Research in the U.S.A. which

was based on this approach focused on antecedent contextual variables, personal

characteristics of the principals that might influence leadership experience and

behaviour, and what the principals did to influence school outcome (Heck, 1991).

In the 1990s, the organisational discourse in many western societies was

restructuring schools, wherein principals were expected to act as transformational

leaders, engaging with others in such a way that the leader and the followers raised

one another to higher levels of motivation and morality (Blase & Blase, 1999).

Leithwood (1994) viewed the nature of the restructuring as calling for the

employment of transformational leadership, as the goals of restructuring (such as

responses to the demands of the 21st century) or the measures to achieve the goals

were not at all clear. Under such circumstances, the commitment, devotion,

expertise, creativity and extra efforts of teachers and other staff were important, so

that goals that the schools could realistically achieve and strategies to achieve the

goals could be developed.

Efforts were made to theorize and assess the leadership behaviours that were

involved in transformational leadership, variables underpinning such leadership, and

its consequences (Avolio et al., 2004; Bass & Avolio, 1990). For instance,

integrating the views of a number of theorists and scholars, Leithwood (1994)

proposed a comprehensive scheme for conceptualising the nature and consequences

37

of transformational leadership for school leaders. Accordingly, transformational

leadership comprised six domains of behaviour. These were identifying and

articulating a vision, fostering the acceptance of group goals, conveying

high-performance expectations, providing appropriate models, providing intellectual

stimulation, and providing individualized support (Leithwood, 1994). Leithwood

also identified the mental processes underlying how transformational leaders solved

problems, particularly problems that were non-routine and with which the leaders

had little domain knowledge. As for the consequences, transformational leadership

was proposed by Leithwood to affect the teachers’ perceptions of school

characteristics, teachers’ commitment to change, and their organisational learning

capacity. Such perceptions and capability in turn resulted in four types of changes,

including teachers’ positive perceptions of school restructuring initiatives, teachers’

positive perceptions of students, higher student participation, and positive student

academic performance.

Leithwood (1994) then reviewed a range of relevant research about

transformational leadership conducted in the U.S.A. to assess the viability of his

proposed model. The results showed that transformational leadership was

characterized by the presence of all six domains of behaviour, with vision building

and fostering group acceptance/commitment being the most important. The results

also lent support to the proposition of expert thinking or problem solving as the main

variable underpinning transformational leadership. With regard to the proposed

consequences of transformational leadership, the results also offered support to the

direct and indirect effects of transformational leadership, with teachers’ perceptions

of school reform initiatives being the strongest (Leithwood, 1994).

Research has also been conducted on specific aspects of the leadership of

principals amidst or following restructuring towards school-based management.

One important aspect of leadership that received much attention was the way

decision making was conducted, as principals were mandated to involve more

internal and external parties in making decisions, such as the setting up of

management teams. For instance, in Canada, Evetts (1994) found that before the

reform, the principals’ decisions were reached together with the central authority and

the decisions were based on an accepted consensus of educational needs and

priorities. After the reform when responsibility was devolved to the local schools,

38

the decisions that were made took on greater financial and pragmatic considerations

and bargaining among stockholders in the process of decision making involved

greater micropolitics of the school. On the impact of the operation of management

teams on the principal’s leadership, Wallace and Hall (1994) in Britain found that

while the working of the management team brought collegiality, participation and

commitment in the teachers, there were also ambiguities and clashes at times

between the responsibilities of the management teams and those of the principals,

resulting in uncertainty in the role of each and in accountability of outcomes. There

seemed to be a change in the way principals perceived their leadership in response to

the mandated sharing of decision making power, as Hall (1997) found that in Britain,

while the principals were committed to propriety and practice of sharing leadership,

they still felt that they should take the lead by having a personal vision for the

school. The way they led their schools was collaborative rather than directive, with

a conception of the principal’s role that included clarifying the directions and

ensuring that people worked towards the goals they had mutually agreed on. A

range of styles was shown and adopted by the principals at different times and to

different people, including being exemplars, motivators, interpreters, opportunists,

reflectors, and facilitators. Results of these studies therefore showed that the

reforms had significant impact on the role of principals as the decision makers and

the ways decisions were made.

One important element of the reforms was the introduction of a market ethos

into schools. Bell (1999) noted in a sample of British principals, that while the

reform called for marketing the schools to attract students and parents, most of the

200 principals studied did not endorse marketing of the schools, and felt that they

were not in competition with other schools. The principals, nevertheless, did

engage in marketing and public relations but only as a marginal exercise. In

contrast, Oplatka, Hemsley-Brown and Foskett (2002) found that the sample of

British principals they studied perceived a keenly competitive educational

environment in which schools competed with each other for students, and that the

principals acted proactively to recruit students, such as distributing attractive

pamphlets advertising the schools. The findings by Oplatka et al. (2002) showed

that the principals took on greater entrepreneurship in marketing their schools than

they previously did.

39

While primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong began to be re-structured

toward school based management in the mid 1990s, little research on the topic has

been done. However, there is some research on the work and leadership of

principals in primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong. Key features of the

thirteen studies of the leadership of school principals in Hong Kong are presented in

Appendix B.

Although the number of studies is small (Cheung, 2000), these studies have

identified two aspects of the leadership of secondary school principals in Hong Kong.

The first pertains to aspects of the way the principals enacted their leadership

dimensions. Two of the key findings relevant to the present study are that (a) many

of the dilemmas that the principals encountered in their work were related to Chinese

cultural values, beliefs or practices (Dimmock, 1998); and (b) secondary school

principals did not do well in goal setting and disciplining of teachers who performed

negatively. An explanation of why principals did not do well in disciplining

teachers was their concern for maintaining good interpersonal relationships and

group cohesion (Dimmock, 1998). Such findings attest to the impact of culture on

leadership.

The second aspect pertains to the impact of leadership. The results of studies

in both primary and secondary school settings in Hong Kong provided converging

evidence, though mainly from the perspective of the principals or the teachers, that

the leadership of principals is strongly related not just to organisational climate and

effectiveness (Cheng, 2002), but also to various attributes of the teachers, such as

work attitude, job satisfaction and teaching effectiveness (Cheng, 1996). The

important role of the leadership of the principal has therefore been established.

Nevertheless, only one study (Shum & Cheng, 1997) has been conducted on the

leadership of female principals, even though a significant proportion of the school

principals, especially at primary school level, are female (Chan, 2002). There is a

lack of research in Hong Kong on the leadership of kindergarten principals.

2.3.2 Relevance to the present study

A great deal of information has been gathered, as mentioned in the previous

sections, about the changes to the leadership of the primary and secondary school

40

principals amidst and following reform in western societies, such as addressing

multiple yet sometimes competing demands, the increase in administrative duties,

tension between administrative and instructional leadership, the role of principals in

marketing their schools, dilemmas that arise between economic necessity and

educational value, and the tension between collegiality and control. These offer

insights to the present study, as the management of kindergartens in Hong Kong can

be said to resemble school-based management in western societies.

Kindergartens in Hong Kong, due to a lack of regulation and substantial

financing from the government, have been operating as independent entities subject

to the impact of market demands. So long as they follow government regulations

on building safety and hygiene, and certain regulations if they have joined the

Kindergarten Subsidy Scheme, kindergartens in the Territory are able to adopt their

own administrative structure, to recruit the number of children they wish, to use the

study curriculum and teaching approach they prefer, and to recruit specific

individuals to be teachers. The principals, therefore, have always had to take up not

just the administrative responsibilities but also professional leadership of devising

long-term goals for the kindergartens, inducing staff to see the goals as important,

engaging in curriculum design, providing advice to teachers on teaching approaches

and monitoring their performance, addressing conflicts among staff, and meeting

external demands. It is likely that kindergarten principals in Hong Kong experience

similar difficulties, dilemmas, tensions and issues to those experienced by principals

in Australia, Britain or the U.S.A. during and after re-structuring towards

school-based management. It is also likely that leadership in kindergartens in Hong

Kong requires a form of transformational leadership, as suggested and documented

for principals in schools moving towards or adopting school-based management in

western societies. Such insights are useful for exploring and understanding the

leadership of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong.

2.4 Leadership of female school principals

The great majority of the kindergarten principals in Hong Kong are female

(Opper, 1992; Rao & Koong, 2000). Would the gender of these individuals

influence the way they enact their leadership? With no research done on

kindergarten principals in Hong Kong and little research conducted on leadership of

41

the principals in preschool settings in other societies, information was sought from

the research literature about leadership of female principals in primary and

secondary schools in western societies. A review of the literature showed that

attention has been paid to two main areas of the leadership of female principals, one

being the difficulties that female teachers encounter in trying to move up to the

principalship and difficulties after taking up that position; and the other being the

way the female principals enact their leadership. Outlined next are key aspects of

these two areas. Two types of job-related barriers have been said to exist in the

work of female teachers and administrators. These are access hindrances and

on-the-job hindrances.

2.4.1 Access and on-the-job hindrances

In many countries, women are under-represented in higher administrative

positions in most social institutions, including education. For instance, in 1996 in

the context of school leadership in Queensland, Australia, of the 139 principals at the

two highest levels, only 13 were women (Limerick & Anderson, 1999). Further,

men were nine times more likely to become principals than were women (Limerick

& Anderson, 1999). In the U.S.A. in 1994, 83% of elementary school teachers

were female, whereas only 36% of the principals were women; and while 53% of the

high school teachers were female, only 11% of the principals were women (Smulyan,

2000).

These figures indicate that women occupy a small portion of the administrative

positions, especially the top ones. The disparities between the number of females

in administrative positions and those of males deserve attention, and it has been

suggested that women have been unfairly hindered in the moves towards higher

administrative positions (Yeakey, 1986), mainly because the socio-political systems,

including the sub-systems of education, family and business, which are in place in

most societies reflect and sustain the values and interests of the dominant group –

males – who design, perpetuate and defend the systems (Hill & Ragland, 1995;

Pigford & Tonnsen, 1990; Smulyan, 2000; Yeakey, 1986). Such male-centred

systems have remained intact despite the formulation of laws prohibiting blatant

discrimination against minority groups, including women, as a result of the civil

rights movements in the 1960s in several countries, such as the Civil Right Act of

42

1964 in the U.S.A. and anti-discrimination legislation and the Equal Employment

Opportunity legislation in Australia. In effect, the systems serve the interests of

males more than females, erecting a number of barriers and difficulties for females

who want to advance to more important positions within the systems. The same

phenomena can be observed in most countries around the world (Yeakey, 1986).

The term ‘glass ceiling’ has been coined to denote the multitude of factors or

elements that hinder females’ progress to higher administrative positions in various

professions, including education (Ebrahimi, 1999). The term refers to the point in

the career advancement of females beyond which they can move no further. The

hindrances preventing females from moving further are conceived as very subtle,

rather than visible and concrete, and are usually not felt or perceived to be in

existence by those at the top of the organisational hierarchy who are in part

responsible for excluding females from advancing further in their careers (Smulyan,

2000).

In the context of school leadership at the primary and secondary levels, the

hindrances that female teachers face in accessing higher administrative positions

include (a) dominance of key leadership positions by males, such as school

superintendents and school board members, who, as ‘gate-keepers’, tend to select

and recruit males over females for the principalship (Pigford & Tonnsen, 1990); (b)

lack of political savvy for women, as female teachers are usually not admitted to

groupings of male superintendents and school board members, who make decisions

regarding promotions in informal gatherings (Hill & Ragland, 1995); and (c)

insufficient career opportunities for women, whereby female teachers are

discouraged by male administrators to gain specific work experience, skills, and/or

visibility (Smulyan, 2000). Two other hindrances are, firstly, the limited number of

successful women who can serve as mentors, due to the existence of few female

administrators (Curry, 2000), and secondly, attitudes, beliefs and stereotypes that

work against women that are widely held by men and women (Edson, 1988; Reay &

Ball, 2000).

After taking up a principalship or centre directorship, female leaders are likely

to encounter a host of difficulties that arise mainly because of the incompatibility of

their presence in a male-dominated system, which is characterized by hierarchical

43

authority, independence, autocratic leadership styles, and top-down communication

(Bajdo & Dickson, 2001). Further, society’s attitudes, beliefs and stereotypes do

not favour females taking up leadership roles, and have coloured how people

perceive and receive female leadership (Smulyan, 2000). In this light, evidence has

already been gathered in the leadership literature, which shows that female

leadership is generally considered and received negatively. For instance, it was

found that standards for effective leadership resembled stereotypic descriptions of

males (Heilman, Block, Martell & Simon, 1989), and that followers predicted less

future success for female leadership than for male leadership (Heilman, Block,

Martell, & Simon, 1988). According to Oakley (2000), the on-the-job difficulties

that female leaders may face include sexual harassment, ridicule, isolation by male

peers, and one’s views and suggestions being purposefully ignored or bypassed in

important board meetings. Other difficulties are female leaders receiving lower pay

than their male counterparts for doing identical work, lower chances of further

promotion, and greater demands from others, especially male peers, in having to

demonstrate one’s competence (Oakley, 2000).

2.4.2 Possibility of the operation of similar hindrances in kindergartens in

Hong Kong

Hong Kong has a strong Chinese culture (Hwang, 2000; Leung, 2003), and

therefore has traditionally been a highly patriarchal society, with males holding

greater power within and outside the family, and females being seen as less

competent, with the proper place for them being in the home (Hwang, 2000). Even

when they work after marriage, females continue to take up the bulk of the

household and child-rearing responsibilities (Leung, 1996).

Assuming the validity of male-dominant, power-struggle explanations for the

socio-cultural barriers for female teachers in primary and secondary schools in Hong

Kong, such barriers are not likely to be imposed by males in the context of

kindergartens. Kindergartens are seen as places where young children are given

pastoral care and where children learn the basics of writing, counting and relating to

others, much like an extension of the home setting (Leung, 2003). If this is the case,

it would follow that the people who are most suitable to take care of the children will

be people who resemble their mothers – other females. Further, the person who is

44

most suitable for supervising the teachers would be a mother of the mothers --- an

experienced female, who is able to serve as a role model to other females, and who is

able to coordinate and lead the female teachers to provide tender loving care to

young children. Accordingly therefore, those males who control society’s

institutions would want to make sure that females are encouraged, rather than barred,

from taking up the principalship of kindergartens. Likewise, women holding

traditional gender stereotypes would find the leadership role of principals in

kindergartens to be congruent with their self-perceptions and interests, and thus

would be favourably disposed to aspire to the position and be willing to take up the

work.

In contrast, given the findings in western societies that some females also

perceive female leadership negatively (Marshall & Mitchell, 1989), it is also possible

that some female kindergarten teachers in Hong Kong may perceive their female

principals unfavourably. Further, given the possibility that many of the female

principals are still responsible for taking care of the bulk of their own house and

childcare responsibilities, they may experience guilt and negative feelings arising

from not being able to fulfill one’s home and childcare duties. In light of the

absence of any research on this topic in Hong Kong, the present study attempted to

document, through the perspectives of two female kindergarten principals, how they

conducted their leadership and why, including whether or not, in what way and to

what extent they experienced on-the-job, gender-related barriers.

2.4.3 The way female school principals enact their leadership

Unlike conventional research on leadership which investigates different

forms of leadership and its consequences, research about the leadership of women

has been based largely on the way women leaders enact their leadership. Different

leadership styles have been documented to show how female principals have led

their schools, which include collaborative, controlling and androgynous styles.

These are discussed in this section.

It has been claimed that because of socio-cultural socialization, many women

tend to be more nurturing, accommodating, considerate of and caring towards others,

when compared with men (Helgesen, 1990; Reay & Ball, 2000; Rosener, 1990;

45

Whitaker & Lane, 1990). Women tend to value relationships and relating to others,

and are more expressive and emotional (Shakeshaft, 1987). With such dispositions

and a history of being in supportive roles at home or at work, which equips them

with skills in relating to others, women perceive, experience and approach reality,

including leadership, in a way different from that exhibited by many males who, in

general terms, have been socialized to be more dominant, assertive, and independent

(Smulyan, 2000).

Both qualitatively and quantitatively oriented methodologies have been used in

studying the way female principals conduct their leadership. In the context of

school leadership, Regan and Brooks (1992) found that the leadership of women was

characterized by collaboration, caring, courage, vision and intuition. It has also

been shown that women principals paid a great deal of attention to curriculum and

engaged themselves heavily in instructional matters (Gross & Trask, 1976; Marshall

& Mitchell, 1989; Sherman, 2000). They were knowledgeable about teaching

methods and techniques, emphasised student achievement, coordinated instructional

programs and evaluated student progress, helped new teachers, and created a school

climate conducive to learning such as being orderly, safe and quiet (Limerick &

Anderson, 1999; Shakeshaft, 1987). Women principals were found to trust their

staff, to empower teachers, to involve teachers in decision-making, to provide

constructive feedback on performance, and to motivate others (Coleman, 2000;

Fennell, 1999; Limerick & Anderson, 1999; Shakeshaft, Nowell and Perry, 1991).

Similarly, female principals communicated frequently and regularly with students

and teachers, developed networks of people around them, built relationships, and

encouraged inclusiveness (Hall, 1996; Shakeshaft, 1987; Sherman, 2000). They

also exhibited a strong sense of caring for the staff and children (Blackmore, 1999;

Fennell, 1999), and focused on developing the school into a person-centred

community (Shakeshaft, 1989; Sherman, 2000).

It has been claimed that in most western societies in which the social systems

are designed and dominated by males, the conception of effective leadership reflects

the views and ideas of males (Blackmore, 1990; Shakeshaft, 1987). In essence,

effective leadership is conceived as comprising elements such as strength,

domination, task-orientation, and exercising power over others to maintain control

(Smulyan, 2000). Female conceptions of leadership have been ignored in the

46

theorizing of leadership (Sherman, 2000), and female preferences for a collaborative

way of leading has been considered as inferior and ineffective (Smulyan, 2000). In

light of the way female school administrators conduct their leadership, it has been

argued that the field of educational management and administration should pay

greater attention to the role of gender (Smulyan, 2000). Helgesen (1990) noted that

the traits, experiences and skills that women have, such as relatively higher

interpersonal sensitivity and better skills in negotiation, conflict resolution and

people skills, enable women to become more effective leaders than men. Likewise,

in agreement with Leithwood and Jantzi’s (1990) view that a transformational

approach to leadership is likely to be more appropriate than directive leadership for

the type of restructuring currently being undertaken in many countries, Hurty (1995)

asserted that school leadership should try to incorporate more ‘feminine’ ways into

the repertoire of skills of school leaders.

Other researchers have found that women principals exhibit ways of leading

other than a collaborative style. One such leadership style was much like their male

counterparts, with an emphasis on task orientation, need for power, assertiveness and

risk taking (Gunter, 1997; Kruger, 1996; Reay & Ball, 2000). For instance, Kruger

(1996) found that female headteachers in Holland behaved in a masculine manner, in

internal communication, personnel management, task orientations, and involvement

with others, much like their male counterparts. The explanations that have been

offered as to why female leaders exhibit a masculine style include (a) some females

are predisposed to identify easily with traits and behaviour characteristics of males

(Hall, 1996); and (b) that the gate-keepers who are responsible for selecting school

principals have chosen only those female teachers who have already shown their

willingness and ability to adhere to masculine values and attitudes (Gunter, 1997).

Other explanations are (a) that female leaders realized that the school institution

sanctioned masculinity as the ideal way of behaving, and in order to be perceived as

authentic leaders, they gradually took up a more masculine way of leading (Konek &

Kitch, 1994); and (b) that female leaders understood that they were holding a

position which required them to ensure successful staff performance to accomplish

the goals of the group, and thus acted a directive, controlling and instrumental

manner to coordinate staff to ensure task performance (Reay & Ball, 2000;

Snodgrass, 1992).

47

Some other research has revealed that female leaders, in place of displaying a

feminine or a masculine style, exhibited an androgynous style, showing both

masculine and feminine concerns and behaviours (Bolman & Deal, 1991, 1992;

Donnell & Hall, 1980; Thompson, 2000). For instance, Thompson (2000) found

that a high proportion of women principals, much like their male counterparts, were

rated by teachers as high on all the four leadership frames (structural, human

resource, political and symbolic frames). It has been speculated that in conducting

their leadership, females are influenced by their gender identity, but also choose

certain masculine behaviours, such as assertiveness, which they believe will help

them to carry out their work, and/or help them to deal with expectations and

demands from their male supervisors, peers or subordinates (Reay & Ball, 2000).

Thus, research has so far documented that while some female school principals

adopt a collaborative style, others exhibit a dominating style, and some other female

principals use an androgynous style. Though explanations have been advanced to

shed light on why female principals might adopt a specific style, it is still unclear

why they tend to adopt one way of leading instead of others.

2.4.4 Forces influencing leadership of female principals

The purpose of reviewing the leadership of female principals in this study is

not to resolve why female primary or secondary school principals would enact one

way over another, but to derive insights for suggesting how kindergarten principals

in Hong Kong, all of whom are female, might perceive and enact their leadership.

Two points seem relevant. First, the way female school leaders perceive their

leadership is likely to be influenced by their gender identity and other personal

attributes. The basis for this point is that the display of a collaborative style in

some female principals is explained as arising from their feminine attributes (e.g.,

Shakeshaft, 1995). The explanation that some female principals displayed a

masculine style because they have developed a more masculine orientation (Hall,

1996) is also consistent with the notion that the gender identity a principal has

developed influences the way she enacts her leadership.

The second point refers to the demands from the school context in which a

female principal finds herself. The deployment of a masculine style or an

48

androgynous style in some female principals can be regarded as a type of adjustment

to a male-dominated system (Sherman, 2000). It has been said, as described earlier,

that in many western countries, the education system has been designed and

dominated by males, resulting in females being hampered in advancing to

administrative posts, facing greater obstacles, and confronting various barriers and

negative stereotypes and expectations even when they have progressed to

administrative positions such as the principalship (Curry, 2000; Oakley, 2000; Reay

& Ball, 2000; Sachs & Blackmore, 1998; Shepard, 1998). Within such a

male-dominated system, the complex interplay of gender identity, motive in

becoming a principal and in staying at the post, current family situation such as

support from spouse, perception of what is expected by male seniors and staff all

influence the way a female leader enacts and plays out her leadership. Leadership

by a female school principal is therefore influenced by attributes of both the person

and her interpretation of the demands of the school situation within the socio-cultural

and political contexts.

In relation to the influence of personal attributes, some research on leadership

of female school principals shows that the picture is much more complicated than

was previously thought. First, Collard (2001) suggests that, much like the different

displays and interpretations of masculinity among males, such as differences

between middle class and working class males, there are likely to be different

degrees of femininity in different females, in light of the wide variety of family

settings and practices within which females have been socialized. Research has

substantiated this view. For instance, Rindfleish (2000) studied the beliefs and

attitudes of senior executive women in Sydney, and found that instead of being a

homogeneous group, four different groups of women leaders could be identified,

with the groups differing in the extent of agreement with the existence of barriers,

and the propriety and necessity of help and legislation to assist women to achieve

further advancement.

Second, some research on the leadership of female school principals has shown

that personal factors have a bearing on how leadership is perceived and enacted by

female principals. For instance, age made a difference in Coleman’s (2000) study

of all 670 female secondary headteachers in Britain and Wales. Although only a

small portion admitted to using an autocratic style of leadership, the proportion of

49

headteachers aged fifty or above professing to use such a style (20%) was double

those below fifty professing to be autocratic (10%). With respect to the role of race,

Mertz and McNeely’s (1998) study of two female school principals in the U.S.A.

showed that the expected and proper behaviour associated with gender varied with

race. Thus, a host of personal characteristics, such as racial and ethnic background,

culture, social class, religious affiliation, age and experience in leadership position

may, along with the gender identity a female principal has developed, influence, in

complex ways, how a female principal perceives and enacts her leadership.

In relation to demands from the school situation, it has been suggested that

even if females have developed feminine traits and concerns, they would adopt a

more nurturing and person-oriented style when they find themselves in specific types

of work environments, but may need to make adjustments to their way of leading

when they are in other types of work environments (Smulyan, 2000). That female

leaders make adjustments in their way of leading to fit the requirements of specific

work environments may account for the display of different leadership styles by

different female leaders.

Some work exploring the impact of contextual factors on principal leadership,

such as level of schooling, type of school, organisational culture and the culture of

the society has already been done and the results suggest the viability of examining

contextual variables. For instance, Collard (2001) found that compared with male

primary school principals, female primary principals in Victoria, Australia were more

aware of the individual differences among students, held more complex perceptions

of their students and also had higher expectations. In contrast, female secondary

principals were less aware of the differences among their students and held less

complex perceptions of them when compared with the male secondary school

principals (Collard, 2001). The explanation given by the researcher was that

female primary principals were employed by government and Catholic schools and

were dealing with a wider range of social groups, whereas the female secondary

principals were employed by Independent schools which had more homogeneous

and higher achieving students. Similarly, with respect to the socioeconomic status

of the district within which a school is situated, Strachan (1999) found that while all

three female principals she researched in New Zealand placed strong emphasis on

improving student academic achievement, they held different beliefs, reflective of

50

the socioeconomic background of the district where the school was located, about

why their students had not been performing sufficiently well. One of the principals,

whose school was situated in an affluent area of the country, felt that insufficient

commitment and expertise of the teachers hampered student achievement. The

other two principals, whose schools were situated in areas of very low

socioeconomic status, believed poverty and a lack of resources resulted in poor

student achievement. Likewise, Bajdo and Dickson (2001) used the data obtained

in a survey of 60 countries and found that in some areas of Australia and U.S.A.

where school organisational culture favoured person-oriented interactions, female

principals exhibited a collaborative way of leadership. However, in some areas of

China where school organisational culture emphasized structure and discipline,

female principals adopted a more directive style (Bajdo & Dickson, 2001).

From the information gained from the review of leadership of female school

principals in western societies, as discussed above, the way female school principals

conduct their leadership can be conceptualised as a complex interplay among gender

identity of the female principals, influences of other personal attributes, demands

from the situations and how these are perceived and felt by the principals, and the

specific ways in which the principals adjust to the demands. This conception of the

forces influencing leadership is used in the present study on the leadership of

kindergarten principals in Hong Kong to explore how female principals in the

Territory conduct their leadership as a result of the way they perceive, interpret and

adjust to demands from the school context they are in, along with influences of their

own personal attributes.

2.5 Impact of the culture of a society on school leadership

This section first describes the emergence of the culture of a society as useful

for studying educational leadership, as well as some conceptions about how culture

influences leadership. It then outlines features of Hong Kong culture and evidence

in support of the impact of culture on educational leadership. This is followed by a

discussion of how the concept of culture is used in the present study.

51

2.5.1 Culture and leadership of school principals

The concept of the culture of a society influencing individuals was proposed in

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model of schooling. According to the model,

the structures and processes of schooling are embedded within a series of forces.

The outermost force is postulated to be the culture that a society has developed,

namely, the set of core beliefs, attitudes and values of a society. As such, culture is

viewed as exerting tremendous impact on all aspects of schooling, including

leadership of school principals at all levels. One important implication that can be

derived from the model is that as different societies have different cultures, and as

culture influences school leadership, then the meaning of leadership, what is

considered as appropriate leadership behaviour, and what is regarded as effective

leadership may vary from one society to another. As such, an understanding of the

influence of culture on school leadership will shed light on the meaning and

processes of leadership that are adopted by a specific society.

Although the culture of a society is posited by Bronfenbrenner to be useful for

understanding processes of schooling, including educational leadership, research

about how culture influences educational leadership has not been done until recently.

Beginning from the early 1990s, several scholars (e.g., Dimmock, 1998; Dimmock

& Walker, 2000; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996; Heck, 1996) began to suggest that

the role of culture would need to be explored for a better understanding of

educational leadership. Their call seems to have been grounded on several

developments in the field of educational management and in other disciplines. One

such development had to do with reservations harboured by some researchers

(Dimmock, 1998; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996) as to the propriety of applying

Western concepts and theories to other cultures. The concepts and theories of

leadership, much like those in other domains, such as management and social

sciences, are developed in western countries, predominantly Australia, Britain and

North America. As a result of globalization, many western concepts and theories of

leadership have been imported and used by investigators of educational leadership

and management in different parts of the world, including Hong Kong (Dimmock,

1998). In Hong Kong, for instance, school reform initiatives formulated by the

Hong Kong government from the 1990s were developed by scholars from Australia

or the U.S.A. (Dimmock, 1998). School Management Initiatives, formulated and

52

put into place in early 1990, and the Quality School Education Initiative,

implemented in the mid 1990s, were replicas of western school-based management

initiatives whereby schools are given relatively greater autonomy in handling their

own affairs, including greater input and decision making by teachers (Cheng, 2000;

Cheng & Wong, 1996). However, from the mid 1990s, several scholars (e.g.,

Cheng, 2000; Cheng & Wong, 1996; Dimmock, 1998, 2000) began to question how

useful and appropriate it was to import directly and utilise western concepts and

theories for investigating educational leadership and management in Hong Kong,

whose cultures are different from those of western societies. Instead, views and

processes related to how and why people carry out their work and conduct their lives

in the Territory needed to be explored.

Another development that led to greater attention to the impact of culture was

increased attention to socio-cultural variables in educational management. As a

result of problems related to the economic situation and of dissatisfaction with

student outcomes, the educational systems in some western countries underwent key

changes in the 1980s and 1990s, including a heavy focus on how the school system

affected student achievements in the 1980s (Hallinger, 1992), and reforms towards

school-based management in the 1990s (Conners & Sharpe, 1996; Vandenberghe,

1995; Williams & Portin, 1997). Also, in light of dissatisfaction with the dominant

structural-functional approach for investigating educational leadership and

management (Marshall, 1995; Ogawa, 1992), perspectives that are critical of

socio-cultural makeup, such as the feminist approaches, emerged (Hoy, 1994).

These perspectives pointed to problems with the existing social structure of societies

which discriminate against specific groups, including racial minorities and women

(Slater, 1995). One of the answers to addressing such calls for examining the social

structure of societies was to incorporate the culture of a society as a viable avenue

for exploring school structure and processes (Dimmock, 2000).

2.5.2 The impact of culture on school leadership

Four theories have been advanced to explain how culture may influence the

leadership of school principals. These are presented in this section, along with their

similarities and differences.

53

Hallinger and Leithwood (1996) reviewed the work of Bossert et al. (1982),

which represented the dominant approach employed in studying educational

leadership in some western societies from the 1980s. The theory proposed

communities (such as rural versus urban neighbourhoods) and institutional contexts

(such as degree of centralization of the district system and government regulations)

as external variables influence the leaders, teachers, and students of schools.

Further, the school culture, and other elements of the schools, as internal variables,

that influence leaders. Leaders adapt to their specific context so as to shape internal

school processes towards the attainment of educational goals. The impact of such

external and internal variables has been substantiated. For example, the way

principals in rural areas led their schools was different from that of principals in

urban schools (Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996). While culture was not specified by

Bossert et al. (1982), Hallinger and Leithwood (1996) are of the view that culture

could be considered as an extension of the external contextual factors impacting on

all aspects of educational processes, including leadership.

Seeing schools as situated within the culture of society, Hallinger and

Leithwood (1996) thus proposed that culture should serve as an overarching

independent variable, capable of (a) influencing the institutional and community

context within which a school is situated by defining value orientations and norms of

behaviour; (b) influencing the principal, such as the desired educational goal s/he

formulates for the school, and the nature of his or her interactions with others in the

school; and (c) influencing the students and teachers with respect to the nature of

education, teaching and learning processes, and their perceptions of and interactions

with the leader. Hallinger and Leithwood thus viewed culture as exerting pervasive

and multiple impacts on the leader.

Cheng and Wong (1996) also viewed culture as shaping educational

preferences and practices. Focusing on Chinese societies, Cheng and Wong first

elaborated on where Chinese societies would stand on dimensions describing the

values and practices of the culture, and then discussed how such values and related

practices can or have impacted on educational institutions and processes. For

instance, on the dimension of individualism-collectivism, Chinese consider the

welfare of the group as more important than the well-being of any individuals within

it, thus placing a heavy emphasis on interpersonal relations and harmony, and

54

valuing the tendency toward conformity and uniformity. According to Cheng and

Wong, such orientations in turn have led to (a) a preference for and the adoption of

uniform syllabuses, textbooks and teaching systems rather than individualized

curricular for students of different abilities; (b) an emphasis on moral education that

is enforced by harsh discipline at school and at home to induce proper behaviour in

social relationships; and (c) strong motivation to learn on the part of the students to

fulfill social obligations and attain social reinforcement rather than for the intrinsic

interest in knowledge. The value of the group over the individual has also led

teachers to develop a sense of loyalty to their schools, to see social reinforcement

and acceptance as important sources of motivation for work, to accept the

established hierarchy of unequal distribution of power as legitimate, and to behave in

accord with one’s position in the hierarchy (Cheng & Wong, 1996). Thus, although

Cheng and Wong (1996) have not explicitly proposed a theory to detail the ways in

which culture would influence educational leadership, their discussions indicate that

culture can affect the school leader directly and also indirectly.

Dimmock and Walker (1998, 2000) viewed the culture of a society as exerting

pervasive impacts on school structure and processes, and offer a comprehensive

theory, detailing the elements of schooling, and the contextual factors of the

organisational culture of the school, including the wider institutional context, and the

still wider culture of the society. In terms of the internal elements of a school

(Figure 1), the system is seen as being made up of four interactive elements: the

organisational structure, curriculum, teaching and learning, and leadership,

management and decision processes. Each of these elements consists of a number

of sub-elements. For example, the element of leadership, management and decision

process consists of position, role and power of the principal; leadership style and

orientation; collaboration and participation; motivation; planning; decision-making

processes; interpersonal communication; conflict resolution; and staff appraisal.

The four internal school elements are bounded by the school culture, which

influences and is influenced by, the four internal elements. The school culture is

characterised by a specific position on each of the dimensions of (a) process and/or

outcome orientation, (b) task and/or person orientation, (c) professionalism and/or

parochialism, (d) open and/or closed, (e) control and linkage, and (e) pragmatic

and/or normative.

55

The school culture is in turn being circumscribed by the institutional context

(such as the community in which the school is situated and government regulations),

which influences and is also influenced by the school culture. The institutional

context is in turn circumscribed by the culture of the society, which is seen as

capable of influencing the institutional context, the school culture and each of the

four internal school elements. Dimmock and Walker (1998, 2000) thus viewed

culture as exerting a direct impact on school leadership, and an indirect impact

through its influences on the institutional context, the school culture, and the other

three internal school elements. Based on Hofstede’s (1980) and Trompenaar and

Hampden-Turner’s (1997) work on culture, Dimmock and Walker (1998, 2000)

devised six dimensions to characterize and differentiate cultures. The dimensions

are Power-distributed/Power-concentrated, Group-oriented/Self-oriented,

Consideration/Aggression, Proactivism/Fatalism, Generative/Replicative, and

Limited relationship/Holistic relationship.

Figure 1 Dimmock and Walker’s view of forces impacting on school

processes. (Source: Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2000). Developing

comparative and international educational leadership and management.

Educational Leadership and Management, 20(2), 143-160.)

56

Dimmock and his associates have used the theory to examine the linkages

between culture and aspects of schooling in Hong Kong (Dimmock, 1998; Walker &

Dimmock, 1999). For instance, Dimmock (1998) assessed how compatible the

recent government educational reforms were with the cultural characteristics of the

society. One of the major educational reforms that was launched in 1991 by the

government of Hong Kong was the School Management Initiatives for primary and

secondary schools. Schools were given greater autonomy to run their affairs, to

allocate resources, and to involve greater participation of teachers and parents, so

that the schools could decide their own priorities, allocate resources more efficiently,

and inform the community more readily. This reform was similar to school-based

management reforms in western societies from the 1990s onwards. By 1995, 25%

of the schools in Hong Kong had joined the scheme, and by 1997, about 30% of the

schools were in the scheme, including 148 secondary schools, 199 primary schools

and 18 special schools. Dimmock then discussed the extent to which such reforms

were in line with the cultural characteristics of the people in Hong Kong. His view

was that the notion and practice of involving teachers in the decision making process

of the schools in the School Management Initiative ran counter to the hierarchal

power structure of the society, wherein teachers expected the principals to be strong

and to make major decisions for them, and perceived a participatory leader as weak

and incompetent. As a result of such incompatibility, the decision making role in

many of the schools that had adopted the reform was still played mainly by the top

administration of the schools, such as the principals and the panel chairs, with only

ceremonial involvement of the teachers at strategic points of the decision making

process.

Cheng (2000) also offered a theory regarding the impact of culture on school

leadership. His scheme (Figure 2) was highly similar to the one advanced by

Dimmock and Walker (1998, 2000), with the culture of the society encompassing

community culture, which in turn encompassed school culture and the school

elements. Cheng’s theory differs from Dimmock and Walker’s (2000) theory in

two aspects. First, the internal elements of the school in Cheng’s theory refer to the

roles of the principal, teachers, students, and outcomes of learning, rather than to

those used by Dimmock and Walker, which were organisational structure, curriculum,

teaching and learning, and leadership, management and decision making processes.

57

Second, the dimensions that were used to characterize cultures are different. The

dimensions used by Cheng included sixteen cultural beliefs and values, such as

human nature, human relations, relationship to the environment, universalism versus

particularism, nature of truth, and priority of human needs. Cheng also proposed

that the culture of a society influences the leadership of the principals directly, and

also exerts impact indirectly through influencing the community culture, and the

school elements. However, no empirical research on the theory was reported by

Cheng.

Figure 2 Cheng’s view of multi-level cultures in school processes. (Source: Cheng, Y. C. (2000). Cultural factors in educational effectiveness: A framework for comparative research. School Leadership and Management, 20(2), 207-225.)

Hallinger and Leithwood (1996), Dimmock and Walker (2000) and Cheng

(2000) all view schools as comprising certain internal elements, such as the role of

the principals, teachers and students in both Hallinger and Leithwood’s theory and

Cheng’s theory. Similarly, all view the schools as being bounded by wider

contextual factors, extending from the community context, through the institutional

context, and then to the wider culture of the society. In all these theories, culture

exerts direct impact on the principals, as well as exerting indirect impact on the

principals through its impact on the institutional context, the community context, and

each of the other school elements. Thus, in all the three theories, leadership of

school principals is conceived as being embedded within the culture of the society.

The theories differ mainly in terms of the dimensions that are used to characterize

58

and differentiate cultures, with Hallinger and Leithwood (1996) simply pointing to

the dominant set of values, beliefs and practices that are widely shared among

members of a society; Dimmock and Walker (2000) employing the dimensions

developed mainly by Hofstede (1980); and Cheng (2000) employing sixteen values

and beliefs drawn from different sources.

2.5.3 Rationale for examining culture in the leadership of kindergarten

principals in Hong Kong

There are three reasons for examining the impact of culture in the leadership

of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong. First, according to Bronfenbenner (1979)

and the theories of Cheng (2000), Dimmock and Walker (1998, 2000), and Hallinger

and Leithwood (1996), culture is an encompassing contextual variable. There is a

great deal of evidence which supported the impact of contextual factors on principal

leadership, such as centralization/decentralization of government regulations and

type of community within which a school is situated (Leithwood, 2001; Hallinger &

Heck, 2002). As such, culture, as a contextual variable, is likely to influence

leadership of principals.

Second, one implication that can be derived from Bronfenbenner’s (1979)

socio-cultural model is that as different societies may have developed different

cultures, and as culture influences school leadership, then the meaning of leadership,

what is considered as appropriate leadership behaviour, and what is regarded as

effective leadership may vary from one society to another. According to Hofstede’s

(1980) findings, Hong Kong can be regarded as different from western societies in

having a high level of power distance, being more collectivistic, more

future-oriented, and more tolerant of ambiguity. Others have documented similar

results (Hwang, 2000; Leung, 1996; Wong, 1998). In essence, the society is

hierarchally organized in all social institutions such as schools, work, family and

religion, with greater power being accorded to those higher in the hierarchy (Hwang,

2000; Leung, 1996; 2003; Wong, 1998). Social inequality is considered normal and

acceptable (Hwang, 2000; Leung, 1996; 2003). Group welfare is valued above

individual well-being, with social relationships and harmony being favoured (Hwang,

2000; Leung, 2003). There is thus a high tendency toward uniformity and

conformity (Hwang, 2000). People work hard for a better future, not just for

59

themselves but also for the group to which they belong. Education is highly valued

as an avenue for development of people into well-rounded individuals, who should

have skills, knowledge and a high moral standard (Hwang, 2000). If the culture of

Hong Kong differs from western societies, and in accord with the implication

derived from Bronfenbenner (1979) that leadership varies with cultures, then the

meaning of leadership, what is conceived as proper and effective leadership

behaviours, and ways of relating between leaders and subordinates in Hong Kong

would be likely to be different from those in western societies.

Third, some research on the role and work of primary and secondary school

principals in Hong Kong, though not directly about leadership, has shown links

among culture, behaviour and the experience of school principals. For instance,

Walker and Dimmock (1999) gathered information about the kind of dilemmas that

school principals in Hong Kong faced in their work and how they managed the

dilemmas. These researchers reported that the dilemmas that many of the

principals experienced in their work had to do with honouring cultural values, one

example of which was the dilemma of whether or not to promote a teacher who was

related to the school supervisor, but who was not highly respected by other teachers.

The principal in effect was torn between maintaining good relationships with the

supervisor, and maintaining good relationships with and securing respect from his

teachers. Walker and Dimmock also reported that the principals managed their

dilemmas in ways that reflected their concern about maintenance of interpersonal

harmony, hierarchy, seniority and age, rather than concern about professional issues

related to teaching and learning. For instance, what a principal did to deal with an

insufficiently competent teacher who had worked in the school for a long time and

was well liked by other teachers was to transfer the teacher to another school. In so

doing, the principal was able to maintain a good relationship with the teacher

concerned and with the remaining teachers in the school, and could at the same time

handle the dissatisfaction of the parents. The findings clearly indicate the strong

impact of work culture on the principals. The way the principal dealt with the

dilemma also highlights the inherent inconsistency between socially accepted

hierarchal control and the value placed on collectivism. It is possible that

kindergarten principals in Hong Kong would also be facing such an inconsistency,

60

and the way they might deal with the inconsistency could have some bearing on the

way they lead staff.

Walker, Bridges and Chan (1996) utilized Problem-Based Learning, a method

developed in the west, with a group of Hong Kong educators including some

primary and secondary school principals, as part of their professional development.

The results showed that while the outcome of the learning was comparable with what

was found in western societies, the processes in which the educators engaged during

group discussion were characterized by avoidance of emotional expression and

conflict, participation in accord with one’s perceived status in the group hierarchy,

and the use of third parties to resolve conflicts, rather than by arguing, persuading

and negotiation as documented with American educators. Although the participants

used a western method, what they did reflected the cultural values and norms they

shared, showing therefore the impact of the culture on how those school leaders

learned.

Overall, then, the findings of these studies offer support for the link between

culture and the behaviour and experience of school principals in the Territory. As

an encompassing contextual variable, it is also likely that culture would influence the

leadership of kindergarten principals in the Territory.

2.5.4 Culture and kindergarten principals in Hong Kong

As culture constitutes a set of shared beliefs, values and normative practices of

the people in a society, culture can be used as an explanatory device in understanding

what a kindergarten principal does and why, in designing school goals and structure,

and in coordinating and leading teachers to provide education to their students. For

instance, it is possible to explore the ways the cultural values that a principal has

internalised affect the type of education offered in his/her school, and how the

pattern of interactions and relations valued and sanctioned by a culture may

influence the way a principal relates to teachers and students. It is also possible to

examine the ways cultural beliefs affect whether or not a principal would employ a

democratic versus an authoritative style of leadership, and whether or not, in what

way, and for what reasons a principal has employed culture in understanding the

61

needs, wishes, demands, and behaviour of staff, students, parents, and the

community in which the school is situated.

However, there are complexities in relation to using the concept of culture.

First, in a pluralistic society, it may be difficult to speak of a common culture

(Hwang, 2000). Even though Hong Kong is predominantly a Chinese society, there

are class and religious differences within the population that constitute cultural

diversity (Leung, 2003). Further, the number of people who have emigrated to

other countries but have returned to Hong Kong is also increasing (Census and

Statistics Department, Government of Hong Kong, 2002). With their experience in

other countries, especially western ones, people are likely to be more individualistic

and assertive. Thus, whether or not most people in Hong Kong can be said to be

characterized as having the same dominant cultural values and norms of behaviour is

not clear. A related problem is that, assuming that there is a dominant culture in

Hong Kong, the extent to which an individual has internalized the cultural values

and beliefs would need to be assessed. It is likely that many individuals in a society

may not have internalized all the dominant values and beliefs, for reasons perhaps

related to their class or religious background (Hwang, 1999). Thus, knowledge of

culture may not be informative when investigating the experience and behaviour of

principals in Hong Kong.

The second complexity in relation to using culture as a variable is that culture is

continually changing (Hwang, 2000). This is especially so for a society like Hong

Kong, where travel, trade and communication to and from other countries are a

typical feature of life. Cheng and Wong (1996) speculate that as a result of the

implementation, since the 1970s, of free and compulsory education up to secondary

three, the educational standard of the younger generations has exceeded that of the

older generations, and it is likely that the younger generations will demand greater

participation in work and in how they are governed, in effect moving towards a more

individualistic orientation. Dimmock and Walker (1998), likewise, suggest that as a

result of the rapid development of the economy, which is structured according to

individual performance, and value assertiveness and confrontation, Hong Kong is

also becoming more individualistic and aggressive.

62

Finally, as detailed in the theories described earlier (Bronfenbenner, 1979;

Cheng, 2000; Cheng & Wong, 1996; Dimmock & Walker, 1998, 2000; Hallinger &

Leithwood, 1996), culture is but one of a multitude of factors that needs considering

in understanding the experience and behaviour of school leaders. The effects of

culture could therefore be examined along with such other factors as, in Dimmock

and Walker’s (1998, 2000) terminology, the personal factors of the principal, school

elements such as teaching and learning, and the wider institutional context, such as

government initiatives.

63

CHAPTER THREE: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter portrays the development of a framework for exploring and

understanding the leadership of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong. The

framework highlights the aspects of leadership this study focuses on and the factors

that may have a bearing on how such principals perceive and conduct their

leadership. The framework, which is derived from the literature reviewed in the

previous chapter, relates to the issues of the leadership enactment of women school

principals (Section 3.1.1), the impact of the culture of a society (Section 3.1.4), and

key recent events in kindergarten education in Hong Kong, which are keen

competition among kindergartens for children (Section 3.1.2) and the government’s

subsidy scheme (Section 3.1.3). The chapter concludes with the aims, research

questions and significance of this study (Section 3.2).

3.1 Conceptual framework

3.1.1 Leadership of women school principals

As detailed in Section 2.4.3 in Chapter 2, research on female school leaders in

western societies showed that some of these leaders exhibited a collaborative ‘power

with’ and caring mode of leading, and the explanation for why they did so is the

feminine identity they developed through socialization (Helgesen, 1990; Reay &

Ball, 2000; Rosener, 1990; Whitaker & Lane, 1990). Accordingly, the feminine

identity comprises beliefs, values and motives regarding proper or preferred way of

relating to others, such as being caring towards others, viewing power as involving

and empowering others instead of exercising control over others, and involving

others in decision making and doing so through consensus. Such beliefs, values

and motives therefore result in these leaders enacting a person-oriented model of

leading.

Some other female school leaders were shown to enact a dominating, ‘power

over’, task-oriented style of leading, and three different explanations for why they

did so have been advanced (Hall, 1996; Kanter, 1977; Kitch, 1994; Reay & Ball,

2000; Snodgrass, 1992). Explanations of why these leaders exhibit a directive,

64

controlling form of leading include: the development of a masculine identity through

identification with their fathers (Hall, 1996); conceiving a controlling form of

leading as effective in coordinating staff to achieve group goals (Kanter, 1977; Reay

& Ball, 2000); and conforming to expectations of male supervisors, colleagues and

staff regarding proper behaviour of a leader (Kitch, 1994). Some other female

school leaders have been documented to exhibit a mode of leading comprising both

controlling and caring elements (Bolman and Deal, 1991, 1992; Donnell & Hall,

1980; Thompson, 2000), but no explanations have yet been proposed as to why they

did so. In Hong Kong, only one study has been conducted on female school leaders

(Shum & Cheng, 1997), and this study focused on the linkage between sex-role

orientation of the principals and teaching effectiveness of teachers, rather than on

leadership style.

One objective of this study is to explore how kindergarten principals in Hong

Kong enact their leadership and why they do so, as a result of their gender as females.

Explanations for why female school leaders in western societies enact a particular

mode of leading revolve around specific motives, beliefs and values that the leaders

hold, and how these influence the way they lead. Further, the enactment of a

controlling, task-oriented leadership mode is underpinned by different beliefs, values

and motives in different leaders. As such, to understand in what way kindergarten

principals in Hong Kong conduct their leadership and why they do so as a result of

their gender, one would need to examine not only what these leaders do in their

natural work settings, but also the beliefs, values and motives that underpin the way

they conduct their leadership. This study therefore attempts to (a) document what

kindergarten principals in Hong Kong do in enacting their leadership, and (b)

explore and examine, from the perspectives of these leaders, the motives, values and

beliefs they hold, and how these underlie the way they lead. The focus of this study

is shown in Figure 3.

65

Figure 3 Element of framework: Motives, values, beliefs and perceptions of

principals

In documenting what these leaders do and why, the model of four leadership

frames (structural frame, human resource, political frame, symbolic frame) proposed

by Bolman and Deal (1984, 1992, 2003) is used as a heuristic device, on three

grounds. First, the four leadership frames encompass virtually all aspects of the

work of a leader in any organisation, from the formulation of goals and objectives

and implementation of activities to achieve the goals, through to addressing concerns

and needs of individuals in the organisation, to resolving interpersonal and group

conflicts within and without. A school, be it a secondary school, an elementary

school, or a kindergarten, is indeed a complex organisation. As such, Bolman and

Deal’s model (1984, 1992, 2003) seems to be appropriate for examining the

leadership of kindergarten principals. The second reason relates to the capability of

the model to capture the perspective of the principals. The leadership frames are

conceptualised by Bolman and Deal (1984, 1992, 2003) as perspectives of the

leaders, through which they approach and conduct their leadership. As such, the

leadership frames should be able to capture the subjective and unique perspective of

a specific principal in how she views, experiences, considers, and examines what she

does in leading the kindergarten. Research using this approach has yielded fruitful

results, such as Belgane’s (2001) work that explored how the principals perceived

their conflicts with their senior administrators.

The third reason for using Bolman and Deal’s (1984, 1992, 2003) model is its

applicability to the context of Hong Kong. The model was developed in the U.S.A.

with its concepts and processes reflecting the meanings, assumptions, values, beliefs

•Kindergarten leadership behavior •Motives, values and belief underlying leadership

66

and experiences of the U.S.A. society. The extent to which the model can be used

in Hong Kong, which differs from the U.S.A. in languages, beliefs, values and

practices can be questioned. The model is considered as applicable for two reasons.

First, the four leadership frames or the four aspects of functioning of organisations

are posited by Bolman and Deal as applicable to all types of organisations in all parts

of the world. Second, the model has been used in Hong Kong (e.g., Cheng, 1991)

to examine, in the context of primary and secondary schools, linkages between

leadership of principals and student and teacher outcomes, such as student

achievement, student identification with schools, and teachers’ job commitment,

performance and job satisfaction. Despite the use of different measures and

different samples of principals, teachers or students, the results across the studies

were quite consistent, were in line with theoretically derived/hypothesized

relationships, and were consistent with those obtained in the U.S.A (Bolman & Deal,

1992; Cheng, 1991, 1994, 1996; Cheng & Cheung, 1999; Kwok, Lo, Ng, & Cheng,

1997; Shum & Cheng, 1997). The reliable or consistent linkages between the

leadership frames and outcome measures thus suggest that the leadership frames are

able to capture or represent leadership behaviours and experiences of Hong Kong

school principals, though at the primary and secondary level of schooling. As such,

the leadership frames are likely to be applicable to the leadership behaviour and

experience of kindergarten principals in the Territory, as kindergarten principals are

faced with tasks, duties and roles similar to those that are confronted by primary and

secondary principals in the Territory.

The framework that is adopted can now be expanded to include Bolman and

Deal’s model, as shown in Figure 4.

67

• Kindergarten leadership behavior

• Motives, values and belief underlying leadership

Bolman and Deal’s four leadership frames:

structural, human, political & symbolic

• Kindergarten leadership behavior• Motives, values and belief underlying leadership

Figure 4 Elements of framework: Leader attributes and leadership frames

3.1.2 Competition among kindergartens

Unlike primary schools in Hong Kong, the great majority of which are fully or

heavily subsidized by the government, kindergartens in the Territory have always

been operated by non-government organisations. Admission to primary schools is

mandatory and is governed by a mechanism set up by the government, though

schools retain a specific percentage of the places to recruit the kind of students they

wish to take. The choice of whether to send their children to kindergarten and

which kindergarten, is up to the parents. As noted in Chapter 2, kindergartens in

the Territory have long been competing with each other for children.

Research is yet to be conducted on how such keen competition may have

influenced the leadership of kindergarten principals in the Territory. However,

research on school principals in western societies adopting restructuring toward

incorporating stronger elements of choice of parents and their children, and instilling

a market ethos into the education system, such as open enrolment and per-capita

funding, along with school-based management, showed that in light of the

competition among schools, the work and leadership of the principals were

significantly affected (Foskett & Lumby, 2003; Herbert, 2000; Oplatka et al., 2002;

Portin, Shen, & Williams, 1998). For instance, school principals perceived a keenly

competitive educational environment wherein schools compete for attracting

students (Herbert, 2000; Oplatka et al., 2002), and acted to examine the needs of

68

clients proactively so as to secure a competitive advantage over other schools

(Foskett & Lumby, 2003; Portin et al., 1998), such as meeting with parents who were

considering school choices (Portin et al., 1998).

Further, many principals acknowledged that clients’ needs had shaped the plans

they made, aspects of the curricula they adopted, and important activities they

arranged for their schools (Harvey, 1996; Oplatka, et al., 2002). For instance,

principals encouraged teachers to provide pastoral care for students, to build good

relationship with students, and to use effective teaching strategies to provide an

excellent education, partly to retain students and to promote the school to parents of

these students and to other parents (Oplatka, et al., 2002). In addition, school

principals acknowledged that it was important to promote and market their schools

(Herbert, 2000). Competition and related marketization have already been found to

lead to frustration, job stress and burnout in many school principals, due to increased

workload, ambiguity as to how some of the tasks should be done, being held

accountable for recruiting enough students, and incompatibility between

professional/educational values and the ethos of marketization (Foskett & Lumby,

2003; Oplatka, et al, 2002).

Would competition among kindergartens and related marketization have similar

effects on the leadership of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong? Many parents

in Hong Kong want and have demanded that kindergartens teach their children

preparatory scholastics skills, such as reading, writing and counting, so that the

children can be prepared to go on to a prestigious primary school (Chiu, 2004).

Would kindergarten principals in Hong Kong, in order to attract parents,

purposefully adopt a curriculum that teaches predominantly preparatory scholastic

skills, much like what primary school principals in the U.S.A. did in modifying

curriculum to suit the needs of clients? Would kindergarten principals in Hong

Kong offer a predominantly scholastic curriculum even if such a curriculum is not

consistent with their personal values on what is best for young children? Would

principals in subsidized kindergartens adopt a predominantly scholastic curriculum

to attract parents, though doing so is not in line with government guidelines that

indicate teaching of writing, reading and counting is not appropriate in kindergartens?

Would kindergarten principals employ more qualified teachers so that these teachers

could teach effectively as a way of promoting the kindergarten, as some school

69

principals in Canada did (Oplatka, et al., 2002)? Would principals of profit-making

kindergartens employ unqualified teachers for minimizing cost, but then supervise

these teachers closely to ensure effective teaching to retain children? In light of the

impact on leadership of competition among kindergartens in the Territory, this

important phenomenon of kindergarten education in Hong Kong is examined in the

present study. The framework can be modified to incorporate competition among

kindergartens as shown in Figure 5.

Bolman and Deal’sfour leadership frames

•Kindergarten leadership behavior•Motives, values and belief underlying leadership

Competition among kindergartens

•Kindergarten leadership behavior•Motives, values and belief underlying leadership

Bolman and Deal’s four leadership frames

Figure 5 Elements of framework: Leader attributes, leadership frames and

competition among kindergartens

3.1.3 Government’s Kindergarten Subsidy Scheme

Research has shown that leadership of school principals is shaped and

influenced by a host of contextual factors, such as the type of school the principals

are heading, and local community and government initiatives and regulations

(Collard, 2001; Kruger, 1996; Smulyan, 2000). In relation to the influence of

government regulations and initiatives, changes to the leadership of school principals

following school-based management reforms in primary and secondary schools in

western societies such as Australia, Britain and U.S.A. show that government

mandates can have consequences on school leadership (Bell, 1999; Bell & Rowley,

2002; Cranston et al., 2002; Hallinger, 1992).

70

In such reforms, which were initiated and mandated by the governments, the

trend was towards systemic redesign of school curriculum, new conceptions of

teaching and learning, greater parental choice in where to send their children to

school, greater involvement of parents and teachers in decision making, and

increased accountability of school performance and outcome (Dimmock, 1999;

Levin & Farthing, 2004). There were variations in such trends among countries.

For example, there is greater central control over the school curriculum and student

performance standards, and greater self-management and authority at the school

level in Australia and Britain than in the U.S.A. (Marsh & LeFever, 2004). Despite

such variations, the reforms resulted in drastic and far-reaching changes in the work

and leadership of school principals. For instance, Caldwell (1998) found that

following reform, school principals in Australia handled much more administrative

work, engaged in strategic planning to a greater extent, engaged more in addressing

the professional needs of teachers, engaged in consulting a variety of individuals and

groups to make decisions by consensus to a greater extent, and were more responsive

to the national agenda. Likewise, O’Donoghue and Dimmock (1998) found that

decentralization resulted in the principals taking up a multitude of roles and tasks,

such as planning and policymaking, management of the external environment, staff

selection and management, innovation, and development of human resources.

Similarly, Rutherford (2003) found that school principals in Britain, following

restructuring, adopted both a chief executive role and a leading professional role to a

much greater extent, and that they performed the two roles differently; they were

autocratic in carrying out the chief executive role with regard to matters of resource

management and staff deployment to ensure that the school’s success in the market

place, but were collegiate with regard to curriculum and its delivery, and delegated

much of this to staff.

Until recently, the government of Hong Kong paid very little attention to

kindergarten education, allowing kindergartens to operate in virtually any ways they

preferred. The results were that, as noted in Chapter 2, there were variations among

kindergartens in the curriculum adopted, the level of training the teachers had

undertaken, and how much they were paid. From mid 1990s, the government

appears to be paying more attention to kindergarten education, as witnessed by the

launching of a subsidy scheme, wherein kindergartens that choose to join the scheme

71

can receive subsidy on specific conditions in relation to level of training of teachers,

salaries paid to teachers and being non-profit-making.

No research seems to have been done on how having joined or not having

joined the scheme has influenced the operation of kindergartens and leadership of the

principals. However, based on propositions of situational theories (Avolio et al.,

2004; Hersey & Blanchard, 1982; Shamir, Zakay, & Brenin, & Popper, 2000)

regarding leaders relating to staff contingent on staff attributes, and on changes to

school leadership following school-based management reforms in western societies,

some differences in leadership enactment can be seen between principals in subsided

kindergartens and principals in non-subsidized kindergartens. It seems plausible

that principals in subsidized kindergartens, where more staff are trained and earn a

respectable salary, would exercise minimal control over how staff teach, would

involve staff in decision making, and would promote further development of staff.

It seems possible that principals in non-subsidized kindergartens, where fewer staff

are trained and staff receive low salaries, would supervise staff closely, would be

unlikely to involve them in decision making, and would focus on staff development

regarding the basics of kindergarten teaching.

Further, it seems plausible that principals in subsidized kindergartens, compared

with their counterparts in non-subsidized kindergartens, may face different

constraints in the curriculum and teaching approach adopted. At present, the Hong

Kong Government has issued guidelines concerning study curriculum and teaching

approaches to be adopted in kindergartens in the Territory, such as the impropriety of

teaching writing and counting in kindergartens, but as such guidelines are

non-prescriptive, kindergartens are free to choose to adopt them or not. Research

has shown that, compared with principals in private schools, principals in public

schools in the U.S.A. experienced less freedom with regard to study curriculum and

teaching approaches adopted, as they needed to comply with government guidelines

and to meet demands from parents (Apodaca-Tucker & Slate, 2002). It is therefore

plausible that principals in subsidized kindergartens, in order to continue to receive

subsidy from the government, would be more alert to government guidelines

regarding study curriculum and teaching approaches, and would also be more willing

to comply with such guidelines, thus affecting the kind of education offered to

children.

72

In light of the possible impacts of the subsidy scheme on leadership enactment,

the present study incorporates the government subsidy scheme as one of the factors

to be examined. The framework can now be modified to include the subsidy

scheme, as shown in Figure 6.

Bolman and Deal’sfour leadership frames

•Kindergarten leadership behavior•Motives, values and belief underlying leadership

Competition among kindergartens

Bolman and Deal’sfour leadership frames

Government subsidy scheme

•Kindergarten leadership behavior•Motives, values and belief underlying leadership

Competition among kindergartens

Figure 6 Elements of framework: Leader attributes, leadership frames,

competition among kindergartens and government subsidy scheme

3.1.4 Culture of Hong Kong society

In his ecological model, Bronfenbrenner (1979) views school processes as

being embedded within the culture of a society, with all aspects of schooling,

including leadership of school principals, being shaped and influenced by culture.

Little research seems to have been undertaken on this aspect of the model. There

has been increasing interest in the impact of culture on school leadership, and several

models have been proposed on this topic (Cheng, 2000; Cheng & Wong, 1996;

Dimmock & Walker, 2000; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996). Despite differences in

the conception of school elements and processes involved in leadership, the models

are similar in viewing culture as influencing school leadership directly and indirectly.

The former refers to cultural values and norms that school leaders have internalized

73

through socialization, and the influence of these values and norms on how the leader

perceives, enacts and experiences leadership. The latter refers to demands and

constraints from within the school such as teachers, and from outside the schools,

such as parents and government initiatives, all of which reflect cultural values and

norms of the society. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) model and subsequent models

(Cheng, 2000; Cheng & Wong, 1996; Dimmock & Walker, 2000; Hallinger &

Leithwood, 1996) therefore all view culture as exerting a pervasive impact on school

leadership.

This being the case, leadership of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong would

therefore be shaped by the culture of the society. Hong Kong was shown, in

Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) cross-cultural work which used five dimensions to describe

and classify cultures, in comparison with the cultures of key western societies such

as the U.S.A., as much higher in power distance, more future-oriented, more

collectivistic and lower in uncertainty avoidance, but similar regarding femininity in

females. It is plausible therefore that the values and norms surrounding high power

distance would result, for instance, in a hierarchal structure in kindergartens with the

principals being bestowed with absolute power to lead, and in the principals leading

in an autocratic manner, with such a mode of leading being perceived by all as

natural, legitimate and proper. Further, the values and norms surrounding future

orientation in terms of exertion of efforts and sacrificing current satisfaction for a

better future, would result, for instance, in the principals devising long-terms goals in

relation to children’s development, staff development, and well-being of the

kindergartens, and in the principals emphasizing and requesting dedicated work

efforts from staff for the benefits of children and for a better future for the staff

themselves. In addition, it is plausible that the values and norms surrounding

collectivism, along with high power distance, would result in the principals acting as

strong fatherly figures, being strong towards but also caring about staff, and in the

principals emphasizing the welfare of the kindergarten as a whole over the welfare of

individual staff members.

Such leadership enactment and the motives and values underlying the

enactment would be very different from the egalitarian and caring mode of leading

documented in studies by Henderson-Kelly and Pamphilon (2000) or advocated by

Hayden (1996) about leaders in preschool settings in western societies. The

74

autocratic mode of leading would also be different from transformational leadership

exhibited by or advocated for primary and secondary school leaders in western

societies school-based management (Bell & Rowley, 2002). In accord with the

proposition in Bronfenbrenner’s model (1979) and other more recent models (Cheng,

2000; Cheng & Wong, 1996; Dimmock & Walker, 2000; Hallinger & Leithwood,

1996) concerning the pervasive impacts of culture on school leadership, one

objective of this study is to explore and examine whether and in what way leadership

of kindergarten principals is shaped and constrained by the culture of the society.

In light of the comprehensiveness of the dimensions employed by Hofstede (1980,

2001) in capturing and representing the culture of a society (Dimmock, 2000) and of

demonstrations of the usefulness of the dimensions in research on school leadership

in Hong Kong (Dimmock & Walker, 1998), the five dimensions of power distance,

extent of future orientation, extent of collectivism, extent of masculinity/femininity,

and extent of uncertainty avoidance are used in this study to represent the culture of

the society. The framework that is employed in this study can now be expanded to

incorporate culture, as shown in Figure 7.

3.2 Aim, research questions and significance of this study

This study investigates and analyses the leadership enactment of two

kindergarten principals in Hong Kong. The main research questions are:

(a) How do these kindergarten principals act as leaders of their kindergartens?

(b) What are the underlying beliefs, values or motives driving their enactment of

leadership?

(c) How do gender and the culture of the society shape the leadership conduct of

the two principals?

(d) How do competition with other kindergartens and the government’s subsidy

scheme impact on leadership enactment?

The significance of this study lies in its ability to broaden the knowledge base

about kindergarten leadership, through the study of two principals in respect to (a)

what they do to lead their school and why they do so; (b) how the principals view

and feel about their leadership; (c) the relevance and role of gender and the culture of

75

the society in influencing leadership; and (d) relevance and role of competition with

other kindergartens and the government’s subsidy scheme in shaping leadership.

76

Bolman and Deal’sfour leadership frames

Government subsidy scheme

•Kindergarten leadership behavior•Motives, values and belief underlying leadership

Competition among kindergartens

Bolman and Deal’sfour leadership frames

Government subsidy scheme

•Culture of the society•Hofstede’s five dimensions

•Kindergarten leadership behavior•Motives, values and belief underlying leadership

Competition among kindergartens

Figure 7 Elements of framework: Leader attributes, leadership frames, competition among kindergartens, government

subsidy scheme, and role of culture

77

CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY

This chapter has five sections. The first section (Section 4.1) identifies the

approach of this study and the rationale for the approach adopted. The second

section (Section 4.2) furnishes information about the participants researched. This

is followed by a description of the methods used in data collection (Section 4.3), the

strategies used for data analysis (Section 4.4), and an identification of the issues

involved in doing a qualitative study and the limitations in carrying out the study

(Section 4.5).

4.1 Research approach

The aim of the research is to explore and understand the leadership of

kindergarten principals in Hong Kong, specifically the issues of female leaders and

of the role of culture in leadership. An important implication derived from the

theories posited in Chapter 2 is what leadership means and what is regarded as

proper and effective leadership behaviour are dependent on culture, and thus vary

from culture to culture. Accordingly, investigating the leadership of female

kindergarten principals in Hong Kong would call for examining, from the

perspectives of the principals, the values, attitudes and standards of behaviours that

the principals hold, and how these influence their leadership, as well as the internal

and external forces to which the principals respond. Thus, the direct and indirect

influences of culture on leadership of the principals can be captured. The

investigation would need to document how the principals actually conduct their

leadership, including the key tasks the principals work on, the different parties they

relate to, and how they do so. The form of leadership the principals exhibit, the

meaning of leadership, and what is considered as proper and effective leadership

behaviour in the view of the principals can then be examined. With such

information, an exploration can be made regarding the role of culture in leadership.

Conceiving reality as the meanings the principals construct of their leadership, and

understanding the leadership of these principals through the meanings they give to

their work falls under the constructivist/interpretive paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln,

2000; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Thus, as in the case of women in leadership, the

78

investigation of the role of culture calls for using a methodology that is inductive in

nature, naturalistic, holistic, dynamic, and from the perspectives of the principals.

What was therefore sought was an in-depth, holistic description of how two

female kindergarten principals in Hong Kong perceived and enacted their leadership.

These questions can best be addressed using a qualitative approach, which focuses

on examining a social entity in its natural setting (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Firestone,

1987; Hara, 1995; Sarantakos, 1998; Taylor & Bogdan, 1984), and provides an

in-depth, holistic understanding of the social entity (Merriam, 1998; Skinner, Tagg,

& Holloway, 2000). Qualitative approaches stress the importance of people’s own

perspectives of events, experiences, and the meanings constructed from their lived

experiences (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Hatch, 2002; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993),

ensuring an understanding of the dynamic interplay of the elements of a social entity

(Pitney & Parker, 2001). In addition, the approach enables the researcher to tap the

complexity of the leadership behaviour of the kindergarten principals and the

meanings embedded in, attached to or conveyed through their leadership behaviour.

Therefore, the way that the principals influenced others and how they reacted to

demands in and outside of the kindergartens could be determined. Finally, this

qualitative study adopts an exploratory and inductive perspective (Bogdan & Biklen,

2003; Hatch, 2002; Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2003) to reveal the linkages between the

principals’ leadership behaviours and their underlying perceptions, motives and

values within the socio-cultural context of the study.

In using a qualitative approach in the present study, the emphasis on

investigating a social entity in its natural setting invited the researcher to enter and

observe the real life behaviour and experience of the selected Hong Kong female

kindergarten principals. This required an in-depth description of what the

kindergarten principals did in their daily work as educational leaders. The intensive

focus of this approach on the subjective experience of the female principals,

especially their understandings of actions and events, required selection of few cases,

allowing their behaviour and experience to be examined in depth. In addition, the

approach permitted an understanding of the ways the principals made choices and

changed their behaviour to adapt to new circumstances, and of how their behaviour

and experiences were affected by the tasks, situations and circumstances they faced.

The adoption of a qualitative approach thus resulted in a well-rounded understanding

79

of leadership behaviour of the selected female Hong Kong kindergarten principals,

of the contexts in which the leadership behaviours were enacted, and of the views,

perceptions and experiences of the principals that underpinned their leadership.

Within the qualitative approach, there are a host of individual research methods

(Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Merriam, 1998). An exploratory case study method was

adopted in which a detailed and holistic description of the leadership behaviours and

experiences of two female kindergarten principals in Hong Kong, carrying out their

work in naturalistic work settings, was documented.

An exploratory case study (Yin, 2003) was employed for three interrelated

reasons. First, at this stage of knowledge accumulation concerning the leadership

of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong where no research has been done on the

topic, the focus of the present study was not to establish patterns of leadership of

female kindergarten principals in Hong Kong as a group. Rather, it was how two

selected female principals in the Territory conducted, viewed, construed, and

experienced their leadership, and how these were linked to the gender of the

principals and socio-cultural context of Hong Kong school settings. Other

kindergarten principals may view, construe, and give meanings to their leadership

differently, due to differences in personality, in personal history, in the school

contexts in which the principals find themselves, or their perception of the contexts,

and in the history of interactions and relationships with teachers and parents.

Further, as meanings given to events are holistic, in the sense that meanings are

constructed in the context of other actions and events individuals have taken or

encountered (Johnson & Christensen, 2000; Patton, 2002), these differ from

principal to principal. A case study allowed the documentation not just of the range

of behaviours that the two selected female principals enacted in conducting their

leadership, but also of how the principals experienced their leadership, how their

behaviours were underpinned by their motives, values and beliefs, and the

particularistic and holistic meanings that the principals gave to their actions and

events.

The second reason for using an exploratory case study had to do with

competing explanations for why female leaders adopt a specific way of leading and

the unique influence of culture. As discussed in the previous chapter, in western

80

societies, different female school leaders adopt different ways or styles of leading.

For example, different explanations have been advanced for why a female leader

adopts a dominating, controlling way of leading. The implication of the competing

explanation is that each leader may have her unique reasons for adopting a

controlling style. In the case of the impact of culture on the leadership of school

administrators, the theories on this topic have indeed specified the nature and

pathways of influence of culture. However, the implication that the nature of

influence is unique to culture suggests that the impact of the culture of Hong Kong

on the leadership of kindergarten principals should be explored in terms of the

cultural characteristics of Hong Kong society.

The third reason for employing a case study was the large amount of work

involved in collecting relevant data and the large amount of data to be processed, in

order to obtain a rich, holistic description of the leadership perceptions and

enactment of the selected principals. To ensure that the study would be feasible and

manageable within a reasonable period of time, only two cases were selected, with

one principal from a kindergarten that took part in the government’s ‘Kindergarten

Subsidy Scheme’, and one from a kindergarten that did not take part in this scheme.

Principals working in the two types of kindergarten face different constraints from

the government in terms of how the school can be run. This, in turn, may affect the

principal’s decisions about the curriculum and methods of teaching adopted, and

ways of relating to staff. For instance, kindergartens that have joined the scheme

are required to employ at least 40% of teachers who have completed the QKT. It

was thus considered appropriate to investigate a principal whose kindergarten had

joined the government’s Kindergarten Subsidy Scheme and a principal whose

kindergarten had not joined the scheme.

The following sections describe the way in which the participants in the study

were recruited and the particulars of each participant, outline the procedures and

techniques of data collection, and the strategies that were employed to analyse data.

4.2 Participants

As mentioned, one participant was a principal in a kindergarten that took part

in the government’s ‘Kindergarten Subsidy Scheme’, and the other participant was

81

from a kindergarten that did not take part in this scheme. Only one case from each

type of kindergarten was selected for the following two reasons. First, as the study

aimed to seek an in-depth, exploratory description and understanding of the

leadership behaviours, perceptions and experiences of kindergarten principals in

Hong Kong, a number of observations and interviews with the participating

principals would need to be made. In light of the expected amount of work in

detailing how the participating principals led their kindergartens and the amount of

data to be collected, the number of cases was limited to make it feasible to carry out

the study. Second, a high degree of commitment on the part of the participating

principals was required in terms of time, as they were involved in various forms of

data collection over a period of six months, and in terms of their willingness to

disclose themselves, as they were asked to express their beliefs, attitudes, values, and

feelings related to various aspects of their work in leading their kindergartens. Few

principals were therefore expected to be willing to participate, and therefore just two

cases were undertaken.

As the study was aimed at exploring the leadership behaviour and experience

of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong rather than to establish statistical

generalizations of what such principals did (Merriam, 1998), and as few principals

were expected to be willing to participate, convenience sampling (Cohen & Manion,

1994; Patton, 2002), also called non-probability sampling (Merriam, 1998) or

purposeful sampling strategy (Creswell, 1998), was used to recruit participants.

Several criteria were used to select participants. First, participants had to have been

in the principalship for five or more years, so that enough experience had been

gained in conducting leadership (Oplatka, 2002). Second, the principals would

have to be leading kindergartens with similar numbers of classes and similar

numbers of staff so as to provide a similar context for exploring differences and

similarities in how they led. Another criterion for selection was the locations of

kindergartens (Merriam, 1998), which would have to be convenient for access.

Gender was not used as a criterion, since almost all kindergarten principals in Hong

Kong are female.

Two steps were taken to recruit participants, after ethical clearance was

obtained. First, the thirty principals who were taking the Certificate in

Kindergarten Education (CE-KG) course at the Hong King Institute of Education

82

were briefed about the study and asked to take part. These individuals were the

preferred research targets because they were aware of the importance and procedures

of educational research in general. Second, a letter explaining the aim and

procedures of the study was sent to thirty kindergarten principals in Hong Kong to

solicit their participation. Six principals enrolled in the CE-KG course voiced their

willingness to take part in the study. Two who met the criteria of type of service,

years of experience as a leader, size of school and size of staff were recruited. No

other replies were received from other principals in the CE-KG course or from the

thirty principals.

The participating principals were well informed verbally and in writing about

the purpose of the study, the significance of the study, the procedures of the

investigation, and duration and method of data collection. They were also informed

about the role that the researcher would play, the kind of information to be collected,

the way the data were to be analysed, the confidentiality of the information, and their

right to withdraw from the study at any time (see Appendix C for the written

information furnished to the participants). It was emphasised that the aim of the

study was not to evaluate their leadership performance or ability. Their comments

revealed that they understood the aim of the study. A consent form was signed by

the researcher and the participants (Appendix D). These procedures were

implemented to induce a sense of trust between the participating principals and the

researcher, partly to encourage the participants to be willing to disclose their inner

beliefs, feelings, and attitudes relating to their leadership. The participants

appeared to be willing to voice their thoughts, feelings and views, as judged from the

myriad of things they said, such as concerns about staff and about the survival of the

kindergartens, as well as positive and negative views about the teachers.

4.3 Data collection

A case study protocol (Creswell, 1994) was developed to guide data collection

and analysis. A copy of the protocol used is shown in Appendix E. The protocol

was derived from the suggestions by Yin (1994). It included an overview of the

study, a schedule of field visits (Appendix E), observation checklist (Appendices F

and G), questions for interviews (Appendix H), procedures, general guidelines,

analysis plan and references.

83

Data were collected by way of in-depth interviews, unstructured observations of

the principals as they carried out their day-to-day routines, and scrutiny of relevant

documents (Appendix E). Eight interviews were conducted with each participant

over a period of six months. Relevant documents such as memos and minutes of

meetings were collected, and three observations and follow-up conversations were

made. The data from these sources provided a rich set of information for

understanding the principals’ behaviours and experiences and also contributed to

data triangulation for enhancing the truthfulness of the interpretations made of the

data gathered (Aubrey, David, Godfrey & Thompson, 2000; Creswell, 1998;

Edwards, 2001).

With regard to the timing and duration of data collection, for each of the

participants, data were collected in the second semester of a school year, for

approximately six months. The school year for kindergartens in Hong Kong begins

in September with the first semester of schooling finishing at the end of January.

The second semester begins in February and is completed by the end of July. The

decision to take six months for data collection was due mainly to time constraints

and to avoid disturbing the participants for too long. The second semester was

chosen to gather data because this activity would create fewer disturbances to the

kindergartens in the middle of a school year, compared with conducting the study at

the beginning of the school year. In addition, kindergarten principals do the

planning work for the following school year in the second semester of a school year.

Preparation includes curriculum and instructional arrangements; teacher employment,

deployment and development; recruitment of children for the next school year; and

preparation of graduation matters. Therefore, the second semester of a school year

was appropriate for gathering information on how the principals dealt with important

tasks in leading their kindergartens. Further, questions were also asked about what

the principals did in the first half of the school year, so as to obtain information on

their leadership behaviour and experience from the induction of children and staff to

the completion of a school year. In addition, relevant documents that the

kindergartens used in the first half of the school year were also available and used.

Bolman and Deal’s (1984, 1992, 2003) four leadership frames (structural,

human resource, political and symbolic frames) were used as an initial organizing

framework for data collection and interpretation. Questions that were used initially

84

in the interviews were based on the four leader frames to capture the behaviour and

experiences of the participating principals with regard to those four areas of their

leadership. Follow-up questions, related and unrelated to the frames, were asked to

capture the meanings the principals gave to their work as leaders. The theory was

used for the following four reasons. The first reason is that the model has been

used in research on leadership of elementary and secondary school principals in

Hong Kong, and has produced reliable and consistent results (e.g., Cheng, 1994),

suggesting that the leadership frames are capable of capturing or representing the

leadership behaviours and experience of school principals in the context of Hong

Kong. Another reason for using the model as an initial heuristic device to collect

and interpret data was that the leadership frames are capable of encompassing the

range of roles, work and duties that the leader of an organisation performs. Third, the

leadership frames represent beliefs or worldviews that are held by leaders that guide

and shape how they interpret different situations and people, and determine the way

they lead their group toward goal accomplishment. Therefore, the model is capable

of capturing or reflecting the perspective and subjective experience of the leaders.

Finally, research in Hong Kong and elsewhere using the model has shown that strong

performance on the leadership frames was associated with various indicators of

school effectiveness (e.g., Bolman & Deal, 1992; Barnett et al., 2001), thus

constituting information for examining the leadership performance of school

principals.

4.3.1 Interviews

As the aim of the study was to document and explore the enactment and

perceptions of the participating principals, interviews with the principals were

conducted so as to obtain, from the perspectives of these principals, what they did in

conducting their leadership, why they did so, and how they perceived and

experienced their leadership. Eight interviews were conducted with each of the

participants, comprising a total of eight interviews for each participant. The first to

fifth interviews took place from February to May, the sixth and seventh interviews

from May to June, and the eighth interview in July. All interviews were conducted

in the office of each of the principals. Particulars of the interviews conducted are

listed in Table 1 and Table 2.

85

Table 1 Interview schedule for Amy

Date Name of participant Method Specific aim

Instrument Remarks/ Special

arrangement 5 February Amy First interview Obtain general

information about

the kindergarten

Checklist/

Field notes/

Questions

Audio recording

26 February Amy Second interview Structural frame Questions Audio recording

19 March Amy Third interview Human frame Questions Audio recording

9 April Amy Fourth interview Political frame Questions Audio recording

30 April Amy Fifth interview Symbolic frame Questions Audio recording

21 May Amy Sixth interview

(Following first

observation)

Checklist/

Field notes

Audio recording

11 June Amy Seventh interview

(Following second

observation)

Checklist/

Field notes

Audio recording

2 July Amy Eighth interview Member checks Field notes Audio recording

Table 2 Interview schedule for Betty

Date Name of participant Method Specific aim

Instrument Remarks/ Special

arrangement 12 February Betty First interview Obtain general

information about

the kindergarten

Checklist/

Field notes/

Questions

Audio recording

5 March Betty Second interview Structural frame Questions Audio recording

26 March Betty Third interview Human frame Questions Audio recording

16 April Betty Fourth interview Political frame Questions Audio recording

7 May Betty Fifth interview Symbolic frame Questions Audio recording

28 May Betty Sixth interview

(Following first

observation)

Checklist/

Field notes

Audio recording

18 June Betty Seventh interview

(Following second

observation)

Checklist/

Field notes

Audio recording

9 July Betty Eighth interview Member checks Field notes Audio recording

The first interview was conducted at the beginning of the data-collection phase

of the study. This interview served to develop a working relationship between the

participating principals and the researcher, to secure information concerning the

overall structure and operation of each of the kindergartens in question, and to gather

a general picture of the principals’ perceptions of how they enacted their leadership,

86

how they viewed their work, and how they felt about these processes. Interview

questions are listed in Appendix H.

The second to fifth interviews were used to explore different aspects of the

leadership of the participants. Questions derived from Bolman and Deal’s (1984,

1992, 2003) theory of leadership frames were used to identify the tasks the principals

were involved in, why they undertook these tasks, and how they perceived their

work (Appendix H). For each participant, the second interview was conducted on

the structural frame, the third interview on the human resource frame, the fourth

interview on the political frame and the fifth interview on the symbolic frame.

Questions derived from Bolman and Deal’s theory were used as a guide to explore

the four topics or areas of their leadership. Follow-up questions in terms of

“what”, “who”, “why”, “how”, “what difficulties” and “what solutions” were raised

with a view to obtaining details of what the principals did and experienced as they

carried out their daily tasks. Further questions were asked to pursue what the

principals revealed. Thus, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a mix of

more and less structured questions (Merriam, 1998), so as to capture the worldviews

of the principals on various different areas of their work, to respond to what the

principals revealed and wished to say, and to pursue new ideas that emerged.

Questions asked in the interviews (Appendix H) were prepared and worded in such a

way as to encourage principals to express their views and feelings. The questions

were worded following the suggestions made by Merriam (1998), and included

hypothetical questions, devils’ advocate questions, ideal questions, interpretive

questions and probes (Merriam, 1998). Multiple and leading questions (Merriam,

1998) were avoided.

In the third to the fifth interviews, information was also sought to clarify

specific points noted in the previous interview, which the researcher did not feel to

be clear enough. Member-checks (Merriam, 1998) on interpretations made of what

was obtained from the previous interviews were also conducted to ascertain whether

the interpretations made from the data matched with those of the participants.

The sixth interview was conducted following the first observation that was

undertaken, and the seventh interview was conducted after the second observation.

These interviews were used to seek information relating to what was noted during

87

the observations. Information was sought regarding the views, reasons, motives

and/or feelings that the participating principals had when they exhibited specific

behaviours. These interviews were also used to clarify some of the interpretations

the researcher had noted during the observations. Member-checks were also

undertaken on interpretations that the researcher made of what was seen in the

previous observation.

The last interview for each of the two participants was conducted towards the

end of the data collection phase. The purpose of these interviews was to examine if

changes in the perceptions or actions in handling the key tasks in leadership had

taken place over time. Questions derived from Bolman and Deal’s (1984, 1992,

2003) theory, which had already been asked in the first set of interviews, were also

used in these interviews. Further member-checks were also conducted in these

interviews.

With the permission of the principals, all the interviews were audio recorded

with a cassette recorder, and were subsequently transcribed (Tuckman, 1999).

Attempts were made to transcribe the recorded information as soon as possible after

the interviews, as memory of what the participating principals said was still fresh,

but this was not possible in some instances due to other commitments of the

researcher. Attempts were also made to interpret the transcribed information

immediately after the transcription, and this was accomplished for most

transcriptions. Nevertheless, this could not be done in some instances due to other

commitments of the researcher. In the latter case, indications were made so that the

researcher was alerted to the time lapse involved in interpreting the transcribed

information. A sample of the transcription is attached in Appendices J and L. All

data were held in a secure place and were not made available to other people.

4.3.2 Observation

Observations of what the participating principals did in their daily work were

made for four purposes. The first purpose was to explore if there was information

that was missed from the interviews. The interviews made use of questions derived

from the four leadership frames of Bolman and Deal’s (1984, 1992, 2003) model,

which was felt to be able to encompass the range of work of a leader in an

88

organisation. Nevertheless, to ensure that information of how the participating

principals led was not missed by the interviews, observations were conducted.

The second purpose of conducting observations was for obtaining information

for cross-checking the authenticity of what the participating principals revealed in

the interviews. The third purpose was for obtaining information to serve as

behavioural indicators of what the participating principals might reveal in the

interview about how they led. It was possible that some of the words the

participating principals might use in the interviews might reflect specific standards

that they held, and thus information obtained from observations offered a better

understanding of the information revealed in the interviews. For instance, a

principal might say she gave advice to staff. It could turn out that the principal’s

giving advice could refer in reality to the principal’s instructing or reprimanding

staff.

The fourth purpose for conducting observations was to serve as an avenue for

exploring the interpretations that might be made from information obtained from the

interviews or from the documents collected. The last three purposes could be said

to be ways for data triangulation (Bassey, 1999; Bogdan & Biklen, 2003).

It was felt proper to observe what the principals did on normal school days,

rather than on the specific activities in which they engaged. Two such days

(observations) were arranged for each participant over a period of five months in the

second semester of the school year, with the days being determined partly by the

participants to suit their schedule. From what the participants said about those four

days, they were not different from other days on which the principals carried out

their work (See Appendix E). Particulars of the observations are listed in Table 3

and Table 4.

Table 3 Observation schedule for Amy

Date Name of participant Method Instrument

21 May Amy First observation Checklist/ Field notes

11 June Amy Second observation Checklist/ Field notes

89

Table 4 Observation schedule for Betty

Date Name of participant Method Instrument

28 May Betty First observation Checklist/ Field notes

18 June Betty Second observation Checklist/ Field notes

The duration of each observation was one whole school day, which was about

eight hours. An unstructured form of observation was employed (Aubrey et al.,

2000), with the participating principals being shadowed as they carried out their

work, and with what they did and said being recorded. The researcher remained as

an unobtrusive observer during the observations (Merriam, 1998).

Field notes including descriptions, direct quotations, and observer

comments/interpretations (Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002) were taken during

observations. A copy of the form used for making field notes is in Appendix G.

The contents of field notes included time, context or physical settings, participants,

verbal expression and non-verbal behavior, interpretations of the events, and

comments or feelings of the observer (Banister, Burman, Parker, Taylor & Tindall,

1994; Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002). The elements of field notes are listed in Table

5.

Table 5 Elements of field notes

Elements of

Field notes

Descriptions

Time Recording the duration of a specific event.

Context Describing the venue and the physical setting in words or diagrams.

Participants Describing those needed to be noted, including identity, and physical

description.

Events/

activities:

Describing both verbal expression and non-verbal behavior in a

particular event. The sequence of actions is also noted.

Interpretation Attempting to indicate the meaning of the situation that can make sense

to both the participants and the observer. Alternative interpretations

would also be made.

Comments and

feelings

Providing personal views on the event and the behavior of the

participants.

90

Quick running notes including symbols and generalized field notes were made

on the spot during observations, and detailed and concrete notes were made

afterwards (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Patton, 2002). The notes were made in an

unobtrusive manner to avoid interrupting the work of the principals (Tuckman, 1999).

Attempts were made to write out the detailed notes immediately after the observation

was over, and this was accomplished for three of the four observations.

In addition to the scheduled observations, some unscheduled and unstructured

observations were also made while the interviews were conducted. Quick notes

were also made. The information gained from these unstructured observations was

used to supplement information gained from the observations.

4.3.3 Use of documents

In addition to interviews and observations, documentation was used in the

study. Two types of document, public/archival records and personal documents

(Creswell, 1994), were collected and used. The first type of documents included

official records (Merriam, 1998) such as newsletters, agenda and minutes of

meetings, government documents, memoranda, records of study programs, notices to

parents, pamphlets for recruitment of children, and school regulations. The second

type of documents referred to a work diary in which the participating principals were

asked to record their daily activities for a period of one month. The principals were

asked to complete the work diary for just one month within the six-month study

period (in order to avoid disrupting the principals’ regular work for too long).

Information gained from the documents was used to explore whether there was

information that was missed from interviews and observations, to cross-check the

authenticity of the information gained from the other two sources, and to supplement

and enhance interpretation and understanding of information from the other two

sources. A form was developed for relating relevant documents to behavior and

experience under the four leadership frames (Bolman & Deal, 1984, 1992, 2003).

The form was used to scrutinize the documents obtained for understanding what the

participating principals did, why they did so, and how they perceived and

experienced their leadership. A copy of the form is in Appendix I. The

documents obtained from the participants were categorized into type of document,

91

contents and interpretations. A sample of transcribed documents is in Appendix J.

In translating and interpreting the documents, the strengths of this source of

information were considered, such as their official stance and objective indicators of

what happened (Merriam, 1998). The weaknesses of such information were also

considered, such as problems of authenticity and accuracy of the information

contained in some of the documents, as they were developed for specific purposes

under specific contexts by the participating principals or other parties within the

kindergartens (Merriam, 1998).

4.4 Data analysis

In the data analysis phase, the data obtained were examined with a view to

abstracting themes and insights for an understanding of the leadership of the

participating principals, and how these individuals viewed their work and perceived

their leadership. The data were first categorized in accordance with Bolman and

Deal’s (1984, 1992, 2003) four leadership frames which were structural, human

resource, political and symbolic frames. These frames provided guidelines for

understanding the perceptions and the enactment of the leadership of the principals.

For example, the roles of staff members in the kindergarten were put under the

structural frame and the relationship with and attitudes towards staff were put under

the human resource frame. After grouping the data into the four leadership frames,

a coding system was developed to organize the data. The coding process

comprised various elements, including a numerical system to identify to which

leadership frame the data were allocated, which participant the data were from,

which technique was used to gather data, and construct codes related to leadership

(Merriam, 1998). A list of construct codes was developed after reading the first

interview transcription, field notes and documents collected (Merriam, 1998). The

list was updated as the study proceeded. The construct codes comprised (a)

behaviour derived from Bolman and Deal’s (1984, 1992, 2003) leadership frames; (b)

attributes of the participants, such as values, beliefs, wishes, motives, and goals; (c)

perceptions, views and/or feelings related to attributes of elements within the

kindergartens, such as attributes of teachers, curriculum, teaching approaches,

graduation ceremony, Open Day; and (d) perceptions, views and/or feelings of

elements outside the kindergartens, such as competition from other kindergartens,

parental demands, and government policy and regulations. A description of the

92

codes and the symbols for the codes is included in Table 6. These codes were

useful to categorize the data gathered, identify data source, identify from which data

collection method the data came, and create theme maps.

Table 6: Descriptions of data codes

Category Codes Code representation Interpretations

Data source code Including interview (V), observation (O), diary (R), other document sources (D). (Appendix L)

The letter codes indicate that the source of the data was from interview, observation, diary or other document.

Participant source code

The names below are pseudonyms:

Amy (A) Betty (B) (Appendix L)

The participant codes (A or B) were used to identify the pseudonymous name of the participants.

Identity code Each data statement is given an identity number. (Appendix M)

The text of data was split into statements. Each statement was given a number for identification.

Leadership frame code

Structural (S), human (H), political (P), and symbolic (B). (Appendix J)

The four frames were given different letter codes. Each data statement was located in the frame or frames it belonged to. This frame was used in the beginning of data analysis only.

Construct code Elements derived from data,

e.g., administration, beliefs/perceptions of teachers, beliefs/perceptions of parents, training

Mapping code Mapping can show relationships among the data. A number is given to each map. (Appendix L)

There are two sets of maps to show relationships among the data for both Amy and Betty.

93

All data were coded and categorized, using key words and phrases. The

coded information was stored in computer files. Although word processing

programs might be less inefficient than some other qualitative software (e.g.

NUDIST, Ethnograph, and HyperQual 2, Glesne, 1999) in identifying categories or

constructs, it was easier to operate. A mapping technique was employed to develop

construct maps (Carley, 1997; Creswell, 1994; Ryan & Bernard, 2000). The

mapping involved (a) summarising and linking behavior and/or perceptions related

to a construct, (b) examining possible linkages among the constructs (e.g.,

perceptions of staff competency) within each of the four leadership frames, (c)

examining possible linkages of the construct with the same construct falling under

the other three leadership frames, and (d) examining possible linkages of the

construct with other constructs. The mapping system was regarded as useful in (a)

simplifying the long text, as each construct text carries an identity number, it was

easy to trace back to the original text for the details of the field notes, (b)

understanding leadership behaviour and perceptions of the participants falling within

each of the four leadership frames, and linkages of behaviour and perceptions falling

under the different leadership frames. An example of a construct map is given in

Appendix K.

4.5 Issues and limitations

This section outlines the issues in doing qualitative research and the limitations

in the research approach adopted in this study. The issues include trustworthiness

of the data, transferability of the data, and ethical concerns. The limitations include

language barriers in data transcription, and the time span selected in conducting the

study.

4.5.1 Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness in the context of the present study refers to the degree to which

the data obtained and the interpretations made captured reality as seen from the

perspectives of the participating principals. Bassey (1999), drawing on the work of

others including Guba and Lincoln (1994), who originated the notion of

trustworthiness, proposed several means by which the trustworthiness of a study can

be enhanced. Similarly, Merriam (1998) suggested six items, such as triangulation,

94

member checks and long-term observation, for enhancing the trustworthiness of a

study. The suggestions that Bassey (1999) and Merriam (1998) made can be

grouped into three interrelated points. The first point refers to the extent to which

sufficient, valid and meaningful data have been secured on which analyses can be

made. The second point refers to the extent to which subjectivity on the part of the

researcher has been minimised in collecting data and in making analyses of the data.

The third point refers to the extent to which the reporting of the research process is

detailed enough for scrutiny by others.

In relation to the first point, the background/view of the participants, the stance

the researcher expressed to the participants, the length of the period of study, the use

of Bolman and Deal’s (1984, 1992, 2003) theory as a guide in data collection and in

making analyses, method triangulation, and the use of member checks seem to have

contributed to securing data which were sufficient, meaningful and valid in respect

of the leadership perceptions and enactments of the participating principals. In

relation to the background/view of the participants, insufficient rapport between

researcher and participants has been cited as one of the key obstacles to gathering

valid data (Glesne, 1999). In the present study, the two participants were graduates

of the teacher training institute and had known professionally to the researcher for

several years. They seemed to understand the importance of research and the

purpose of the present study. Due to the academic training they had received and

the information provided to them, they understood that evaluation of their

performance was not a part of the study. They seemed to trust the researcher and

were willing to share their personal views and feelings, including sensitive issues

related to their work. In addition, all through the study, the researcher worked to

maintain a non-evaluative, empathetic and open stance to what the participating

principals revealed about their leadership.

A five-month period of prolonged engagement in the second part of a school

year was designed for collecting data on leadership perceptions and enactments of

the principals to capture what the principals did within that period, what they had

done in the first part of the school year, and what they would do in preparation for

the coming school year. Use of guidelines generated from Bolman and Deal’s

(1984, 1992, 2003) leadership frames ensured that different facets of leadership

behaviour and experience of the participants were obtained, as the theory has been

95

shown to encompass the range of leadership behaviour and experiences of leaders in

an organisation, to be applicable to the Hong Kong context, and to capture leadership

from the perspectives of the participants. In addition, data triangulation (Merriam,

1998) was employed in which data were collected from three avenues -- interviews,

observations and documents, for ensuring that important information was not missed,

for enhancing understanding of the information obtained, for crosschecking the

authenticity of the information gathered, and for enhancing the interpretations made

of the gathered data. Further, member checks were conducted (Merriam, 1998) in

which the data obtained and interpretations made were discussed with the

participants regarding whether the data and interpretations captured and matched

with the worldviews and experience of the participants. For examples, when

information which had been gathered but whose meaning was not sufficiently clear,

the researcher sought clarifications from the participants. All transcriptions were

sent to the participants for cross-checking and clarification, which thus ensured the

accuracy and objectivity of the findings (Sowell, 2001). Discussions with the

participants were conducted to ascertain the degree to which the interpretations

derived from the interview data matched the participants’ worldviews and experience

(Bassey, 1999; Creswell, 1998). Clarifications and changes were made where it

was appropriate. It is felt that these means ensured that the data collected were

meaningful and valid.

In relation to the second point regarding minimising the researcher’s

subjectivity in data collection and in making interpretations and analyses of the data,

the researcher realized her role as the ‘research instrument’ (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003;

Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2003) in formulating the problem that was researched, in

selecting the design used, in recruiting participants, in gathering data through

different avenues, in summarising data, and in making interpretations, with each of

these steps possibly being influenced by preferences, values, attitudes and biases she

had. In response, the researcher behaved as an involved but detached observer all

through the study (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993), and the distinction between the

participants’ views and the researcher’s interpretations were kept in close scrutiny

throughout the study. Throughout the study, the researcher took a reflective stance,

trying to be aware of her own views and biases and to avoid how these might have

influenced the data collected and the interpretations made. In addition, as

96

mentioned, member checks were made with the participants regarding the

interpretations made. Finally, comments were sought from a work colleague who

was an expert in leadership of secondary school principals in relation to means and

procedures of data collection and interpretation of the data for an additional check on

bias (Bassey, 1999; Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). It is felt that

these means safeguarded against influence of possible personal biases on the part of

the researcher. However, subjectivity cannot be avoided totally, as the beliefs and

values of the researcher may have inadvertently and unknowingly influenced what

was documented and the interpretations offered. Nevertheless, perhaps, the key

point is to limit observers’ biases, rather than eliminating bias (Bodan & Biken, 2003;

Wellington, 2000). With the measures mentioned, subjectivity arising from the

involvement of the researcher should have been minimized. The above two points

correspond to the criteria respectively of dependability and credibility in Guba and

Lincoln’s (1994) criteria for the trustworthiness of the findings in qualitative

research.

In relation to the third point of providing an adequate report of the procedures

in data gathering and in making interpretations, several means were taken. A case

study protocol that detailed the procedures and the time schedule was developed and

adopted. The protocol served as a guideline for maintaining standardized

procedures for the type of data that were recorded and how they were recorded.

Further, similar questions were posed to the two participants in the interviews, and

attempts were made to transcribe the data immediately afterward, but this was not

possible in some instances. A detailed record was made regarding when the

transcription was done. Likewise, the same system of notes was used in recording

what the principals did during the observations, and transcription of what was

observed was done immediately, though this was not possible for two of the six

observations. A detailed record was made regarding when the transcription of the

observed information was done, along with the difficulties noted in the transcriptions.

In addition, standardization in how the data were analysed was also maintained as far

as possible. The listing and recording of the procedures that were adopted in data

collection and in data interpretation provided a detailed record, serving as an ‘audit

trail’ (Merriam, 1998) for readers to examine what has been done in the study. The

report of the procedure in data gathering corresponds to the criterion of

97

confirmability in Guba and Lincoln’s (1994) criteria for the trustworthiness of the

findings in qualitative research. Through all the measures taken in the three points

described above, issues of trustworthiness have been addressed.

4.5.2 Ethics

Ethics in research is an important professional and legal concern. Because of

the different natures, types, purposes and recipients of studies, the ethical concerns

can be different. In this study, the competence, the role and responsibility of the

researcher; the integrity of the study; and the rights and protection of the participants

are the main concerns (American Psychological Association, 1992; Goodwin, 1995).

To ensure the protection of participants, approval for undertaking the study was

obtained from the QUT Ethics Committee (Appendix N, Ethical Clearance). For

respecting the participants’ rights and privacy, it is important to be concerned about

consent from the participants, the confidentiality of the data, and the anonymity of

the identity of the participants (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Christians, 2000; Merriam,

1998; Wellington, 2000). The participants in this study were duly informed of the

purpose, procedures, and instruments used. They were asked to sign a consent

form prior to taking part in the study (Appendix D). It was made clear to them that

they could refuse to answer any questions at any point in the study if they felt

uncomfortable, or they could withdraw from the study at any point. For the

protection of the privacy of the participants, the names of the kindergartens used in

the study are pseudonyms. All personal information about the participants was kept

in strict confidence.

4.5.3 Transferability

The purpose of the study is not to generalize the results obtained and

interpretations made to the population of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong. It

is primarily for exploring and understanding the life experiences and behaviours of

the two kindergarten principals in relation to how they perceived and enacted their

leadership. At the same time, in line with Erickson’s (1986) notion of concrete

universals, the findings obtained from the in-depth documentation of the leadership

of the two principals can be applied or transferred to other kindergarten principals if

98

those principals are studied in similar ways to produce thick descriptions, and if they

are in similar contexts to the two principals in the present study.

The findings of the present study are also transferable to other principals, in

line with Merriam’s notion (1998) of naturalistic generalization, wherein

transferability from thoroughly studied cases to target cases recognizes similarities

of issues in similar and dissimilar contexts, though such generalizations serve as

guidelines in exploring how a target case might behave rather than as predictions of

how target would behave. This kind of transferability is similar to Cronback’s

(1975) view of generalizations as working hypotheses which function as

perspectives to explore how target cases might behave, or to Bassey’s (1999) view of

fuzzy generalization wherein generalization is made in terms of possibilities but not

certainty.

In addition, as the present study provides a rich and thick description of

leadership perceptions and leadership enactment of two principals in their

naturalistic work contexts, the findings are transferable in terms of reader

generalizability (Merriam, 1998), wherein readers can make judgements in respect of

the closeness of fit between the contexts that the principals in the present study faced

and the contexts that the readers find themselves. Evidence is provided for readers

to enter into the discourse about the case. In addition, the selection of one principal

whose kindergarten had joined the Government Subsidy Scheme, and one principal

whose kindergarten was not in the scheme, which encompassed the two types of

kindergartens in the Territory, enhanced the range of situations to which the results in

the present study can be transferred to other principals in the Territory (Merriam,

1998). The design of multiple sites and cases can therefore maximize the diversity

of perspectives for transferability. Nevertheless, the extent to which the two cases

chosen are typical of kindergarten principals in the Territory is difficult to ascertain,

as the cases were recruited through purposeful sampling and dependent on principals

who were willing to participate in the study. In Guba and Lincoln’s (1994) view,

transferability is one of the criteria for the trustworthiness of findings in qualitative

research. However, as transferability is seen more as how the obtained findings are

used than of the truthfulness of the findings, it is described separately from

trustworthiness.

99

4.5.4 Limitations of the study

One limitation is the language used in the study. The language that is used by

most people in Hong Kong is Cantonese, a dialect of Chinese. All the interviews in

this study were conducted in Cantonese and all the documents, including the work

diaries and other archives, were also in Chinese (written form). It was difficult to

translate word for word from Cantonese (spoken form) or Chinese (written form) to

English. Therefore, the researcher tried to grasp the meanings of what the

participating principals said or wrote and then translated them into English.

However, for ensuring that the transcriptions and interpretations corresponded to the

meanings intended or conveyed by the principals, the Chinese transcriptions and

interpretations were sent to the participants for crosschecking and confirmation.

Thus, use of the technique of member checking ensured the trustworthiness and

authenticity of the recorded data and interpretations.

In this study, because of time constraints and availability of the participants,

only two principals of kindergartens of two types of sponsoring body, which are

typical in Hong Kong, were recruited. This research studied the perceptions and

enactment of the leadership of principals. For further study, teachers, children, and

parents could also be recruited to provide views on the roles and work of the

kindergarten principals. Although this study did not recruit a large number of

participants because of the aim of the study and the time constraints, it serves as an

initial attempt to explore the leadership of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong.

Moreover, because of the large amount of time incurred in studying parents and

teachers, data from such individuals were not gathered in this study.

In addition, because of insufficient time and to avoid disrupting the work of the

principals, data collection was conducted in the second semester of the school year

(for approximately five months). This period was more appropriate than

conducting the study in the first semester of the school year, as explained above.

Further, it was also possible to understand the principals’ reflections of what they

had done in the first half of the school year, when conducting the study in the second

half of the school year. Nevertheless, in future research, data about the leadership

of principals can be gathered from the first semester of the school year, to obtain a

100

full picture of how kindergarten principals in the Territory lead their schools from the

beginning of a school year to the end of that school year.

101

CHAPTER FIVE: AMY’S LEADERSHIP

This chapter begins with a highlight of the particulars of Amy’s kindergarten to

provide a background for how Amy conducted her leadership and why she did so.

This is followed by a description of the forces for more instruction on preparatory

scholastic skills that were impacting on the kindergarten. Two themes that

characterized Amy’s leadership were (1) the exercise of strong and direct control and

(2) an expression of caring and a teamwork spirit. These themes are examined in

relation to how Amy exercised control over the study curriculum, teaching

approaches, activities designed to inform parents about what the kindergarten could

offer, and other aspects of the operation of the kindergarten.

5.1 The kindergarten

Amy served as the principal of both branches of the kindergarten, TT and YY.

TT and YY were established in 1989 and 1997 respectively, and Amy had been the

principal since their establishment. Both were located in housing estates, which

were built by the government for the low income strata of the population.

The kindergartens provided half-day sessions for children between the ages of

three and six. There were approximately 270 children in TT. Six classes were

offered in the morning but only three were offered in the afternoon because of

insufficient numbers of children. The staff comprised one prefect of studies, six

teachers, two teaching assistants, one clerk and two custodians. The prefect of

studies was responsible for implementing the decisions the principal made and

monitoring staff in implementing the decisions. In YY, there were approximately

210 children with five classes in the morning, and three in the afternoon. YY had

one prefect of studies, five teachers, one teaching assistant, one clerk and two

custodians. The scale of operation and staff composition of the kindergartens were

similar to that of other kindergartens in the Territory. All the staff members in both

kindergartens, from the principal to custodians, were female.

The majority of the teachers in both kindergartens were in their mid to late

twenties, and about 60% of the teachers had completed the Qualified Kindergarten

102

Teacher qualification (QKT). Both kindergartens adopted a thematic approach in

their teaching, but they employed the project approach (Katz, 1997) in some of the

teaching activities.

TT and YY were branches of a kindergarten run by a non-profit making

religious organisation. Both kindergartens were eligible to take part in the

Government’s Kindergarten Subsidy Scheme, and had done so. Accordingly they

received a sum of money from the government equivalent to a specific percentage of

the total amount of money received from the tuition fees of the children attending.

In return, 40% of teachers were to have completed at least the QKT, teachers were

paid in accord with a salary scheme stipulated by the government, and the principals

released to the government information concerning the income and expenditure of

the kindergartens. The kindergartens were governed by a Management Board

consisting of established members of the religious organisation. Amy reported to

the Management Board formally twice a year. Amy said that she was allowed a

high degree of freedom in how to run the kindergartens, with the Board giving her

general guidelines, which related mainly to financial matters.

Amy stated that though the kindergartens were located in two different

localities and were different in terms of the number of children and number of staff,

they adopted the same curriculum of study, had staff with quite similar qualifications

and experience, and had in place similar organisational structures. Amy stressed

that she did similar things in both kindergartens, in respect to the kind of decisions

she made, the way she made decisions, and the way she perceived and related to staff.

Based on obtained similarity of staff attributes and organisational structures in TT

and YY, and on Amy’s perception that she enacted her leadership similarly in both

settings, these kindergartens were considered as one in the following coverage of the

work and experience of Amy in her capacity as leader. Information about Amy’s

leadership was gathered from TT and YY.

5.2 Forces of change

Much of what Amy did in leading the kindergarten was related to her

perceptions of, and reaction to, forces calling for the adoption of a more

scholastically oriented study curriculum. One key force was parents’ demands.

103

The forces had direct consequences for the number of children recruited and thus on

maintaining the kindergarten. Amy commented:

Many parents nowadays are demanding more instruction in reading,

writing and counting…because they want their children to go on to a good

primary school. (AV-11)

The demands from parents for more instruction in reading, writing and counting had

to do with the element of competition within the education system in Hong Kong

(Hong Kong Economic Times, 2001; Education Department, 2002). Though nine

years of free and compulsory education has been in practice in Hong Kong for a long

time, schools in the Territory, from primary to university levels, are differentiated

into various strata, the top strata being sought by parents and students to a greater

extent than those in the lower strata (Chan, 2002). The more prestigious schools

adopt a curriculum in which coverage of the subjects is both broader and deeper than

those used by less prestigious schools at the same grade level. Entry to such

prestigious primary and secondary schools is highly competitive. Schools in the

lower strata of the hierarchy wish to catch up, and have been placing more demands

on students in what they study. One consequence has been that the curricula of

studies in primary and secondary schools have become much richer, with students at

each level being required to learn more, compared with what students were required

to do a decade ago (Education Department, 2002). To prepare children better to

move to primary education or to enable their children to get into one of the

prestigious primary schools, many parents prefer to send their children to those

kindergartens that give more instruction on preparatory scholastic skills, or have

demanded kindergartens to give more of this type of instruction (Chan, 2002; Cheng,

2002).

Amy also stated that most other kindergartens, in order to satisfy parents’

demands, had been increasing instruction in reading, writing and counting, and that

by doing so, they were able to attract parents and children:

…most kindergartens, especially those profit-making ones, have increased

instruction and exercises on writing and counting, and some have done so

quite substantially, and many are also doing a number of innovative

104

things…they have been able to attract parents to send their children there.

(AV-11)

Amy’s understanding of parents’ demands could influence her to increase instruction

in writing and counting if the kindergarten needed sufficient numbers of children to

maintain its operation. Amy was, indeed, concerned about recruiting a sufficient

number of children, and had already found it difficult to do so:

…we need to have sufficient number of children for the kindergarten to

survive and to get subsidy from the government…our situation has been

quite critical…it has been difficult to get children because there are fewer

children going to a kindergarten each year. (AV-2b) (AV-4)

The government’s Kindergarten Subsidy Scheme constituted a minor portion of its

income and the amount was contingent on the number of children recruited

(Education Department, 2002). Though not willing to disclose information about

the financial situation the kindergarten was facing, Amy described it as critical for its

survival. The difficulty in relation to recruiting children had to do partly with the

declining birth rate in the Territory, which began in the early 1990s (Census and

Statistics Department, Hong Kong Government, 1993, 2003), resulting in fewer

children needing kindergarten education. With the same number of kindergartens

remaining but with fewer children, kindergartens in the Territory have been

competing among themselves for survival.

The source of competition for children that Amy faced was different from that

encountered by public schools in some western societies, such as Australia, Britain,

and the U.S.A. From the early 1990s, government-mandated, school restructuring

towards site-based management resulted in public schools recruiting students on a

more competitive basis than previously (Bell & Rowley, 2002; Cranston et al., 2002;

Leithwood & Hallinger, 2002; Wildy & Louden, 2000). In response to such

competition, the leadership of school principals has become more entrepreneurial,

with more effort being spent on promoting and marketing their schools (Oplatka &

Hemsley-Brown, 2004). For example, some principals advertise their schools

through publishing impressive brochures (Symes, 1998). In kindergartens, both the

declining number of children and an absence of government regulations on virtually

105

all aspects of operation of kindergartens were drivers of competition, whereas

mandates from the governments were key drivers of competition for public schools

in western societies.

Although Amy needed to recruit enough children to sustain the operation of the

kindergarten, she recognized the demands of parents for more instruction in

preparatory scholastic skills, and knew that other kindergartens were willing to

provide such instruction to attract parents. However, she was unwilling to offer a

predominantly scholastic education:

If we focus mainly on reading, writing and counting, we would provide,

like most other kindergartens, a scholastically oriented education. But this

is not what I wish to offer. I think, and the Management Board agrees with

me...I have full support of the Board…that we should provide a

well-rounded education to children. Life is more than studying and

working, it is about fulfillment of our potential, relating genuinely to others,

being a member of a society, understanding God’s love and care…however,

we would not neglect our mission which also seeks to help children to go on

to primary education smoothly…I strongly believe that it is my

mission…my duty to see to it that we offer a well-rounded education to

children…we may not get enough children. (AV-11)

Amy’s position on the issue of increasing instruction on preparatory scholastic skills

was clear. She saw a well-rounded education as the means by which children could

be assisted to develop properly. Thus, the curriculum she adopted included

activities aiming to provide children with a balanced development in morality,

preparatory scholastic skills, physical fitness, social skills and aesthetic appreciation.

Amy was therefore not willing to offer an education that was predominantly

scholastically oriented, but was willing to give some training on preparatory

scholastic skills to assist children to move to primary schooling successfully.

The goals that Amy wished the kindergarten to achieve --- children realizing

and fulfilling their potential, developing genuine relationships with others, becoming

integral members of society, and understanding God’s love and care -- can be

considered as value-laden, reflecting the values Amy held concerning children’s

106

development. A well-rounded education was put in place to assist children to

accomplish those goals. It can therefore be said that the values Amy held

influenced the goals and kind of education she felt was proper. The influence of

Amy’s values on the kind of education offered echoes findings of research which

shows the impact of principals’ values on their leadership (e.g., Bell & Rowley, 2002;

Dempster, Carter, Freakley & Parry, 2004; Gold, Evans, Earley, Halpin &

Collarbone, 2003). For instance, Gold et al. (2003) showed that leadership

behaviour of a group of school principals, which could be considered as

transformational in nature, was enacted from the values that such principals held,

such as inclusivity, equity, justice and teamwork, rather than as learned skills and

behaviour employed to influence staff.

Amy stated that it was her duty to see to it that the kindergarten offered a

well-rounded education. Her statement suggests a sense of determination in doing

her job well, more for the benefit of children than for the benefit of the kindergarten or

her job security. Motives for doing something for the benefit of students have been

documented in several studies of female school administrators (Cubillo & Brown,

2003; Kropienwnicki & Shapiro, 2001; Oplatka, 2002), with such motives being seen

as an expression of a caring attitude towards others. For instance, Kropienwnicki

and Shapiro, (2001) showed that the female school administrators researched voiced

a motive to do something good for students as the primary reason for taking up an

administrative position. Culturally, a motive to work for the benefit of others and

possessing a caring attitude towards others are consistent with the conception of

femininity in Chinese societies (Leung, 1996).

While Amy was determined to offer a balanced education instead of a

predominantly scholastically oriented one, she was aware of the consequences of

what this might do to the identity and survival of the kindergarten:

I understand the importance of what I do to the kindergarten…we may

face the negative consequence of closing down if we don’t address

parents’ demands and don’t have enough numbers of children…but it is

also important that we do what we believe is right...it would have

far-reaching consequences to the kindergarten and staff. (AV-2a) (AV-4)

107

Amy was worried that offering a well-rounded education might not enable the

kindergarten to survive. She seemed to be experiencing a recurrent conflict

between offering a well-rounded education that she believed to be positive for

children but potentially negative for the kindergarten, and offering a predominantly

scholastically oriented education which she stated was not entirely beneficial to

children but with potentially positive outcomes for the kindergarten. Amy also

realized that the way she dealt with such a dilemma could have serious consequences

for the kindergarten, including job security for herself and staff.

5.3 Direct and strong control

This section first presents the kind of work roles Amy put in place in the

kindergarten, and then examines the control she exercised on matters related to the

study curriculum, teaching approaches, activities for parents, and other aspects of the

operation of the kindergarten, with data and discussion on what Amy did and why

she did so.

5.3.1 Work roles in the kindergarten

With regard to the work roles that were used in the kindergarten, including the

chain of command within it, to implement the work and tasks involved in offering an

education to young children, Amy stated:

We have a system of work roles, comprising a principal, prefects of

studies, teachers, clerks and custodians…the principal oversees the

operation of the kindergarten as a whole…the prefects of studies are

responsible for implementing the decisions I make…Teachers are

responsible for writing lesson plans, preparing teaching resources, and

conducting class…getting involved in all the activities of the

kindergarten, such as visits, picnics. (AV-1) (AV-3)

…the system of work roles we have here encompasses all the work

and tasks involved…the duties and responsibilities of each of the work

roles in the kindergarten were well defined (AV-10). I have the formal

duties and responsibilities of the work roles written down in a formal

work description document…I select and interview applicants, and

108

decide whom I will use…I give new staff very elaborated explanations

of those duties and responsibility…in the course of monitoring their

performance, I make clear to them what their duties and responsibilities

are...my staff have clear ideas of what their duties and responsibilities

should be. (AV-8)

Amy indicated that, as the principal, she was responsible for setting up the work

roles, defining the work for each role, recruiting staff, familiarizing staff members

about the work they should be doing and monitoring their task performance. Here,

Amy’s work falls under the realm of structural leadership in Bolman and Deal’s

(1984, 1992, 2003) model. The successful enactment of this realm of leadership is

essential for the operation of an organisation (Bolman & Deal, 1991). For some

principals in western societies, such executive functions have been taken up to a

great extent following reforms towards site-based management. In contrast to the

fulfillment of the educational function, completing executive functions has caused

role ambiguity and strain (Bell & Rowley, 2002; Cranston et al., 2002; Henkin,

Cistone & Dee, 2000; Wildy & Louden, 2000). Amy did not seem to have much

difficulty in handling the tasks related to the work roles. This probably had to do

with the small scale of operation of the kindergarten and thus a less complex staff

structure, and a smaller number of teachers to supervise, along with virtually no

regulations from the government concerning how the kindergarten was to be run.

5.3.2 Command structure

The command structure adopted was clearly hierarchal, with the power to run

the kindergarten vested in the principal. There were no management teams of

teachers or other staff members that the principal needed to consult, involve or report

to when making decisions. As to the type of command structure that was adopted,

Amy stated:

…the chain of command is top-down…this structure has enabled the

kindergarten to operate efficiently and effectively…it is positively

received by all staff members…it is in line with how people in our society

do their things…most other kindergartens are using a similar structure.

(AV-1)

109

An hierarchal command structure is regarded as common and proper in Chinese

societies, reflective of the cultural values and norms that endorse and sanction

greater power, status, authority and wisdom of individuals in higher positions, such

as the father (to son), husband (to wife) and the old (to the young) (Hwang, 1999).

This type of social makeup and related cultural values and norms is labeled as high

on power distance in Hofstede’s (1980) framework and work on dimensions

descriptive of cultures. Hong Kong is characterized as high on power distance

(Hofstede, 1980; Wong, 2001). It is claimed that the propriety of an hierarchal

social structure was reinforced and strengthened by the British under the

colonization period up to 1997 (Dimmock, 1999). Amy understood that the

command structure was top-down, with the principal having the power to make

decisions concerning all aspects of the operation of the kindergarten. Further, her

reference to the top-down chain of command suggests that she was aware of the

top-down structure in the kindergarten as being consistent with the cultural

orientation of a high level of power distance in Hong Kong society. Her statement

that the hierarchal command structure was well received by staff conforms to a belief

that staff found the hierarchal structure consistent with culture, and thus a proper

form of power relationship.

In addition to the impact of culture, an absence of government regulations

seemed to influence the kind of decision making structure used by kindergartens in

the Territory. Public schools adopting site-based management in some western

societies were mandated by governments to involve external community parties in

school governance and to involve internal parties such as teachers in making

decisions concerning school operation (Bell & Rowley, 2002). In Hong Kong,

kindergartens have been left to choose the decision making structure they wish to

adopt (Hong Kong Economic Times, 2001). In Amy’s case, she understood that the

hierarchal structure in place in the kindergarten and the cultural propriety of control

gave her the power to lead staff in ways she preferred, whether autocratically

according to the hierarchal structure, or democratically if she preferred to delegate

decision making power to staff.

110

5.3.3 Work culture Amy was promoting in staff

Of all the work roles, Amy found the teachers to be the most important, but

also felt that the teachers were not sufficiently competent in or committed to their

work.

It is extremely important to have good staff members…it is most

important to have effective and dedicated teachers. (AV-11)

Due to the long history of government negligence on preschool education,

many of the kindergarten teachers in Hong Kong are not trained…even

those who have undertaken training, the QKT they have is a very basic

type of training…they are not competent enough in guiding children…we

are required to have 40% of our teachers who have competed the QKT, but

we have 60% of our teachers who have that qualification…It’s very costly

to our kindergarten, as salary takes up the bulk of our expenditure, but it is

important to have such teachers…still, I don’t think they are effective

enough…this includes those who have undertaken training…some of them

are just doing the job temporarily before they can find a better job.

(AV-2b)

Amy’s comments about the level of training of kindergarten teachers in the Territory

reflect the historical lack of attention to preschool education by the government (Lau

et al., 2003). At the time of the study, entry to kindergarten teaching required the

completion of junior high school only. It was not until 2003 that the government

mandated that in-service kindergarten teachers must have completed QKT by 2005

at the latest (Education Department, 2002). The QKT can be said to be equivalent

to completion of senior secondary school, though the substance of training is entirely

kindergarten teaching. As a result of little government attention to preschool

education, kindergarten teachers are paid much less than primary or secondary

school teachers (Cheng, 2002). Kindergarten teaching has not been accorded the

same social status as primary or secondary school teaching, the entry to which

requires completion of a teaching certificate, which is equivalent to completion of

the first two years of a four-year Bachelor degree.

111

Amy stated that the teachers, including those who had completed the QKT,

were not sufficiently competent in guiding young children. She also felt that some

of the teachers, including those who had undertaken training, were not committed to

working in kindergarten as a career. Such perceptions led Amy to promote a

specific work culture in staff:

I want to build a work culture in the kindergarten in which staff love and

care about the children just like they are their own children, are devoted to

their work, strive to develop themselves continuously, and care about one

another and work among themselves and with the parents together as a big

family…I believe that dedication, self-improvement, love of children,

caring for each other, and teamwork are the ingredients that make our

kindergarten, any orgnisation or a society work. (AV-11)

I make it clear to our staff what our work culture is about and how we can

get there...I told them that these are attributes that have long been held as

important in our society...caring for others is what women in our society

should do…guidelines for how they should behave, model after…I

reiterate my messages in our staff meetings…On the walls of the general

office and of the classrooms, I put up posters and pictures containing

motto of work culture I try to establish… we are still a long way from

it…it isn’t compatible with our command structure…which is what leaders

are supposed to do in our society. (AV-11) (AV-8)

The attributes of the work culture that Amy established were intended to promote job

competence and job commitment in teachers. For instance, the call for continuous

improvement was intended to encourage the teachers to learn more about how to

guide and relate to the children effectively.

Amy’s attention to the role of developing a work culture resonates with

research on the importance of work culture in school performance (Blase & Blase,

1999; Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Hayes, Christie, Mills & Lingard, 2004; Lakomski,

2001; Schechter, 2002; Southworth, 2002). For example, Hallinger and Heck’s

(1998) review of leadership of school principals showed that the influence of the

work of school principals on student outcome is mediated by such variables as

112

teacher commitment, teacher satisfaction, and work culture of the school. Hayes et

al. (2004) provided converging findings with respect to the importance of the work

culture of teachers to student and school outcomes, showing that although the three

principals in the study exhibited different styles of leading, they all shared common

features in the ways they related to staff, one of which was the development of a

work culture characterized as collaborative and reflective. While Amy paid

attention to developing a work culture, the attributes she emphasized were different

from those identified by Hayes et al. (2004).

Three points can be made about the linkages between the work culture Amy

was cultivating in staff and the culture of the society. First, Amy related elements

in the work culture she was promoting to values and traits considered important in

the society. This suggests that she was aware that the attribute of caring was related

to cultural values and norms of femininity (Bond & Hwang, 1986; Hwang, 1999;

Leung, 1996; Walker & Dimmock, 1999), especially mothers, in the Chinese culture

of Hong Kong society; and that the attribute of teamwork was related to the cultural

values and norms of the primacy of the group over individual members (Bond &

Hwang, 1986; Hwang, 1999; Schermerhorn & Bond, 1997; Walker & Dimmock,

1999). Second, her awareness of the linkage of the work culture attributes to

cultural values, her purposeful promotion of the work culture to staff as a guideline

for behaviour, and the appeal she made to link the work culture attributes to the

cultural values suggest that she was not just conforming to culture, but was

purposefully and actively using cultural values to influence teachers. Current

models on the role of culture in school leadership (Cheng and Wong, 1996;

Dimmock and Walker, 2000; Hallinger and Leithwood, 1996) posit that school

leaders behave in line with cultural values and norms they have internalized.

However, none have addressed leaders’ active use of culture as a strategy of

influence in the way Amy used it.

Third, being caring and loving toward children and each other was inconsistent,

of which Amy was aware, with the top-down chain of command adopted in the

kindergarten that sanctioned directives from the principal. The top-down command

reflects the cultural orientation of high power distance, whereas the notion of caring

reflects the cultural value of collectivism (Hwang, 1999). Amy was aware that the

practices in which she engaged were reflective of two incompatible cultural values,

113

but she behaved in a way that seemed to take this incompatibility into account. The

inconsistency demonstrates the existence and influence of cultural values within a

society that are incompatible with each other. Significantly, the impact of

incompatible cultural values on the leadership of school principals has not been

addressed in current models.

In addition to promoting a work culture, Amy also encouraged those teachers

who had not completed any training to take the QKT, and those who had completed

the QKT to take the Certificate of Education (CE), and made arrangements to

facilitate teachers to undertake such training:

…it’s very important that teachers should have some training…pick up the

skills and strategies…learn the importance of preschool education. (AV-8)

(AV-11) I also organize workshops and seminars for the teachers on

Saturdays, with experts to present topics on current developments in

preschool education. (AV-2a)

Encouraging teachers to attend training and the provisions for training Amy

furnished reflected the importance she attached to the role of teachers in guiding

children to learn and develop effectively. Her encouragement and provision of

opportunities for training were consistent with the element of continuous

self-improvement in the work culture she was promoting in staff. It is likely that

her encouragement and provision of opportunities for training represented part of her

efforts to promote the work culture to staff. However, the efforts that Amy made to

persuade teachers to pursue training might reflect her view that the teachers were not

sufficiently competent and committed, and thus needed further training.

What Amy did in promoting a work culture in staff falls within the realm of

structural leadership (Bolman & Deal, 1984, 1992, 2003). The aim of developing a

work culture was to induce staff to perform well in guiding children, which, if

enacted, would enhance the operation and survival of the kindergarten. Likewise,

what Amy did in promoting staff to undertake training falls within structural

leadership, as her intent was to ensure adequate staff performance.

In sum, Amy adopted a top-down command structure that gave her the power to

oversee all aspects of the operation of the kindergarten. She stated that some of the

114

staff were insufficiently competent in and insufficiently committed to their work.

In promoting their competency and commitment, Amy had been trying to cultivate a

work culture that called for mutual caring and teamwork to provide nurturing care

and guidance to young children. What then did Amy, an experienced principal, do

to lead her staff to provide an education she preferred to be well-balanced, in the face

of keen competition for recruiting children to kindergartens, most of which were

changing toward more instruction on preparatory scholastic skills?

5.3.4 Curriculum and teaching approach

One recurrent theme that characterizes Amy’s leadership is an air of direct and

strong control on key aspects of the operation of the kindergarten. In a

kindergarten, what children are guided to do and how the children are guided

constitute the most important aspect of operation of the kindergarten. What did

Amy do to lead staff to provide a balanced education for children and why did she

do so?

In relation to the role of the study curriculum and teaching approaches, Amy

stated:

…the curriculum we use is extremely important because it is the avenue

through which the mission of the kindergarten can be accomplished…I

have designed it in such a way that through what is taught to children and

the activities that are arranged and conducted, our children will be guided to

develop specific values, traits, habits and skills so that they can become

integral members of the society, can move on to primary school education

easily and can develop a positive attitude and grounding in the Christian

faith. (AV-11)

…I think a good study curriculum is essential, but it must be taught to

children in an effective manner if children are to be guided to develop the

targeted habits, skills and values in line with the mission of the

kindergarten…effective teaching approaches are essential. (AV-11)

Amy thus held a strong view about the importance of the study curriculum and

teaching approaches adopted for the kindergarten, as she saw the study curriculum,

115

when implemented effectively, as the avenue through which children would be

guided to develop specific habits, attitudes and skills. Because of its importance in

defining the identity of the kindergarten in terms of the kind of education offered,

Amy reviewed the study curriculum every year and considered changes that were

needed:

Every year, well before our school year begins, I consider the changes that

need to be made to the curriculum…I take note of the changes in the

curricula of study that are made by the primary schools nearby, especially

those prestigious ones, and then assess what changes we need to make to

our curriculum, so that our graduates can be accepted into one of those

primary schools without much difficulty…I have to spend [a] great deal of

time on getting information on the changes to the curricula that have been

made in other kindergartens and in the good primary schools…this is the

key problem for me. (AV-2a)

…in the last few years, I have been increasing instruction, along with

more homework practice, on reading, writing and counting…The amount

of instruction and exercises on writing and counting I have increased is

less than the amount requested by many of the parents, because I think too

much of such instruction and exercises could be harmful to the proper

development of children, and we will have less time for other activities to

guide children to develop good attitudes and habits…we want children to

develop into well-rounded individuals…but, I have to satisfy parents’

wishes for such instruction…most other kindergartens in the Territory

which have joined the Scheme had also introduced writing and counting

into their curricula. (AV-4) (AV-9) (AV-11) (AV-15)

The key change was thus a gradual increase in instruction on preparatory scholastic

skills. The increase was made by Amy partly to help children move to primary

education, but also partly to address parents’ demands for such instruction, and for

recruiting more children. However, the amount of such instruction Amy added was

not as much as what parents demanded and what other kindergartens were providing,

reflecting her determination to offer a balanced education over a scholastic one.

116

Amy also reviewed the teaching approach employed by teachers and made

decisions regarding the approach to be used for the coming school year:

Before the school terms begins, I review how teachers did in guiding

children in the past year, and then decide what key approach or approaches

they should be using in the coming year. (AV-2a) (AV-7)

In making decisions on changes to the study curriculum and teaching approaches,

and subsequently letting staff know the changes, Amy stated what she did and why

she did so:

I make decisions related to the study curriculum on my own…the prefects

of studies are already too busy with their own work…the teachers are

preoccupied with what they are teaching with their classes, they may not

be able to form a rounded and full picture of the linkages among what is

taught in the different grade levels, but I have a good understanding of

these…the teachers do not have information about the curricula, or the

changes being adopted by primary schools, whereas as I am a member of

several of the government’s boards on aspects of the educational system in

Hong Kong, have relevant information, am more informed about what is

occurring in primary education in the Territory…some of my teachers are

quite motivated to teach, but I have some reservation about how much

they know about curriculum design and implementation, since the teacher

training that they have taken gave them at best just some of the basics

about study curriculum…and some of the teachers don’t really care much

about what they are going to teach. (AV-5)(AV-7)

I have to take charge on the teaching approaches that the teachers use

because it is important to the kindergarten that the children are guided

effectively…some of my teachers in the kindergarten haven’t undertaken

any training, and so do not know enough about how to relate to children

effectively. Those teachers who have received some training are not too

knowledgeable about effective teaching strategies either, as the type of

training they have is quite minimal in equipping them to teach

competently…Moreover, some of the teachers are not as enthusiastic in

117

their work as I hope, and so they may not care enough about how effective

they have been in leading children…through my experience and reading, I

think I have a good grasp of the teaching approaches. (AV-2a)(AV-7)

In staff meetings or on other occasions, I let the teachers know the

decisions I have made regarding the study curriculum that they should

follow…and the teaching approach I want them to adopt. It might just be

the approach they had been using. If it was a new approach, I tell them the

main elements of the approach, the type of support I would be giving them

so that they could do it well. (AV-7) (AV-16)

…on these matters, I am perhaps a bit too autocratic, but this is normal

practice in most other kindergartens and in our society. (AV-6)

Amy made decisions about the study curriculum and teaching approach without

providing opportunities for the teachers to furnish input, and then instructed and

required the teachers to follow what she had decided. She can be regarded as being

autocratic, exercising direct and strong control over matters related to the study

curriculum and teaching approaches. Amy’s strong control is also at odds with

results of research on leadership of preschool leaders in western countries, who were

found to display collaborative ways of leading (Henderson-Kelly & Pampjhilomn,

2000; Humphries & Senden, 2000; Jorde-Bloom, 1995, 1997; Rodd, 1994, 1996;

Waniganayake et al., 2000). Nor is Amy’s autocratic way of leading consistent

with the view of ‘feminine’ theories and related research, which showed that female

school leaders in some western countries involved teachers in decision-making and

related to staff in a collegial manner (Fennell, 1999; Limerick & Anderson, 1999).

Amy’s strong control is more in line with ‘job demands’ theories (Gunter, 1997),

which posit that female school leaders display dominant leadership towards staff to

enable and ensure that the schools they are leading can function properly, and/or to

conform to demands of a male-dominated school system.

Why did Amy exercise strong and direct control over the study curriculum and

teaching approaches? Based on what she revealed, it is argued that five factors

prompted Amy to exert strong and direct control over the study curriculum and

teaching approaches: (1) the importance she attached to the study curriculum and its

118

effective implementation for guiding children to develop in a way she felt as positive

for children; (2) her understanding that, as the principal, it was her duty to lead the

kindergarten to accomplish its mission, and her determination to do so; (3) her

perceptions of the level of competence and commitment of teachers; (4) her beliefs

about her good understanding of the kindergarten study curriculum and teaching

approaches; and (5) her perception of the propriety of hierarchal control.

With respect to the first three factors, Amy saw the study curriculum and its

effective implementation by the teachers as extremely important for the

kindergarten’s struggle for survival and for defining its identity, especially in regard

to offering a balanced instead of a scholastically oriented education. Amy felt that

it was her duty to enable the kindergarten to work well. At the same time, Amy’s

perceptions that the teachers were not sufficiently competent in and committed to

their work led her to believe that she had to take direct charge of matters related to

the study curriculum and teaching approaches. Thus, these three factors led Amy to

use strong and direct control, rather than the collaborative style of some female

primary and secondary school principals in western societies (Coleman, 2003;

Fennell, 1999), or preschool leaders (Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2003). The fourth

factor that might have contributed to Amy’s exercise of strong and direct control was

her belief about her expertise in the kindergarten study curriculum and teaching

approaches. Research on self-perception and efficacy of school principals has

indeed shown that school principals tend to be more active in areas of their work in

which they feel efficacious (Imants & De Bradbander, 1996). Amy stated that she

had a good understanding of kindergarten study curriculum, and such a

self-perception could have facilitated her exercise of direct and strong control.

Amy’s understanding of the study curriculum can also be seen from her

acknowledgement of having designed the study curriculum for the kindergarten,

which reflected her expertise, and from her involvement in government committees

on kindergarten education, which could signify the government’s recognition of

Amy’s expertise in kindergarten education. Further, the key difficulty Amy had in

relation to the study curriculum was with gathering information on changes to study

curricula in other kindergartens and in primary schools, rather than with problems

relating to the substance of the study curriculum, reflecting that Amy did not

experience difficulty in overseeing matters related to the study curriculum. Amy’s

119

self-perceived efficacy was possibly derived from her long experience as a

kindergarten teacher and as a principal, and her completion of the Certificate of

Education course.

Although not revealed in what Amy said, it is possible that Amy’s

self-perceived efficacy in kindergarten study curriculum might have been due to the

type of study curriculum used in the kindergarten, which was an integrated one and

was less complicated than those used in primary and secondary schools. Research

has shown that primary school principals engaged in instructional leadership to a

greater extent than did secondary school principals, due partly to the use of less

diversified and less difficult curricula compared with those in secondary schools

(Hallinger & Heck, 2002). Likewise, it is plausible that Amy was conversant with

kindergarten study curriculum because of its comparatively less diversified nature,

which contributed to her perceived efficacy on the matter.

Similarly, Amy’s belief in her own capacity in kindergarten teaching

approaches might have contributed to her exercise of direct and strong control. Her

knowledge on this matter can be seen from the expertise she professed to have on

teaching approaches. Amy’s self-perceived efficacy and expertise in kindergarten

teaching approaches might also have been derived from her long working experience

as a teacher and from the training she had.

The fifth factor that might have led Amy to exercise strong control was the

perceived propriety of exercising control by a leader in Chinese societies. Amy’s

reference to the use of strong control as being a normal practice in the society

suggests that Amy was aware of the cultural orientation of high power distance

(Hofstede, 2001; Walker & Dimmock, 1999) wherein leaders are supposed to be

strong, wise and authoritative, and followers deferent, compliant and receptive to the

influence of the leaders; and that a leader who leads through consulting and

consensus building is seen as weak and incompetent (Bond & Hwang, 1986). In

Hong Kong, Paik, Vance and Stage (1996) found that Chinese business managers

showed a lower tendency, compared with those in western societies, toward

involving subordinates in providing ideas and in making decisions. Thus, Amy’s

awareness of the cultural propriety of strong control might have facilitated her

120

exercise of strong control in making decisions about the study curriculum and

teaching approaches.

One other factor which might have influenced Amy to exercise strong control

instead of involving teachers in decision making is the absence of government

regulations. In Hong Kong, no regulations for kindergarten were in place and thus

kindergartens were left to themselves in terms of organisational structure and

decision making processes. Amy used an hierarchal form of organising in line with

cultural propriety, and with such a structure, she decided how to lead staff, and opted

to lead autocratically given her knowledge of curriculum and teaching approaches,

and her belief in low staff competence and commitment.

5.3.5 Monitoring teacher actions

Subsequent to the announcement of her decisions about the curriculum and

teaching approaches, Amy monitored what the teachers taught and how they

conducted their teaching:

All through the school year, I keep a close watch on how the curriculum is

implemented by the teachers so as to ensure that what is taught to children

conforms to the curriculum being adopted…on whether the teachers are

using the designated teaching approaches, how well they can do it, and how

they can make improvement if they can’t implement those approaches

well…In cases when I found that, when reviewing their teaching plan or

when observing their teaching in class, a teacher is not teaching what is

prescribed by the adopted curriculum, I ask the teacher to make changes to

what is being taught…I don’t hesitate to point out to them what they are

not doing right, but I also show my appreciation when they do their work

well. (AV-2a) (AV-16)

This takes up a lot of my time and effort everyday…difficult to allocate

enough time to handle the other things I need to take care of…paper work,

purchase of stationeries, checking the cleanliness of the toilets. (AV-16)

An air of close monitoring and control of staff performance by Amy can be discerned,

along with offering of reinforcement when the job was well done.

121

Converging evidence of Amy’s close monitoring of what the teachers did is also

revealed from observations and field notes, and from the work diaries of Amy. On

most of the occasions on which Amy was observed, she read through the teaching

plans of teachers before she went to visit the classes (AO-5). She took with her the

teaching plans and stayed in each class for varying amounts of time, observing what

the teachers did, making notes in almost all cases (AO-6; AR-1), and always talking

with some of the children in each class (AO-5; AR-2). On some of the days, she

read the exercise books of the children in some of the classes. Amy talked in her

office with some of the teachers when classes were over, and some of the things

discussed were about what the teachers did earlier (AO-6; AR-1). Amy also talked

frequently with the prefects of studies, and many of the things discussed were about

the teaching of some of the teachers, including their teaching plans and teaching

performance (AO-5; AR-1; AR-4).

Amy engaged in close monitoring and coaching of what the teachers taught and

how they taught, thus exercising direct and strong control over their performance,

much like what she did in making decisions. Her close monitoring and coaching

represent her efforts to ensure that the teachers were implementing the balanced

education she wanted to offer, and that the teachers were guiding children in the way

she had mandated. The small scale of operation of the kindergarten might have

facilitated the exercise of direct and strong control in monitoring staff performance.

The total of 14 teachers and teaching assistants in the kindergarten may have allowed

Amy to observe every teacher on almost every working day regarding what they

taught and how they taught. She stated that she had to spend a great deal of her

time on such monitoring, but this may not have been feasible had there been many

more teachers and had the two campuses been a greater distance apart. That Amy

was able to monitor and coach staff due to the small scale of the kindergarten

resonates with findings of research which has shown that principals in small schools

in western societies were conversant with the details of the operation of their schools

because of the small scale of operation (Clarke & Wildy, 2004; Southworth, 2002).

The small scale of operation of the kindergarten might also have allowed Amy

to involve herself in most other aspects of the operation of the kindergarten, such as

staff recruitment, deployment and development. Amy admitted spending a great

deal of time and effort monitoring and coaching teachers’ performance and

122

professing this to be a difficulty for her with regard to leaving enough time to

oversee the daily routines of the kindergarten properly. However, probably due to

the small scale of the kindergarten, Amy did not seem to experience the strong

tension and conflict between concentrating on educational leadership while also

focusing on administrative leadership that many principals involved in school reform

in western societies were found to experience (Bell & Rowley, 2002; Cranston et al.,

2002).

5.3.6 Activities for parents

Beginning from the mid 1990s, Amy began to organise and launch activities

such as the Open House, which were designed to inform parents about what the

kindergarten was offering for children.

Many parents think a good kindergarten is one that teaches children to

write and read a lot, and do difficult mathematics…to let parents know

more about how we can guide children with our well-rounded education.

We have long been producing a leaflet summarizing the key features of the

kindergarten and these are distributed to the mailboxes of all residents in

the neighbourhood every summer…I have been launching in the past few

years an Open House every year and also an arrangement for parents to

observe how a class is conducted…We were the first kindergarten that let

parents observe our class…and we are working on launching a

parent-teacher association…in which parents will have some say in how

the kindergarten is run…we are also the first one to be setting up the

parent-teacher association…I think those activities would help us get

enough children…I have seen some good results already…I believe that

some of the children who join us are those whose parents came and

participated in the Open House…and some children who join us are

siblings of children who are or were studying in the kindergarten…I quite

enjoy these activities, though there is a lot of preparation…the activities

let parents know the kind of education we are offering and how it will

benefit the children. (AV-15) (AV-18)

123

Amy understood that other kindergartens, especially the profit-making ones, had

been giving substantial amounts of instruction on preparatory scholastic skills to

satisfy parents’ demands, and had been successful in recruiting children. At the

same time, Amy held a strong belief about the propriety of a balanced education for

the development of children, and through the strong control she exercised on the

study curriculum and teaching approaches, she worked to ensure that the

kindergarten was offering a balanced education. Given her understanding that this

balanced education did not fully satisfy demands from many parents for more

instruction on preparatory scholastic skills, and her reluctance to increase instruction

on preparatory scholastic skills substantially, she needed to do something else to

attract parents to send their children to the kindergarten. The activities that Amy

organised and launched for parents were therefore attempts to inform parents about

the type of education the kindergarten was offering, and to convince them that the

type of education offered was good for children.

If successful, the activities would allow Amy to recruit more children, and

continue to offer what she described as a balanced education. That Amy felt that

the activities had been successful indicated that the kindergarten was able to recruit

some children from the activities. However, the fact that Amy had been launching

the activities for several years, that she continued to describe the situation the

kindergarten faced as critical, and that there were still spaces available in many of

the classes suggest that the kindergarten needed more children. Up to the

finalisation moment of data collection, Amy was holding on to her belief of not

offering a predominantly scholastic education, but whether she would continue to do

so, if the recruitment problem continued, remains unclear.

Amy’s concerns and work in promoting the kindergarten are similar to work by

school administrators in public schools in a number of western societies. For

instance, Herbert (2000) documented a number of strategies, such as distribution of

leaflets and brochures, advertisements, expositions, distribution of various types of

merchandise with a school’s iconography, and open day/house to enhance the market

profile of the school and recruit students. Arranging for parents to observe how a

class was conducted seems not to have been documented as a recruitment strategy

(Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Gunter, 1997). Like other schools in western societies

(Oplatka & Hemsley-Brown, 2004), there was no plan in terms of system design,

124

collection, analysis and reporting of data on needs and demands of target markets.

Further, Amy did not seem to have employed a publicity firm to help her develop the

activities in promoting the kindergarten. The way she assessed the outcome of the

activities was also quite unsystematic, as she simply observed impressionistically the

number of children in the kindergarten whose parents were present at the Open

House or whose siblings had studied in the kindergarten before. Unlike some

school administrators (Oplatka & Hemsley-Brown, 2004), Amy appeared to be quite

positive towards the activities for parents, possibly because they could make known

to parents the type of education the kindergarten offered, reflecting the goals and

values Amy personally held as important for children, and also enhancing the

chances of survival of the kindergarten.

What Amy did with regard to the activities for parents falls within the realm of

structural leadership (Bolman & Deal, 1984, 1992, 2003), as the goal was to promote

the kindergarten to parents to induce them to send their children to the kindergarten.

The activities Amy designed for parents also falls within the realm of symbolic

leadership, as the activities were conducted to signify to parents the kind of

education that the kindergarten wished to offer to children.

Amy recalled that at the time when she was deciding whether to launch the

activities, she considered their advantages and disadvantages, and in the process of

making the decision, she did not seek views from teachers but mandated staff to

follow what she decided:

I thought those activities would help us get enough children…they were so

important that I believed I must have them tried out…I did not ask for the

views and suggestions of the prefects of studies or the teachers about

doing those things. (AV-7) (AV-10)

I told the prefects of studies and the teachers afterwards…I told them that

all of them would need to be involved in such activities. (AV-9) (AV-16)

…we had been having, and still have, a difficult time in recruiting

children…I didn’t want to give up offering a balanced education…As the

principal, I was determined to do my best to take the kindergarten through

the difficulty…I was supposed to make decisions for the kindergarten. A

125

leader taking control of his organisation is normal practice in our

society…I believed my staff would find this normal. (AV-9) (AV-16)

As the decisions to launch the activities were made without input from staff, and as

Amy mandated that all staff would be involved, she can be viewed as exercising

direct and strong control. Several factors appear to have prompted Amy to exercise

strong and direct control. First, the activities were believed to be instrumental in

promoting parents’ understanding of the type of education the kindergarten was

offering, and consequently in recruiting children. The activities, if successful,

would allow the kindergarten to continue operating, and to offer a balanced

education. Amy therefore felt that the activities were vital to defining the identity

and enhancing the survival of the kindergarten. The significance of marketing

schools has been shown in Britain (Ball, 1994), Israel (Oplatka, 2002) and New

Zealand (Lauder & Hughes, 1999), with principals indicating that marketing and

promotion of their schools was essential for recruiting prospective students, without

which the schools might not survive. In Amy’s case, her unwillingness to offer a

predominantly scholastically-oriented education to satisfy parents’ demands made it

more critical that she did something to let parents know the benefits of a balanced

education.

Second, Amy stated that she was supposed to make the decision for the

kindergarten. This suggests that Amy was aware that it was her duty, as principal,

to ensure the survival of the kindergarten. Birch (1998) and Oplatka (2002) have

shown that principals perceived themselves, and were also perceived by their

subordinates, as the person responsible for promoting and marketing their schools.

Third, Amy stated that a leader’s exercise of control over subordinates was a

normal practice in the society. Amy was aware of the hierarchal organisational

structure of the kindergarten that reflected the cultural orientation of high power

distance in the society. Her understanding of the cultural propriety of exercising

control over staff meant that it was not just administratively appropriate, but also

morally and socially proper for her to exercise control. As with the study

curriculum and teaching approach, Amy’s use of the cultural orientation of power

distance to justify her exercise of control was evident, showing that she purposefully

made use of culture to enable her to do what she wanted to do.

126

Subsequent to the announcement to staff about her decision to launch the

activities for parents, Amy provided opportunities for staff to voice ideas and

suggestions related to how to launch those activities and gave reasons for engaging

in such consultation:

I organised meetings for the teachers to give inputs on how those activities

could be successful. I told them that as I had decided to try them out,

they should restrict themselves to giving us ideas and suggestions only on

how to launch the activities. (AO-1) (AO-2) (AV-5) (AV-16)

I had thought over how they could be launched, but I might have missed

considering some other things…from their suggestions, I can get more

ideas and suggestions. In the meetings, they offered quite a lot of

suggestions…I took those that I thought would be useful, but many others

were not workable or useful, and I explained to them why I thought so.

(AO-1) (AV-7) (AV-16)

Amy designated different teams of teachers to work on launching and carrying out

the activities, placing herself on the team to work on the parent-teacher association.

Additionally, she monitored each team’s performance:

I asked some of the teachers to form a team to work on the Open House

and some others to work on the parents’ observation of class…I told them

that I expected that some of them would have difficulties and that I would

work with them to solve the problems together. (AR-1) (AR-4) (AR-7)

(AV16)

I worked with some of the teachers to prepare to launch [the]

parent-teacher association…we had to decide what authority to give to the

association, and I can give the team more concrete ideas…also to make

sure that things will go right. (AR-1) (AV-17) (AV-18)

I regularly asked how they were making progress…if they were too slow I

told them to speed up. (AV-11) (AV-16) The Open House and parents’

observing class were launched quite well, though they could have been

better… The second time they were carried out, I just designated certain

127

teachers to form teams to make preparations and to carry out the

activities…I checked on their progress…pointed out what might be wrong.

(AV-16) (AV-17)

An air of control was evident in what Amy did in providing opportunities for

teachers to contribute ideas to how the activities for parents were to be launched, and

in monitoring the performance of the staff. Following the announcement that she

had decided to launch the Open House, observation of class by parents, and a

parent-teacher association, Amy did provide opportunities for staff to voice their

views and suggestions, but staff were asked not to dwell on whether or not to have

those activities or what those activities were for, as these had already been

determined by Amy. Instead, they were asked to give suggestions and views on

how the activities would be launched to make them more successful. Thus, control

was imposed by Amy regarding the type of suggestions and comments staff could

make. In addition, views and suggestions from the teachers that Amy thought

reasonable or useful were accepted. Therefore Amy decided which views and

suggestions staff made were finally accepted and adopted.

That Amy worked directly with some of the teachers on matters related to the

setting up of the parent-teacher association can be seen as a measure she took to

ensure that preparation work would be done properly. Making clear to the teachers

what they did wrong and what they should be doing instead, showed Amy’s direct

control over what and how she wanted staff to do in making preparations for, and in

subsequently implementing the activities.

The control Amy exercised in the way input from staff was sought, in working

with them directly, and in closely monitoring their performance represents her effort

to ensure that the activities for parents would be implemented successfully. Amy

believed the activities for parents would promote parents’ understanding of the

benefits to children of the balanced education the kindergarten was offering, and thus

would enhance the survival of the kindergarten. The importance of such activities

therefore might have prompted Amy to exercise control. Another factor that seems

to have prompted Amy to exercise control was her view of staff competence.

Amy’s statement that she expected that some of the teachers would encounter

difficulties suggests that she doubted the competency of staff to carry out the

128

activities successfully on their own, and therefore felt the need to monitor their

performance closely to ensure effective preparation and implementation of the

activities. Her perceptions of staff competency and subsequent control of their

performance are consistent with propositions of contingency theories regarding the

use of strong control to ensure successful task performance when staff job

competency or job commitment is low (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Blase & Blase, 1998).

Further, Amy’s statement that she exercised strong control over staff activities

and performance for ensuring successful launching of the activities suggests a belief

she held that she was more capable than any of the staff in relation to launching the

activities for parents, even though they were matters with which she had little

previous experience. This is consistent with research that has shown that,

compared with principals with lower self-efficacy, principals with higher beliefs of

self-efficacy were more active and involved in unfamiliar tasks (Tschannen-Moran &

Garies, 2004). In Amy’s case, her self-perceived efficacy in running a kindergarten

might have led her to feel that she was more capable than staff and therefore it was

proper for her to exercise strong control over staff even on tasks with which she had

little experience. It is also likely that the small number of staff allowed Amy to

closely monitor staff performance, echoing research which showed that principals in

small schools in Australia (Clarke & Wildy, 2004) and in Britain (Southworth, 2002)

were able to involve themselves in most aspects of the operation of the schools.

Taken together, the direct and strong control that Amy displayed was due to the

importance she attached to the activities for parents for the survival of the

kindergarten, and the sense of duty she felt she had for ensuring the survival of the

kindergarten. The control Amy exercised was also a result of the sense of efficacy

she had in running the kindergarten, the legitimacy she felt she had in exercising

control, and the small scale of operation of the kindergarten.

The strong control over the study curriculum, teaching approach and activities

for parents that Amy exhibited fall within the realm of structural leadership (Bolman

& Deal, 1984, 1992, 2003), as the control was enacted to ensure and promote the

kind of education Amy felt as proper for children and for the survival of the

kindergarten. Amy’s exercise of control over those key aspects of the operation of

the kindergarten echoes research that reported primary and secondary school

129

principals in Hong Kong (Cheng, 1994) and in Singapore (Bolman & Deal, 1992)

rated themselves as strongest on structural leadership.

5.3.7 Other aspects of operation of the kindergarten

In the previous sections, activities for parents were seen by Amy as important

to defining the identity and ensuring the survival of the kindergarten, thereby

justifying her strong and direct control. This section investigates whether Amy

exercised similar control over other aspects of the operation of the kindergarten.

With regard to what she did on other aspects of the operation, Amy stated:

I make decisions on all key aspects of the operation of the kindergarten,

including...the time table we use for the school year, how many classes are

to be offered, assignment of teachers to classes…which bookstore to

purchase the text books and stationeries for children…when to have the

yearly visits for the children and where to go…when to hold the

graduation ceremony, what performances are to be arranged. (AV-2a)

I want to be sure that all things will go right…it’s my responsibility to see

to it that the kindergarten is run well. (AV-6) (AV-20)

Thus, Amy made decisions from the understanding that she bore the responsibility to

ensure that the kindergarten was run properly and because she wanted to make the

operation successful. However, Amy provided some opportunities for staff to voice

their views and suggestions before finalizing decisions:

On matters related to…assigning teachers to class, what text books to use,

arrangements of the yearly visit, and graduation ceremony, I talked with

the prefects of studies and the teachers on the options we have and the

related arrangements…they are important but not directly about teaching

and learning…I work with them together to look at the options and what

they prefer to do before I finalize what to do. (AV-2a) (AV-7)

I take their views and suggestions if they are reasonable enough…taking

their views can promote teamwork spirit…I also need to consider other

factors…A teacher voiced reluctance to take up the work in organising an

130

outside visit for the children, her reason being that she was being absorbed

by another task she was handling. I assigned another teacher to take up

the work since she was then taking up several additional duties already…a

teacher asked to teach a particular class instead of the one she was

assigned to teach, her reason was that she had taught the group of children

before and had come to know the children very well. I told her that it

would be proper that she try out teaching different classes. (AV-7) (AV-9)

It’s important we work together as a team. It’s the work culture here and

important in our society as well…many of the teachers worked on the

same tasks in the previous years, and so can share what they did, how they

felt, and what changes should be made so that we can make better

arrangements…taking their view makes them feel that I am a reasonable

principal…I value their contributions, their ideas…as a Christian, I feel

that I should respect the views of my staff as far as I can. (AV-21)

The reasons Amy stated for accepting or rejecting suggestions suggest that several

motives underpinned her involvement of staff. First, Amy’s statement that those

matters were not directly related to what to teach and how it was done suggests that

she viewed such matters as less important in defining the type of education the

kindergarten was offering and as less important to recruiting children. Hence Amy

could then relax her control and allow teachers to participate in devising options on

how the tasks were to be carried out. Second, her recognition that some of the

teachers had been involved in those tasks before and were able to offer relevant

information shows that she involved staff in obtaining information for making better

decisions. Third, her claim that teamwork was an element of the work culture she

was promoting suggests that her involvement of staff might have been done

purposefully as a means to demonstrate the importance she attached to teamwork

and that she practiced what she said. Fourth, her involvement of teachers in

decision making on these matters might have occurred because Amy stated that she

respected and cared about their views and contributions as individuals.

Amy’s involvement of teachers on these matters is akin to the propositions and

findings of Jamison (1997) and Shakeshaft (1995) that female school leaders, due to

the feminine identities they have developed, relate to staff collaboratively and

131

engage staff in building consensus. However, while Amy involved teachers

because she respected and cared about their views and contributions, her

involvement of staff drew on the experience of the teachers, promoted teamwork and

enabled a positive perception of her leadership. Thus, while the behaviours Amy

demonstrated were consistent with those documented in some research about female

school administrators, the motives underlying her enactment of the behaviours were

more complex and more utilitarian in nature. Amy’s way of leading adds to the

literature by showing that female school administrators can exhibit collaborative

ways of leading for purposes other than their feminine identities. Further, Amy

involved staff in decision making only on matters she perceived as less important to

the kindergarten, thus offering information on the particular context under which

such a collaborative way of leading was enacted.

Control was still imposed by Amy, as she accepted views or suggestions of

staff when she felt that these were reasonable, and turned down those she considered

unreasonable. Further, she retained the power to finalise the decisions that were

made. Thus, while Amy worked with staff to arrive at the options to be taken, she

exercised control over the decisions that were ultimately taken. Her control was

likely due to her understanding that it was her duty to ‘see to it that the kindergarten

is run well’, and to her wish to perform such a duty satisfactorily.

On tasks Amy felt to be less crucial to defining the identity or maintaining the

survival of the kindergarten, such as those related to the annual visit for children and

the graduation ceremony, Amy assigned teams of teachers to make the necessary

preparation and to carry out the tasks. She subsequently monitored staff progress:

I regularly check with the prefects of studies or the teachers about how

they are progressing. If they are too slow or if they have done something

wrong, I will point it out to them and ask them to make changes…If they

are doing well, I let them know I appreciate their good efforts and good

work. (AR-2) (AV-16) (AV-17)

It’s important that I know what is going on…if they are not doing the right

things, some of them are not as sensible as one might expect…I can then

tell them what to do…I want to show my staff that I do not just ask them

132

to do their best and then I stay in the office and relax. I want to show

them that I am trying my best to do my work right…I want them to know

that I value their inputs. (AR-4) (AV-16) (AV-21)

A sense of direct control over how staff performed the tasks was evident in what

Amy did. The reasons she gave for closely monitoring staff performance included

a desire she had in understanding what was happening in the kindergarten, and her

motive do her job well. However, two other factors appear to have contributed to

Amy’s close monitoring of staff performance. One was her perception of being

efficacious in leading all aspects of the kindergarten. This is revealed in her

recurrent statements that she directed staff regarding what to do when they did

something wrong or not sufficiently well, reflecting a sense of superiority she had

over staff in task performance. The other factor was her perception of the level of

staff competence, as she expressed a negative view of the capabilities of some staff.

The notion of control being exercised in light of staff attributes is consistent with

situational theories (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Blase & Blase, 1998; Fiedler, 1967;

Griffith, 2004; Hersey & Blanchard, 1982; Shamir & Howell, 1999) that posit a

more directive style by the leader when staff are uninvolved or incompetent.

Amy was observed to enact behaviours that reflected her wish to ensure a

smooth operation of the kindergarten. Many of the things she did fell under the

responsibility of the prefects of studies, the clerks, or the custodians, and could have

been allocated to the individuals concerned. For instance, one day when Amy was

observed, a teacher knocked on her door and reported that a child had an emotional

problem (AO-9) (AR-3). The teacher said the child could not draw a picture, lost

control and then kept on crying. Amy went to the classroom to see the child and

brought her to the office. Amy comforted her, gave her two more pieces of paper to

draw, and gently asked her to apologize to the teacher and the assistant teacher

(AR-6) (AR-8). The handling of the child could have been done by the prefect of

studies, but Amy preferred to do it herself. Later that day, a clerk knocked on

Amy’s door and told her that a parent wanted some information about student

enrolment (AO-4) (AR-8). Instead of the sending the prefect of studies to speak to

the parent, Amy went to the reception counter to see the parent and explained to her

about the operation of the kindergarten and the requirement for enrolment (AR-8).

133

While these instances related to the daily operation of the kindergarten and thus

fell under the realm of management, Amy’s actions showed that she wished to have

control over how the kindergarten operated, and so she engaged herself in tasks that

could formally have been allocated to others.

5.3.8 Summary

Amy exercised direct and strong control over the study curriculum and

teaching approaches to ensure a balanced rather than a scholastically oriented

education, partly in light of her belief of insufficient staff competence and

commitment. She did so by making decisions without input from staff, required

staff to follow what she decided, and closely monitored whether the staff were

implementing the curriculum and teaching approach prescribed to them. Amy

stated this was proper for her in light of the established chain of command in the

kindergarten which reflected the cultural orientation of high power distance in place

in the society. Amy’s exercise of control was facilitated by the integrated nature of

the study curriculum adopted and by the small scale of operation of the kindergarten.

Likewise, Amy exerted similar direct and strong control on matters related to

activities for parents so as to enable the kindergarten to remain competitive in

recruiting children. To ensure better preparation and implementation of the

activities, Amy sought ideas and suggestions from staff and involved herself as a

member of a team to work on launching the parent-teacher association.

Amy exercised less control over other aspects of the operation of the

kindergarten, as they were deemed less important for defining the identity of the

kindergarten and for recruiting children. She worked with staff to arrive at the

options she saw as most suitable. However, an air of control remained evident, as

she retained the power to finalize what to do, and also to scrutinise what staff did.

5.4 Concerns of exercising control: Expression of caring and teamwork

While Amy exercised strong and direct control, she had concerns about the

strong control she imposed. This section presents data and discussion on what she

did to deal with her concerns.

134

In relation to Amy’s strong and direct control she stated:

On these matters, I am perhaps a bit too autocratic, but this is normal

practice in most other kindergartens and in our society…my staff should

not find this unreasonable…they should understand why I have to make

all those decisions…I don’t think the teachers should be discontented

about this…I haven’t encountered any open resistance all through the

years…though it’s not womanly enough to relate to my staff that

way…women are supposedly to care for each other…How would they see

me?...As a Christian, I respect their views and ideas…also, control is

contradictory to the teamwork spirit I wish to promote in my staff, which

is important in our society...they will not see teamwork as important as I

want them to…exercising strong control is improper for kindergarten

work. (AV-6) (AV-9) (AV-21)

It is argued, based on such feelings and behaviours, Amy was concerned that staff

might view her leadership negatively in the sense that she was being unreasonable

and did not care about their views and feelings. She was also concerned that the

staff might downplay the importance of teamwork and become less involved in their

work. Amy’s concerns about the use of strong control are consistent with what

Fennell (1999) found with regard to the way female school administrators viewed

and used power. In that study, in-depth interviews with four female primary school

principals in Ontario, Canada, showed that the principals were negative about using

coercive power to dominate staff. Amy’s justification of her behaviour as common

and proper in the society can be interpreted as use of a cultural orientation as a

means to rationalise the strong control she exercised. Her use of culture is similar

to what Mertz and McNeely (1998) found in their qualitative study of a Black female

school principal in the U.S.A. who behaved dominantly toward her subordinates,

saying that it was the appropriate way for a Black person to relate to others.

Moreover, that Amy was concerned about how the teachers viewed her

leadership is revealed through her perception that her strong control would make her

appear as unwomanly to staff. Such a view suggests firstly that Amy was aware of

the cultural values and norms of femininity in the society, and secondly that Amy felt

that the strong control she was exercising was inconsistent with these values and

135

norms. The values and norms of femininity have been documented in various

Chinese societies (Bond & Hwang, 1986; Hwang, 1999; Leung, 1996; Walker &

Dimmock, 1999). Amy was concerned that the incompatibility of her control with

the values and norms related to femininity would create an impression that she was

not feminine enough, with all the connotations that went along with it, such as being

unreasonable or unsympathetic, and caring little about the well-being of others, such

as the staff (Leung, 1996). She might have been concerned about being seen as

unfeminine because all the staff were female and kindergarten teaching was seen as

women’s work (Chan, 2002). The claim made here of the increased salience of the

norm of femininity in a female dominated work setting is in line with Kruger’s (1996)

findings that more caring behaviour towards staff was shown by female leaders in

schools with more female staff members than in schools with more male staff.

These female leaders acknowledged that the display of caring behaviour was more

appropriate among females than between the genders (Kruger, 1996).

However, Amy’s concerns about being viewed as uncaring could also have

arisen from her wish to respect others, due to the Christian faith she held. Whether

the concern was due to the felt inconsistency of her strong control with her feminine

identity, or with the cultural norm of femininity, or with both, Amy was concerned

about adverse effects of her behaviour on staff. Amy’s concern echoes the negative

emotions, many of which were gender-related, such as distress arising from being

ignored or marginalized by male peers or supervisors and from not being able to

spend sufficient time with family, that female school principals in Australia

experienced in leading their schools (Sachs & Blackmore, 1998).

The third reason that Amy may have been concerned about how the teachers

viewed her leadership was her questioning of the propriety of exercising strong

control in a kindergarten. This suggests that Amy saw kindergartens as providing

nurturing care and guidance to children, and that the director and staff should

demonstrate similar behaviour. The propriety of a collegial, empowering, and

consensus building form of leadership for the preschool setting has been noted in the

literature (Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2003; Hayden, 1995).

The fourth reason that Amy may have been concerned about how the teachers

viewed her leadership had to with behaviour she enacted that appears to be aimed at

136

minimising adverse effects on staff. She did several things in the staff meeting to

let teachers know about changes she had decided to make and these can be

interpreted as being enacted for such a purpose:

…I also told them my reasons for my decisions on the study curriculum

and teaching approach, which had to do with accomplishing our mission,

the benefits to the children, the survival of the kindergarten and also their

own job security…I told them their contributions and cooperating with

one another would be essential to making the curriculum and teaching

approach work…I told them I would be looking at what they would be

doing, but that they needed not be too worried, as I would be giving them

support on difficulties they might come across…I will be giving them

advice to help them teach better, to develop further, in addition to

assessing how well they do. (AV-5) (AV-11) (AV-16)

Amy revealed the reasons for the decisions, which revolved around benefits to the

children, the kindergarten, and job security of the teachers. That Amy offered such

reasons to the teachers suggests she might be presenting herself as reasonable and

caring, but having to exert control because of the importance of the study curriculum

and teaching approaches.

The second thing Amy did in the staff meeting to show herself as caring was to

make clear that her monitoring of their performance in implementing the study

curriculum and teaching approach was meant for development, in addition to

assessment of performance. Her emphasis on the developmental function of

monitoring can be interpreted as an attempt to convey to teachers that she cared

about how they performed. Further, this expression of caring can be regarded as an

active use of culture to influence how staff viewed her leadership, in the sense that

Amy understood the cultural values and norms surrounding femininity and used such

an understanding to induce staff to perceive her leading in a positive light. Reay

and Ball (2000) showed similarly that some British female school leaders chose to

display certain stereotypic feminine behaviours that they believed would help them

get their job done. A leader’s use of a cultural norm and enactment of behaviours

consistent with the norm to influence staff has not been explored by models on the

influence of culture (e.g., Cheng & Wong, 1996; Dimmock & Walker, 2000;

137

Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996). These models have posited that leaders use the

internalised cultural values and norms as standards to guide their behaviour, but have

not explored leaders actively using culture.

Further indication of Amy’s concern about the views of her staff was her

behaviour during frequent visits to the classes (AO-5; AO-6; AR-1), which showed

that she cared about and wanted to know what and how they were doing. In these

events Amy expressed her appreciation for work the teachers had done well

(AV-2A; AV-16), attempted to show that she understood what they had done well,

was aware of their contributions, and cared about their contributions. The caring

behaviours that Amy displayed, including offering staff reasons for her decisions,

making clear that her monitoring had a developmental function, visiting classes and

showing her appreciation of staff, are akin to a collegial way of relating to staff that

other female school leaders have exhibited (Coleman, 2000, 2003; Fennell, 1999;

Limerick & Anderson, 1999; Oplatka, 2002; Shakeshaft, 1987). For instance,

Oplatka (2002) found that the leadership of female primary school principals in

Israel, as revealed in their life-stories, emphasized empathy and a positive attitude

towards staff, provision of positive feedback to staff, and creation of a nurturing and

supportive working environment where staff were also encouraged to further

develop their skills. Likewise, Coleman’s (2003) comprehensive survey of the

leading style preferences of school principals in England showed that female

principals endorsed collaborative and people-oriented leadership to a greater extent

than did male principals. In Amy’s case, the caring behaviours are interpreted as

attempts made to alleviate the adverse effects on staff of the strong control that was

concurrently exercised.

The fifth reason for interpreting Amy as concerned about how staff viewed her

leadership was her statement that her strong and direct control was inconsistent with

the teamwork spirit she was trying to cultivate in staff. Amy was aware that

making decisions without involving staff was inconsistent with the teamwork spirit

she was promoting, which had the potential for staff to downplay the importance of

teamwork. Further, Amy’s awareness of potential inconsistency between strong

control and teamwork could lead her to believe that staff may see her as an

untrustworthy leader. This is because in Chinese societies, the most important trait

of a leader is being virtuous, including being consistent between words and deeds

138

(Ling, Chia & Fang, 2000; Wong, 2001). Such perceptions could lead Amy to

make attempts to restore the importance of teamwork spirit in staff, and to show staff

that she was a credible leader. That may be why she told staff that the successful

and effective implementation of the study curriculum would not be achieved unless

staff members would work together to do their best, thus emphasizing the

importance of teamwork. By so doing, Amy might have hoped that the teachers

would continue to view teamwork as important, and would also see her in a more

positive light. In making such attempts, what Amy seemed to be doing was making

the cultural value of collectivism salient to staff, and presenting the value as an ideal

standard towards which staff should strive. Amy’s behaviour may be construed as

actively using culture as a strategy to influence the way staff might feel and behave.

Further, when monitoring staff performance, Amy’s message about how those who

were underperforming could improve may be considered as her attempt to show that

she would work with staff as a team, and that she would help them when they

encountered problems and difficulties in their work.

Amy also appeared to be concerned about her exercise of strong control on

matters related to the activities for parents. Following the announcement to staff

about her decision to launch certain activities for parents, Amy provided

opportunities for staff to voice “more ideas and suggestions”. Subsequent to

receiving suggestions and ideas from staff on how the activities were to be launched,

Amy designated different teams of teachers to work on preparing and carrying out

the activities, with herself on the team to work on the parent-teacher association. One

reason she gave for doing this was: “…I am part of the family” (AR-1) (AV-17)

(AV-18). In monitoring the progress of the teachers preparing for the Open House

and parents’ observation of class, Amy’s explicit reference that she would work with

them on difficulties they might encounter may be seen as an attempt to further

strengthen staff views about the importance of teamwork, and to show staff that she

cared about their work and contributions.

The caring and teamwork behaviour that Amy exhibited fall within the realm of

human resource leadership (Bolman & Deal, 1984, 1992, 2003). That the caring

and teamwork behavior was enacted for motivating staff to perform is consistent

with propositions in Bolman and Deal’s theory regarding human resource leadership.

However, as argued, the caring and teamwork behaviour was enacted not just for

139

motivating staff, but also for minimising adverse effects in staff of the strong control

Amy exercised. This suggests that other motives may underlie human resource

leadership. In addition, Amy’s working with staff as a team on establishing a

parent-teacher association falls within both the realm of human resource leadership,

as Amy wished to show staff that she cared about their work, and the realm of

symbolic leadership as Amy wished to model to staff regarding the importance of

working hard.

In summary, Amy appeared to be concerned about the strong control she

exercised over staff, arising from her understanding that strong control was

inconsistent with the cultural norms and values surrounding femininity, and with the

cultural value of teamwork. She exhibited a host of behaviours, such as informing

staff about the bases underlying the decision she made, inquiring about how staff had

been performing, and offering reinforcing remarks on good performance, seemingly

to minimize the adverse effects on staff of her control.

140

CHAPTER SIX: BETTY’S LEADERSHIP

This chapter first highlights the particulars of Betty’s kindergarten to provide a

background for how she enacted her leadership. This is followed by a description

of the forces impacting on the kindergarten for instruction on preparatory scholastic

skills, and a description of the influences on the type of teachers Betty employed at

the kindergarten. Two themes that characterized Betty’s leadership were (1)

enhancing the competitiveness of the kindergarten and (2) ensuring adequate teacher

performance. The first theme is drawn from what Betty did with the study

curriculum, the extra-curricular activities she offered to children, and type of new

staff employed. The second theme is derived from how Betty led staff regarding

the study curriculum and teaching approach, extra-curricula activities, and other

aspects of the operation of the kindergarten.

6.1 The kindergarten

Betty had served as the principal of the kindergarten since it was established in

1980. The kindergarten was situated within a public housing estate, which was

built by the government for low income strata of the population.

The kindergarten provided half-day sessions for children between the age of

three and six. There were approximately 240 children in the kindergarten. Six

classes were offered in the morning but only three were offered in the afternoon

because of insufficient numbers of children. In terms of staff members, there was

one prefect of studies, eight teachers, one clerk and two custodians. The scale of

operation of the kindergarten was quite similar to that of other kindergartens in the

Territory. All the staff members in the kindergarten, from the principal to

custodians, were female, typical of the situation in all other kindergartens in the

Territory. Five of the teachers were in their early twenties, and three were in their

forties. Three of the teachers had completed the Qualified Kindergarten Teacher

qualification (QKT).

The kindergarten was a private, profit-making organisation, which did not join

the Government’s Kindergarten Subsidy Scheme. As a result, income depended

141

entirely on tuition fees from children enrolled in the kindergarten. The

kindergarten was governed by a Management Board consisting of the owners of the

kindergarten. Betty reported to the Management Board formally twice a year.

Betty revealed that she was given a high degree of freedom and autonomy to run the

kindergarten, and that the only mandate from the Management Board was to earn at

least a specific amount of profit from the operation of the kindergarten.

6.2 Forces of change

Betty had been facing two forces that had an important bearing on how she

conducted her leadership, one of which was the action taken by other kindergartens

to address parents’ demands for more instruction and exercises on reading, writing

and counting. In relation to demands from parents, Betty stated:

Many parents have realized that good primary schools are admitting only

children who are able to read, write and count well. Many, if not all

parents want their children to go to such schools, and so are choosing to

send their children to kindergartens which offer such instruction. (BV-2)

Betty stated that most parents preferred to send their children to kindergartens that

offered instruction on preparatory scholastic skills to enable their children to go on to

a good primary school. Her views would likely lead her to offer such instruction,

as the kindergarten depended solely on tuition fees for its operation. However,

instruction on reading, writing and counting had long been a part of the curriculum

Betty adopted:

The kindergarten was the first one to provide instruction on reading,

writing and counting in the early 1980s…I included activities on reading,

writing and counting because they were, and still are, part of the objective

of the education I wanted to offer to children…to guide children to acquire

basic scholastic and social skills and to develop attitudes and habits based

on Confucius’ teachings, such as being polite, righteous, honest and

valuing hard work, so that they could develop a good foundation for

becoming successful members of our society…basic scholastic skills are

important because with a good foundation in such skills, children can learn

any subjects in primary schools without difficulty…language and

142

mathematics are the skills that are involved in most types of work in our

society…At that time, I was ridiculed by other kindergarten principals for

giving such instruction…opposed by some parents…I had to decrease

such instruction a bit. (BR-2)(BV-3)

…As entry to good primary schools became more competitive over the

past fifteen years, and as those schools were taking in children who could

write, read and count well…many kindergartens started to give instruction

on reading, writing and counting. We have also been increasing such

instruction...partly to satisfy parents’ wishes. (BR-2) (BV-3)

Up to the mid 1990s, the kindergarten was able to attract children

successfully because we were known to have a long history of giving such

instruction and we were also known for our graduates being able to be

admitted to good primary schools…able to make a good profit. (BV3)

Instruction on preparatory scholastic skills had been a part of the study curriculum

for a long time. Such instruction was offered initially, despite ridicule from others,

from Betty’s belief in the importance of such skills for children’s long-term

development. Thus, offering a scholastically oriented education based on beliefs

and values Betty held about such skills resonates with research showing the

influence of values on what school leaders did (e.g., Bell & Rowley, 2002; Dempster

et al., 2004; Gold et al., 2003).

That Betty increased the amount of instruction on preparatory scholastic skills

over the years partly for “satisfying parents’ demands” shows that she purposefully

made the increase to address parents’ demands for scholastic skills, in addition to the

importance she attached to such instruction for children’s development. Betty also

knew that offering such instruction enabled the kindergarten to be successful in

recruiting children and in making a profit for some time. The ability of the

kindergarten to recruit children, however, seemed to have changed:

… many other kindergartens, especially the profit-making ones, have

provided such instruction, and some to an excessive amount, but have

been able to attract parents. As a result, there has been a gradual

decrease in the number of children coming to the

143

kindergarten…compounded by fewer and fewer children going to

kindergarten each year, and by the Government…our level of profit has

been decreasing for some time, and so the situation we now face has

become more and more pressing…I need to maintain a reasonable level of

profit…by trying out new things. (BV-3) (BR-3)

Betty appeared to be facing increasing difficulty in recruiting enough children to the

kindergarten to maintain “a reasonable level of profit”, due mainly to keener

competition from other kindergartens which also provided instruction on scholastic

skills. The difficulty was compounded by the decrease in the number of children

due to the continuously falling birth rate in the Territory (Census and Statistics

Department, Hong Kong Government, 1993, 2003). As will be seen in Section 6.3,

attempts were made by Betty to enable the kindergarten to recruit more children to

maintain a profit.

The second force of change that Betty was facing had to do with two

consequences to the kindergarten as a result of the government’s launching of the

Kindergarten Subsidy Scheme. According to government regulations, a

kindergarten which has joined the subsidy scheme can no longer make a profit from

the operation of the kindergarten (Education Department, 2002). As a result of

receipt of subsidy from the government, which is equivalent to a portion of the

tuition fees that the kindergarten would charge students had there been no subsidy,

the tuition fees in subsidized kindergartens are lower than those in non-subsidized

kindergartens. Betty stated:

The Management Board decided not to join the scheme...because we

wanted to secure a level of profit from the operation of the kindergarten.

(BV-4)

As to the impact on the kindergarten of the subsidy scheme, Betty said:

After the scheme was put into place, our enrolment declined drastically in

the first two years…the tuition fee there is lower…some parents believed

that those kindergartens were better because it is subsidized by the

government...but then the enrolment in the kindergarten became better the

following years, as many parents changed their children to a

144

non-subsidized kindergarten, probably because subsidized kindergartens

did not offer enough instruction on reading, writing and counting. (BR-6)

(BV-4)

…still there has been a gradual decrease in the numbers of children we can

recruit…the lower tuition fees in the subsidized ones are more affordable

to some parents…we need to do more to attract parents. (BV-5)

Launching the subsidy scheme did not seem to have serious long-term effects on

children’s enrolment as parents, in Betty’s view, preferred to send their children to

the non-subsidized kindergartens for instruction in scholastic skills, though needing

to pay higher tuition fees. Nevertheless, there had been a gradual decrease in

enrolment of children in the kindergarten, due, in Betty’s view, to some parents

sending their children to the subsidized kindergarten for a lower tuition. Such a

perception suggests that Betty faced competition not just from other non-subsidized

kindergartens, which attempted to attract parents by offering a high level of

instruction on preparatory scholastic skills, but also from subsidized kindergartens,

which attracted parents partly through lower tuition fees.

The government’s subsidy scheme also had some impact on the attributes of the

teachers Betty could retain or recruit:

The bad effects were…on the teachers we have…five young teachers, three

of whom had completed the QKT and two close to finishing the QKT, left

for a subsidized kindergarten…because those subsidized kindergartens

paid the teachers better and had better resources and career

prospects…more costly to hire trained teachers, because the subsidized

kindergartens are paying them more…more difficult to hire these teachers...

I believe they prefer to work in subsidized kindergartens. (BV-6) (BR-7)

The other three teachers have been with me for some time, close to fifteen

years…they do not want to leave, as they are earning more than beginning

teachers at the subsidized kindergartens teachers…also they won’t be able

to leave as they got their QKT some time ago and subsidized kindergartens

wish to have fresh graduates who are usually more enthusiastic and

energetic…when I hired them a long time ago, they were able to complete

145

just junior secondary school…they were forced by me to take the QKT,

which at that time, few teachers attended…I helped them with their

assignments and studies, and they would not have been able to complete it

without my help…they are quite hard working people…they are faithful to

the kindergarten…they accept my instruction readily…they are able to

know the routines, but they are not capable individuals and they know

this…they are happy enough I have kept them for so long…I need some

core people to keep the kindergarten operating…show all staff that they

can have a career here…make them more committed to their work…they

know I could have hired new hands with a lower pay…they appreciate

what I have done for them. They are at times demoralized by turnover of

new teachers…I still have to spend a lot of time guiding these teachers.

(BV-9) (BR-11)

Launching the subsidy scheme seems to have adversely affected the staffing

arrangement of the kindergarten, as five of the eight teachers, all younger, left for a

subsidized kindergarten. That a higher salary needed to be paid to trained teachers

and that trained teachers were less willing to work in a non-subsidized kindergarten

influenced the kind of teachers Betty was willing to hire or could hire. The

competency and work commitment of the new teachers, as will be seen in Sections

6.3 and 6.4, had important effects on how Betty conducted her leadership.

In the case of the three teachers who had been with the kindergarten for a long

time, with respect to their abilities, Betty felt that they were just barely competent in

their work, as witnessed by her statements that these teachers were forced by her to

take the QKT a long time ago, that they could not have finished their studies without

her help, and that while they were able to stick to the routines, they could not make

significant improvement on their own. On the other hand, Betty felt that these

teachers were hard working individuals and tried to do their work faithfully and

dutifully. Betty had been retaining such teachers, by providing increments at the

end of the school year if they did their work well rather than hiring new staff for a

cheaper salary. A number of reasons seem to have prompted Betty to retain such

teachers. First, those teachers were responsible and hardworking. Second, they

were perceived to be able to carry out the routines of guiding children. Third, they

were considered as compliant with Betty’s instruction and advice. Fourth, a stable

146

work force was needed. Fifth, by retaining such teachers, Betty could convey to

staff the impression that they could develop a career with the kindergarten. Finally,

the teachers deserved to be treated fairly, in the sense that they should be retained as

they had worked with the kindergarten for so long. Betty indicated that those

teachers knew that she had been keeping them even though their work was barely

acceptable, and that the teachers appreciated what she had done for them.

Betty seemed not to be concerned that the older teachers would leave the

kindergarten for a subsidized one, on the following grounds. First, she felt that

subsidized kindergartens would not want to have teachers who had completed the

QKT a long time ago. Second, she felt that the older teachers had proven

themselves to be faithful to the kindergarten. Third, these teachers, due to the

increments in the salaries they received over the years, were earning much more than

beginning teachers in a subsidized kindergarten, and thus would receive a lower

salary if they moved to a subsidized kindergarten. While Betty did not seem to be

concerned that the older teachers would leave the kindergarten for a subsidized one,

she was concerned that these teachers were at times demoralized by the high

turnover of younger teachers.

6.3 Enhancing the competitiveness of the kindergarten

One theme that can be distilled from what Betty did is her concern for

enhancing the competitiveness of the kindergarten. This section presents the three

reasons for Betty being concerned about, and attempting to enhance, the

competitiveness of the kindergarten: offering a scholastic curriculum, offering

extra-curricular activities to attract parents, and employing untrained teachers.

The first reason had to do with what she did in relation to the study curriculum

and the motives behind what she did. Regarding the role of the study curriculum,

Betty said:

A key part of our curriculum is on writing, reading and counting…Another

part is on habits and rudiments of attitudes and values considered as

important in our society…through what are taught to children, we can

guide them to develop the rudiments of the skills, habits and attitudes we

want them to develop…the curriculum is the most important part of the

147

kindergarten...it is the vehicle by which we can guide children to succeed

in future…the vehicle by which we can stay in operation and make

reasonable profit…staff can keep their work. (BV-14)

Betty saw the curriculum as the most important aspect of the operation of the

kindergarten, as the means by which she could attract parents to send their children

to the kindergarten, and thus ensure its survival. Her perception of the importance

of the study curriculum echoes findings of research showing that the key concerns of

school principals in the U.S.A. was the study curriculum being adopted in their

schools (Leithwood & Hallinger, 2002), though school principals in Britain seem to

have less concern, due to the adoption of a national curriculum for schools in that

country (Bell & Rowley, 2002).

Betty stated what she did every year regarding changes to be made to the study

curriculum for the following school year:

I need to maintain the advantage we have…these few years, I have been

maintaining similar levels of instruction and homework on those skills, as

the amount of such instruction is high already…parents want their children

to go into a good primary school and be well prepared for the difficult

curriculum there. (BV-1) (BR-2)

I look at what the big kindergartens are teaching, this is one of the most

difficult things to do, as most kindergartens are not willing to release such

information…I look at other sources, the promotion pamphlets they used,

their staff whom I know personally…Ours need to be higher…I know how

the children have been learning in reading, writing and counting. (BV-2)

I talk with some of the principals of prestigious primary schools to see

what changes they are making to their entry interviews and tests…or to the

curriculum of their primary one…to make sure our children can do well on

those tests. (BV-3)

A few years ago when the competition became intense, I decided to

distribute a pamphlet to all residents in the housing estates nearby…it’s

148

now a routine…it emphasizes the number of graduates who are admitted

to good primary schools. (BV-3)

Betty’s statements about having a high level of instruction on scholastic skills and

maintaining a competitive advantage show that she purposefully put in place a

scholastically oriented curriculum to enable the kindergarten to compete favorably

and attract parents, who were seen as wanting to have their children admitted to a

scholastically demanding, prestigious primary school.

Seeking information about what other kindergartens did shows firstly, Betty’s

intent to know what other competitors were doing, and secondly, her motive to offer

more scholastic instruction to enable the kindergarten to remain competitive.

Betty’s engagement in various means to obtain information on what other

kindergartens were teaching reflects the significance she attached to such

information to enable her to make changes to the curriculum to secure a competitive

advantage. Likewise, the information that Betty sought from primary schools on

changes to their the entrance tests and study curricula can also be regarded as

attempts she made to enhance the competitiveness of the kindergarten, as the

information was used to revise the study curriculum of the kindergarten with the

specific aim of enabling the children to gain entry to the good primary schools.

The distribution of pamphlets emphasizing instruction on scholastic skills

offered by the kindergarten and the number of children attending prestigious primary

schools were measures Betty took to inform and convince parents in the community

that the kindergarten had positive outcomes from teaching a scholastic curriculum.

The use of pamphlets for promotion has been documented in research on what

primary and secondary school principals in western societies did (Herbert, 2000).

Further, that Betty decided to have a pamphlet, and what to show on it, also echoes

the perceptions of school principals and staff in western societies that the principals

were responsible for promoting the schools (Oplatka & Hemsley-Brown, 2004).

The kind of information that Betty sought in deciding what changes to make to

the curriculum, the high level of instruction on scholastic skills she maintained, and

the type of information she disseminated to parents in the community can thus be

interpreted as measures Betty took to maintain the competitive advantage of the

149

kindergarten. As director, Betty seemed to have a great deal of leeway in adjusting

the level of instruction of scholastic skills, and she did so based on her

understanding of what other kindergartens were doing and on her understanding of

how the children were learning, with no consideration of government constraints.

This is likely to have been due to the lack of government regulations in Hong Kong

regarding what private kindergartens could teach. The freedom and control Betty

had in relation to the curriculum resonates with the high degree of control and power

over the study curricula that private primary and secondary school principals in the

U.S.A. were found to have (Apodaca-Tucker & Slate, 2002; Feistritzer, 1987).

The second reason for Betty’s concerns and practices in promoting the

competitiveness of the kindergarten was the kind of extra-curricular activities she

offered to children and the kind of arrangements made in offering the activities. In

relation to the type of extra-curricular activities offered and why these were offered,

Betty stated:

In the past few years, we have been organising quite a lot of

extra-curricular activities, like interviewing skills for entry to primary

schools, training emotional intelligence, tackling homework in primary one,

oral English and Putonghua for primary one entry interview, oral English

for transiting to primary one…these are organised on Saturdays for

children. (BV-9)

About fifteen years ago, I launched a centre to offer interest classes to

primary school students and the activities were very well received, but for

some reason, I did not continue with it a few years later…I know how

such activities can be organized...a few years ago when the competition

with other kindergartens for children got keener, I decided on launching

some extra-curricular activities which would help children move on to

primary schooling more easily…how much parents wanted their children

to be well equipped and to have an edge over other children. (BO-2)(BV-9)

(BV-12)

…if we don’t offer these activities, parents will take their children

elsewhere anyway. (BV-12)

150

…give parents the impression that children in the kindergarten can move

on to a good primary school…to enable the kindergarten to remain

competitive. (BV-9) (BV-12) (BO-2)

In contrast to a gradual decrease in offering extra-curricular activities by primary and

secondary schools in England as a result of decreasing government financial support

to schools (Barack, 2005; Hardy, 1997; West & Pennell, 1995), Betty had been

offering a host of extra-curricular activities. However, almost all the activities

offered were seen as those that would facilitate children being admitted to a good

primary or would help children do well in a primary school. There were no

activities for helping children to develop other kinds of interest or skills, such as

drawing, singing or sports. That these activities were offered mainly to satisfy

parents’ demands can be seen from Betty’s idea that parents wanted this kind of

activity to enable their children to be better equipped than other children to go to a

good primary school, and that parents would send their children to other places for

such activities if the kindergarten did not offer them.

However, Betty’s statements that these activities were offered to give parents

the impression that children in the kindergarten could move on to a good primary

school and that the activities would enable the kindergarten to remain competitive

suggest that Betty was not just trying to attract children to take the extra-curricular

activities for additional revenue, but was using the activities to impress the parents

that the kindergarten, through its regular curriculum, and was able to guide children

to move on to a good primary school. Such an interpretation is strengthened by

what Betty said regarding arrangements for offering the extra-curricular activities:

…We use our school premises, our existing teachers, and so our cost of

offering such activities is lower than that in outside centres…I charge the

activities at a fee just to cover the cost…the fees we charge are lower than

that charged by other centres…so that parents will feel that we are not

doing it for profit. (BR-2)

…only children who are enrolled in our kindergarten can join the activities.

(BR-2)(BV-9)

151

Betty purposefully charged fees just to cover the cost of offering the activities, fees

which were lower that those charged by other kindergartens, instead of charging

more to obtain profit from these activities. Her statement that she did this to give

an impression to parents that the kindergarten was not trying to make a profit out of

such activities suggests that she was trying to convey to parents the impression that

the kindergarten was working for the benefit of children, rather than just for making

a profit. Betty’s purposeful setting of the fees to be lower than those of other

kindergartens appears therefore to be a strategy employed to influence parents to

view the kindergarten in a positive light.

Betty decided to open the activities only to children who were studying at the

kindergarten. The kindergarten could have obtained a profit if more children took

part in the activities, including those who were not studying in the kindergarten, as

witnessed by Betty’s statement that many parents whose children were not studying

in the kindergarten had been asking if their children could join the activities. By

restricting the activities to children enrolled in the kindergarten, Betty seems to be

conveying to parents in the community that if they wished their children to take part

in those activities and also to enjoy the benefits of a lower cost, they would have to

send their children to study in the kindergarten.

Thus, in light of the kind of activities offered, setting fees to cover costs, the

restriction of activities to children already enrolled in the kindergarten, and the

offering of the extra-curricular activities can be regarded as strategies Betty

employed to promote the kindergarten to parents in the community to attract more

children.

The way the activities were offered is indicative of Betty’s concern with

promoting the kindergarten to parents and minimizing the cost of offering the

activities:

Rather than inviting experts from outside to conduct the activities, which

would be very costly, I purchased training materials developed by experts

and had the teachers learn the materials so that they can conduct the

activities with children. (BV-10)(BR-6)

152

…parents like our teachers to conduct the activities rather than outside

experts because they think the teachers know a lot about children and

about their children…it lets parents know that our teachers are good at

teaching things that can help children move on to a good primary school.

(BV-9)(BV-5)(BR-1)

The teachers have to work on Saturdays anyway…it’s part of their

work…But I give the teachers some extra income in conducting the

activities…they would be more involved...will be happier with some extra

income. (BV-13) (BV-14)

The use of kindergarten teachers to conduct the extra-curricular activities was

obviously a measure Betty took to minimize cost, as witnessed by her statement that

to have outside experts would be very costly. Her statements that she arranged

teachers to conduct the activities in order to let parents know that the teachers were

good at teaching things that could help children move on to a good primary school

suggests that in addition to reducing cost, having teachers conduct the

extra-curricular activities was a measure Betty purposefully took to convey to

parents that the teachers were competent in teaching a scholastically oriented

curriculum, and in so doing, she seemed to be telling parents that if they wished to

have their children go to a good primary school, they could send their children to

study in the kindergarten.

Betty understood that she did not need to pay the teachers for conducting the

activities, as the work was part of their duties. Nevertheless, she decided to pay the

teachers, and her statement that the teachers would be more involved suggests that

she was paying them as a means of enticing them to conduct the activities well.

Thus, one of the motives for paying teachers seems to be inducing work commitment

and effort.

The competition with other kindergartens for recruiting students that Betty

faced was similar to what public primary and secondary schools adopting site-based

management in some western societies were facing beginning from the early 1990s,

as a result of government action to introduce market forces into education (Bell &

Rowley, 2002; Cranston et al., 2002; Leithwood & Hallinger, 2002; Wildy &

153

Louden, 2000). These school principals have been shown to undertake a number of

measures, such as publishing impressive school prospectuses, organizing open days,

and participating in educational expositions to promote the profile of their schools

and attract students (Herbert, 2000). However, launching of extra-curricular

activities, as Betty did, has not been documented as a strategy to promote a school.

Nevertheless, much of what Betty did was similar to what school principals were

found to do in promoting their schools. For instance, it has been shown that there

was a lack of systemic planning of marketing and a lack of use of professionals to

design promotional efforts in primary and secondary schools in Britain (Oplatka &

Hemsley-Brown, 2004). In Betty’s case, she launched the extra-curricular

activities from her own experience of running such activities before, rather than

from the results of market surveys of what activities to offer, or from the advice of

professionals.

Betty’s adoption of a scholastically oriented curriculum falls under the realm

of structural leadership (Bolman & Deal, 1984, 1992, 2003), as the curriculum

constituted an essential element of the kind of education to offer to children.

Betty’s offering of the kind of extra-curricula activities to children falls under both

the realm of structural leadership, as the activities were intended to promote the

kindergarten to attract children, and also under symbolic leadership, as the activities

were offered to signify to parents the kind of education the kindergarten offered and

its ability to do so successfully.

The third reason for arguing that Betty was concerned about maintaining the

competitive advantage of the kindergarten relates to a need to reduce the cost of

operating the kindergarten. Several things that Betty did can be regarded as

attempts to reduce costs. She said:

The subsidized kindergartens are charging parents less because they get

subsidy to make up for the difference…this has attracted some

parents…we need to deal with the level of school fees we charge…ours is

more or less the same as other kindergartens in the neighborhood…we

can’t charge more, lest we will lose children…I don’t want to lower fees to

attract parents…they may think we are less good than our competitors.

(BR-6)

154

I have been charging the same level of fees, but reducing the fees for the

stationeries and books…to give the impression to parents we care about

their situation, and can attract more parents because they pay less

overall…we need to make up for the reduced income somewhere. (BR-7)

Betty was aware that the impact of charging more or less affected parents' choice.

Lowering the overall level of fees through reducing the charge of the books and

stationery but not reducing the tuition fees can be viewed as an attempt Betty made

to attract parents by reducing the total cost and presenting an image to parents that

the kindergarten cared about children and their parents. That this was done

indicated Betty’s concern for the financial survival of the kindergarten.

The type of new teachers Betty employed and the way she viewed the

development of these teachers appear to be measures Betty took to reduce costs.

With regard to the kind of new teachers she hired following the Government’s

launching of the subsidy scheme (as indicated earlier in Section 5.2), and the

departure of five young teachers, Betty stated:

The five young ones I got were fresh secondary school graduates…to

enable the kindergarten to operate viably. (BR-7)(BV-6)

…these young ones know little about guiding children…they are not

committed to working in a kindergarten...I need to pay a great deal of

attention on them. (BR-7) (BV-6)

Her statement that fresh secondary school graduates were recruited to maintain the

viability of the kindergarten suggests that those individuals were employed because

they were less expensive compared with hiring trained, experienced teachers, and

thus reduced the cost of operating the kindergarten. The negative impact of doing

so appeared to be keenly felt by Betty, as witnessed by her statements indicating the

low competency and commitment of such individuals. Betty had to spend a lot of

time guiding such teachers. The adverse situation with the new teachers was

repeated the following year:

155

…three left after working here for one year…recruited fresh secondary

school leavers to replace them…there has been continued turnover with

such teachers. (BV-6) (BR-7)

Despite such a high turnover and the great deal of time and energy Betty spent in

guiding these teachers, she continued to hire teachers without training or a proper

qualification. Hiring unqualified and untrained teachers, in the face of continued

staff turnover and consumption of her time and energy with such teachers, further

reflects her motive to minimise the cost incurred in operating the kindergarten.

Hiring less qualified teachers resonates with research showing that qualifications of

primary and secondary teachers in private schools in the U.S.A. (Apodaca-Tucker &

Slate, 2002) and qualifications of teachers in profit-making preschools in the Canada

(Doherty, Friendly, & Forer, 2002) tended to be lower than those in public or

non-profit making schools. Further, the freedom and power which Betty

possessed in hiring such teachers echoes that of private primary school principals in

the U.S.A. (Apodaca-Tucker & Slate, 2002), due in both cases to little constraint

being placed on them by the government on matters related to the internal operation

of the schools.

With regard to the training offered to new teachers, Betty stated:

…useful for the teachers to take the QKT…they give you at least the

basics...I encourage teachers to take it, and write recommendations for

them to join the course…but I don’t give early leave…we need enough

hands around to guide children…not fair to those taking up the work of

others…am very hesitant to hire part-time staff to allow teachers to take

early leave to attend QKT classes. (BV-12)

Betty saw teacher development narrowly and only in terms of teachers taking

training courses, while other means of teacher development, such as involving

teachers in decision making, providing opportunities to try out new ideas and

teaching pedagogies were not mentioned. It seems plausible that Betty viewed

teacher development as taking training courses because of her understanding that the

new teachers who were fresh young school graduates and knew little about guiding

children would need the basics about how to guide children.

156

Despite her view of the usefulness of training courses for the teachers, Betty did

not allow them to leave the kindergarten early to attend class. Needing a sufficient

workforce to handle the tasks shows that, to Betty, maintaining the smooth operation

of the kindergarten took priority over teacher development. Her statement that she

was hesitant to hire part-time staff to release teachers to attend training shows firstly

that she was aware of the option of hiring part-time staff to facilitate the

development of teachers, and secondly, that she was unwilling to do so in light of the

added cost incurred. Thus, the importance Betty attached to basic training for the

new teachers, but her unwillingness to facilitate their studies in light of increasing

the cost to the kindergarten, possibly had an adverse impact on the work load of staff

who engaged in training in their own time. In light of the small number of classes

in the afternoon session, it seems plausible that Betty knew that she did not have to

hire any part-time staff, if she released teachers early to undertake in-service training.

Yet, her unwillingness to release staff early in the face of no addition cost to the

kindergarten suggests that she placed the operation of the kindergarten above the

training needs of individual teachers. Betty’s view of and allowance made to staff

for development is similar to opportunities provided for staff development in private

schools in the U.S.A. (Apodaca-Tucker & Slate, 2002), and in profit-making

preschools in Canada (Doherty et al., 2002), which tended to be lower than those in

public or non-profit making schools.

In summary, Betty was concerned about enhancing the competitiveness of the

kindergarten, because she sought information on what competitors were doing; used

a high level of instruction on scholastic skills, offered extra-curricular activities to

promote an image to parents that the kindergarten taught a scholastically oriented

curriculum; and hired untrained teachers partly for maintaining the financial viability

of the kindergarten.

6.4 Ensuring adequate staff performance

Another theme distilled from Betty’s leadership was her concern about, and

attempts to ensure adequate staff performance. This section first examines the

structure of work roles Betty put in place in the kindergartens and the command

structure used (Section 6.4.1). What Betty did in leading staff to implement a

scholastically oriented curriculum (Sections 6.4.2) is followed by what she did to

157

offer a host of extra-curricula activities to children (Section 6.4.3). Betty exercised

strong control over these matters and felt that control was proper. Betty also

demonstrated concern about staff performance and made attempts to motivate staff

to perform (Section 6.4.4).

6.4.1 Work role and command structure

With regard to the work roles that were in place in the kindergarten and the

duties and responsibilities for each, Betty stated:

We have a system of work positions through which all the tasks involved

in offering an education to young children could be accomplished…

consisting of a principal, a prefect of studies, teachers, custodians and

clerk…I have specified clearly the duties, responsibilities and rights for all

the work positions in the kindergarten…well explained to all individuals

and formally written in a document and given to all. (BV-10) (BD-6)

The teachers were responsible for guiding children to develop properly…

to provide good teaching, to offer a good learning environment to the

children…the custodians offer various types of manual support to the

teachers… the clerk provides clerical support. (BV-10)

Betty had put in place a system of work roles that she felt could encompass all the

work that needed to be done to offer an education to children. She appears to have

specified each role clearly, and to have communicated to the staff their duties and

responsibilities. As to the chain of command being used in the kindergarten, Betty

said:

The principal oversees all aspects of the operation of the kindergarten with

the prefect of studies implementing the decisions the principal makes and

coordinating the teachers, custodians and clerks to carry out relevant tasks.

(BD-7)

…the line of command is hierarchal…purposefully designed to be so…it’s

typical in our society and proper for our culture. (BD-7)

158

…it’s effective for the characteristics of the teachers we have…who are

not as competent and committed as I wish…enables me to run the

kindergarten successfully…not suitable for the small number of staff and

the kind of interactions we have…other ways perhaps more proper.

(BV-11)

The chain of command that Betty had put in place was top-down and hierarchal. The

principal held the authority to make decisions on how the kindergarten was run and

to oversee staff performance. The prefect of studies coordinated teachers,

custodian and clerks to carry out tasks in accord with the decisions made by the

principal. Such a structure is typical of most other kindergartens in the Territory

(Opper, 1992). Betty’s comments that the line of command was hierarchal, and

that it was purposefully designed to be so, indicate that the top-down form of

authority was put in place intentionally. Her statement that a hierarchal structure

was proper in the society suggests that she was aware of the high level of power

distance being upheld and practiced in the society (Hofstede, 1980; Wong, 2001),

and she had designed a command structure in accord with such a cultural orientation.

The influence of culture is thus evident, as Betty put in place a structure partly

because she perceived this as culturally proper.

In contrast, Betty’s view that an hierarchal structure did not seem to be suitable

for the size of staff and the kind of interactions suggests, firstly, that she understood

there was just a small number of staff and that she interacted with them frequently,

and secondly, that she found it proper in these circumstances to relate to staff in a

collegial manner, thus viewing a top-down structure as unhelpful. Betty’s

perception of the suitability of a collegial way of relating due to the small number of

staff with whom she interacted closely on a daily basis is consistent with a

collaborative way of relating and leading suggested for and being practiced in most

preschool settings in western societies (Henderson-Kelly & Pampjhilomn, 2000;

Humphries & Sender, 2000; Nivala & Hujala, 2002; Rodd, 1994, 1996). However,

the hierarchal structure prevailed.

Despite the incompatibility between the cultural values and norms sanctioning a

hierarchal structure and the perceived suitability of a less hierarchal way of relating

due to characteristics of the kindergarten setting, Betty did not seem to be

159

experiencing a dilemma. This might have been due to how Betty perceived the

suitability of a hierarchal structure for the kind of staff she had. Her statement that

the hierarchal structure having enabled her to run the kindergarten successfully

shows that she found such a structure effective, and therefore suitable, for relating to

staff that, in her view, were not sufficiently competent in or committed to their work.

Such a perception is consistent with the propositions of contingency theories of

leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Blase & Blase, 1998) wherein the leaders adjust

their way of leading in accord with staff attributes, and that a dominant way of

leading is viewed as proper for incompetent or uninvolved staff.

6.4.2 Control exercised over the study curriculum and teaching approach

This section explores what Betty did in leading staff to offer the kind of

curriculum she perceived as beneficial for the survival of the kindergarten and the

development of children. Betty exercised strong and direct control over staff

performance.

6.4.2.1 Control over the decision making process

Addressing decisions in relation to the study curriculum, teaching approach,

and staff communication, Betty stated:

I determine…on my own… what children should be learning and how

teachers should guide the children. (BR-2)(BV-8)

After deciding on the changes, I had the prefect of studies prepare what the

teachers were going to teach in the coming school year, and then released

the revised curriculum to the teachers and explained to the teachers

individually what the changes were and how they should be

implemented…Then, in a staff meeting, I told the teachers that they must

teach what they had been told to teach, and also use the teaching approach

I specified. (BM-2)(BV-4)

I also told the teachers that I and the prefect of studies would be looking at

what they would do…to make sure they would do the right thing.

(BD2-M1)(BM-2)(BV-4)

160

Betty made decisions about the study curriculum and teaching approach without

seeking input from teachers or the prefect of studies, and without involving them in

the process of deciding what changes to make. Further, Betty subsequently

mandated staff to follow what she decided, and made it clear to them that she would

be monitoring their work closely. Betty can thus be viewed as acting autocratically

and coercively, exercising strong and direct control over staff on matters related to

the study curriculum and teaching approach. What Betty did is far from the

collaborative, consensus-building and ‘power with’ way of leading demonstrated by

female primary or secondary school principals (Rosener, 1990; Whitaker & Lane,

1990) or by preschool administrators (Humphries & Sender, 2000; Nivala & Hujala,

2002; Rodd, 1996), but is similar to the deployment of a dominating way of leading

enacted by some female school principals (Gunter, 1997; Kruger, 1996).

Why did Betty exercise strong and direct control over the study curriculum and

teaching approach? It is argued that Betty’s exercise of strong and direct control

was predicated on (a) the way she viewed the study curriculum and teaching

approach; (b) how she perceived her own competency in comparison with staff; and

(c) her understanding of the power she had over staff. In relation to Betty’s view of

the study curriculum and teaching approach, she stated:

What to teach to children and how to do so are too important to the

kindergarten and to the children to be left to the teachers. (BR-1)(BM-4)

Admitting the importance of the study curriculum and teaching approach to the

kindergarten and children suggests that Betty saw these as the key vehicle for offering

the type of education that would enable the kindergarten to survive and would benefit

the long-term development of children. Betty appeared to have found the study

curriculum and teaching approach so important that she felt she had to take direct

charge over those matters, making decisions on her own and commanding and

coercing staff to use what she decided, rather than letting staff do what they wished to

do. Research (Fitzgerald, 2003; Hoy, Hannum & Tschannen-Moran, 1999) has

documented the use of coercive power by female school principals on matters

considered as significant to the functioning of the schools. Hurty (1995), for

instance, found that a female school principal made use of her position of power to

force staff to change the seniority system that hampered the promotion of young and

161

capable staff. In these studies (Fitzgerald, 2003; Hoy et al., 1999; Hurty, 1995), the

principals were sure about the positive effects of what they intended to do, such as

proper staff performance, and because of the importance of the expected positive

outcome, they used their position of power to coerce staff into making the changes.

In Betty’s case, the importance she attached to the study curriculum and teaching

approach explains why she mandated staff to follow what she had decided.

However, the importance she attached to the study curriculum and teaching approach

does not explain why she did not involve staff in decision making.

That Betty did not involve staff in decision making might have been based on

how she viewed her competency in comparison with staff:

I don’t see I can gain anything from the teachers about this…I know very

well their qualifications and how well they can teach…they know little

apart from what they are teaching…and I know well what the children are

doing…with my qualifications and after running kindergartens successfully

for so many years, I am familiar with curriculum design and teaching

approaches. (BR-2)(BV-8)

…the teachers also know little about what primary schools and other

kindergartens are doing…I have much more information on this, though

talking with other kindergarten and primary school principals has been

taking up a lot of my time. (BV-8)

Betty’s statement that the teachers knew little apart from what they were doing is

suggestive of her negative evaluations of their competency, which were based on her

understanding of the qualifications and performance of the teachers, and on her

understanding of how much they knew about curriculum and teaching approaches in

other kindergartens. At the same time, her statement of familiarity with the

curriculum and teaching approach shows her view of her efficacy with the study

curriculum and teaching approaches. Betty’s perceived self-efficacy, which was

derived from successful work experience, is consistent with research showing that

such perceptions are experience-based (Tschannen-Moran & Garies, 2004).

Betty’s sense of efficacy regarding the study curriculum and teaching approach can

also be seen in the type of difficulty she encountered when deciding on the changes to

162

be made. The key difficulty she came across had to do with securing information

about curriculum changes in other kindergartens and in primary schools, rather than

with any substantive matters of the curriculum adopted in the kindergarten. This

suggests that Betty did not find it difficult to conduct a review of the study curriculum

and teaching approach and to consider what changes to make.

What Betty said therefore shows her belief that she was more efficacious than

staff on matters related to the study curriculum and teaching approaches. Such a

view, along with her idea that she knew how the children learned as well as the

teachers, seemed to underpin Betty’s belief that she would not be able to gain

anything from input from staff, which in turn might have led her to make decisions

without involving the teachers.

That Betty made decisions without involving staff as a result of her efficacy on

study curriculum and teaching approach is consistent with research that showed that

school principals tended to involve themselves more in matters with which they felt

efficacious (Imants & De Bradbander, 1996). Further, Betty’s strong control over

staff that resulted from her perception of their insufficient job-related competency is

also consistent with a proposition of situational theories (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982)

that leaders need to be directive when staff are insufficiently competent or involved in

their work. Such a proposition assumes that leaders themselves are competent with

regard to the tasks and work concerned. Betty’s exercise of strong and direct control

over the study curriculum and teaching approach and her perceived superiority over

staff on these matters lends support to the assumption of leader expertise.

Betty’s exercise of strong and direct control also appears to be grounded on her

understanding of the power and role of the principal:

The kindergarten is set up in such a way…the principal is given all the

power to run the school…the principal can lead in whatever way she sees

fit. (BM-4) (BR-1)

What Betty said shows her understanding that as the principal, the formal power she

had would allow her to lead staff in a way she felt proper, whether democratically or

autocratically. Fitzgerald (2003) has shown that New Zealand female school

principals were aware of the power they had in decision making and in influencing

163

staff, as a result of holding the principalship. Hall (1999) obtained similar findings

in her study of female school principals in England. However, both researchers

found that the female principals in their studies (who were working with qualified

teachers), while fully aware of the power they had, tended to involve staff in decision

making and work with staff to arrive at consensus in place of making decisions on

their own and imposing decisions on staff.

Thus, while Betty and the principals in the Fitzgerald (2003) and Hall (1999)

studies were aware of the power they held, they behaved differently in the way they

related to staff, with Betty being much more controlling than those in Fitzgerald’s and

Hall’s studies. Such differences therefore show that holding the power to control

may not necessarily result in exercise of control. However, some of the principals in

Fitzgerald’s study resorted to using control and coercive means on certain matters,

such as forcing changes in the seniority system to incorporate the elements of

performance, which they felt were important and which they believed could not be

handled by less coercive means. Similarly, Betty exercised strong control because

of the importance she attached to the curriculum and teaching approach for recruiting

children, her belief of her expertise over staff on these matters, and her judgement

that staff could not be left on their own regarding what and how to teach. The power

inherent in the principalship therefore allowed and facilitated Betty to do what she

felt as necessary to ensure successful operation of the kindergarten.

It seems plausible that Betty’s exercise of strong and direct control over the

study curriculum and teaching approach might also have been facilitated by a lack of

government regulations on how kindergarten principals in the Territory should lead

staff. In the reform towards devolution of power to schools in site-based

management in many western societies, public primary and secondary schools are

required to involve external parties, such as parents, and internal parties, such as

teachers, in the process of decision making regarding the operation of the schools

(Bell & Rowley, 2002; Cranston et al., 2002). Partly as a result of such mandated

involvement of more parties, the way decision making was undertaken by the

principals changed from hierarchal control to consensus building (Bell & Rowley,

2002; Caldwell, 1998). Unlike western societies adopting reforms towards

school-based management, in Hong Kong, there has been an absence of government

regulation regarding the operation of kindergartens, and thus it was virtually up to the

164

principals to decide how they wished to lead staff. Betty’s statement that the

principal can lead in whatever way she sees fit suggests her understanding of the lack

of any external constraints on how she could or should work with staff, and thus a

freedom to lead in a way she saw fit. As she felt that control over staff was needed

to ensure staff performance and survival of the kindergarten, she acted accordingly.

6.4.2.2 Monitoring teacher action

How did Betty monitor staff performance? She stated:

The practice I set up is that every teacher would need to send in her

teaching plans for three weeks and they can do the teaching only if I have

approved the plans. (BM-2)(BR-8)(BV-1)

I read through each of the plans from every teacher, and give approval to

those who are fine overall…For those plans which I think have problems, I

talk with the teachers and tell them the changes they can make, and to send

in their revised plans again…Everyday I, or the prefect of studies, visit the

classes to ensure that the teachers do what they plan…the old hands are

usually able to meet the basic requirements I have, it’s usually the young

and untrained ones that need closer supervision and more guidance. (BV-1)

(BV-9)

When Betty was observed, she visited the classes which were conducted by

younger teachers. She stayed in each of the classes for about fifteen minutes

and took notes. She also visited some of the classes conducted by the older

teachers, stayed in each class for five to seven minutes, and took notes. She

talked with some of the teachers at lunch time or after classes concerning their

performance, and pointed out directly what she thought they did wrong, and the

kind of changes she wanted them to make. She also pointed out what she

thought they did well (BR-1) (BR-5). Betty was observed to check with the

prefect of studies on: the teaching performance of those whom the prefect of

studies had observed; the problems the prefect of studies had identified; and

what was necessary to improve teaching performance (BO-3) (BR-1) (BR-4)

(BR-7). In monitoring teacher performance, Betty examined the teaching

plans of all the teachers, letting them use their plans after she felt the plans were

165

proper, but asking teachers to revise their plans if she found them inappropriate.

She subsequently visited classes to monitor what and how teachers taught,

pointing out directly to teachers what she thought they had done wrong and

steered them to do what she saw as appropriate. Tight, strong and direct

control was thus exercised over what teachers taught and how they conducted

their teaching. Why did Betty exercise such control?

I need to know if the teachers are teaching what they should be

teaching…if they are using the teaching strategies I have asked them to use.

(BV-5)

If the staff is doing what they are supposed to do, the kindergarten will be

providing the type of education I want…the children will be taken good

care of…parents will be satisfied…we can secure a reasonable level of

profit. (BV-5)

I want to make sure that everything goes right. (BV-5)

…I know the teachers well enough…The older teachers are committed

ones but are not as capable…the new ones need to be guided and some are

not as hardworking as I wished. (BV-5)

Betty’s statements regarding what she wanted the teachers to do indicate her intent to

ensure that the teachers would teach what she prescribed, and would do their

teaching in the approach she mandated. What Betty revealed about the outcomes if

staff followed her instruction shows that she saw what staff did as instrumental in the

survival of the kindergarten and to providing children with an education she viewed

as beneficial to their development, both of which were important to her. Her

statement regarding her wish to ensure that everything went well suggests that she

knew it was her responsibility as the principal to ensure that the kindergarten could

survive. At the same time, what she said about the attributes of staff shows her

negative view of the teachers’ teaching competency or work commitment, and

suggests that she was concerned that, if left alone, the teachers might not teach what

she prescribed, might not be able to teach effectively, or might not be willing to put

in a good effort in their work. These concerns might therefore have led her to

monitor and guide staff closely. Thus, it appears that the importance of the study

166

curriculum and teaching approach for the survival of the kindergarten, Betty’s view

of her role in enhancing the survival of the kindergarten and her view of the

inadequate level of competence or commitment of teachers might have led Betty to

exercise strong control in monitoring and guiding teacher performance. These are

the same factors that might have led her to exercise control in making decisions

without involving staff and in mandating teachers to use what she prescribed.

Blase and Blase (1998) view instructional leadership as school leader

involvement in the study curriculum, staff development and supervision. Betty can

be regarded as engaging in all three aspects. As she made decisions about what

children were to be taught and exercised strong control over staff to ensure that they

taught what she prescribed, she was therefore heavily involved in the study

curriculum. Betty also made decisions regarding the teaching approach the

teachers would use, mandated teachers to use what she had decided, counselled

teachers on how to use the approach, and monitored them closely to ensure they

would and could use the designated approach effectively. She can thus be

considered as highly involved in supervision and staff development in terms of how

the teachers used the designated teaching approach.

However, in contrast to consensus-building, collegial and growth-oriented

forms of instructional leadership suggested and found in some primary and

secondary school leaders in western societies (Blase & Blase, 1998; Leithwood,

2001), Betty employed a controlling form of leading, and viewed staff development

narrowly in terms of giving guidance to staff about how to use specific teaching

approaches she prescribed, and recommending that staff take in-service training but

with no further assistance such as early leave. Two differences between the

situation Betty faced and those confronted by primary and secondary school leaders

in western societies might explain why Betty enacted a form of instructional leading

that emphasized control. The first difference is that Betty felt that the kind of

education offered, a scholastically oriented program, was proper for children, and

thus exercised control to see to it that the teachers taught what she wanted, whereas

primary and secondary school leaders in western societies hold some uncertainty as

to what is best to teach students, and thus involve staff in arriving at educational

goals that are most positive for students (Chaplain, 2001; Vandenberghe, 1995).

Second, Betty felt that the level of competency or work commitment of teachers was

167

low, and thus found it necessary to exercise control over staff, whereas in the case of

primary and secondary schools in western societies, teachers are generally

adequately trained, and thus school leaders do not need to be as controlling.

Thus, it is argued that Betty exercised direct and strong control over the study

curriculum and teaching approach, making decisions without input from staff,

mandating staff to do what she decided, and closely monitoring and guiding their

performance, rather than giving teachers freedom about what and how to teach

young children. She exercised strong and direct control as a result of (a) her

understanding that she had the responsibility and also power to oversee and control

all aspects of the operation of the kindergarten; (b) the high importance she attached

to the study curriculum and teaching approach for offering an education she saw as

beneficial to children and for recruiting children to maintain the financial viability of

the kindergarten; and (c) her perception of her efficacy over staff on these matters.

Her exercise of control was probably facilitated by a lack of external constraints on

how she should or might lead. In putting into place a set of work roles, Betty’s

strong control over the curriculum adopted and the teaching approaches that staff

employed fall under the realm of structural leadership (Bolman & Deal, 1984, 1992,

2003). These actions enabled Betty to offer the kind of education to children she

wished and thus ensure the survival of the kindergarten.

6.4.2.3 Betty’s experience of exercising control over the study curriculum and

teaching approach

Betty exercised strong and direct control over staff in relation to the study

curriculum and teaching approach. Was she concerned about any negative impact

on staff arising from her strong control? Was she concerned that staff would see

her as an inconsiderate, uncaring leader? It is argued, for four reasons, that Betty

found the exercise of strong and direct control as appropriate, and thus she did not

seem to be concerned about negative effects on staff.

The first reason had to do with Betty’s perception that empowering staff was

improper in Chinese culture:

I read about the notion of staff empowerment, but this is not right or

suitable for a leader in our society to do…a leader is forceful, giving

168

directions…yet protective of staff. (BV-5)…everyone has his place in

society and people should act in accord with what the position requires.

(BV-5)

Betty was aware of the cultural norms and values sanctioning a high level of power

distance wherein a leader is expected to be strong and wise, and that leaders who

lead democratically are seen as weak and indecisive (Hwang, 2000; Cheng &

Cheung, 1999). Her statement that everyone had his or her place and should act

accordingly can be interpreted as Betty’s belief that when individuals took up a

leadership role, they should act in accord with cultural norms, leading with strength

and wisdom; and when individuals took up the role of subordinates, they should also

act according to norms, being compliant toward the leaders. This being the case,

Betty’s belief of the cultural propriety of hierarchal control would lead her to think

that the teachers, as followers, would find her strong control as natural and proper,

and thus would not perceive her strong control in a negative light.

The impact of culture on how Betty perceived the propriety of exercising

control is evident. Betty’s exercise of control is due partly to her perceived

propriety that exercising control is consistent with current models which posit that

school leaders, as members of a society, have internalized the cultural values and

norms of the society and therefore conduct their leadership in accord with these

values and norms (Dimmock & Walker, 2000).

The second reason for viewing Betty as not concerned about negative effects on

staff of her strong control had to do with Betty’s understanding of what constituted

caring:

…in our society females should relate to one another caringly…I care a lot

about my staff…I hired some of them who were not really qualified…I

guide them through how they should teach…they think my feedback helps

them to teach, especially the new ones…many of the teachers are quite

hardworking, but are not doing well enough…but I have been keeping

them and giving them a stable job and source of income. (BV-8)

Betty’s understanding that females should relate to other females caringly suggests

that she was aware of the Chinese cultural norms and values surrounding femininity,

169

of which being caring towards each other is one element (Hwang, 2000). She also

commented that she had done her part in caring for staff by offering them a job, by

guiding them to do their work well, and by retaining many of the staff members who

were working hard but were performing below standard. These statements show

that Betty defined caring not as seeking, taking or respecting the views of staff but as

giving individuals an opportunity to take up kindergarten teaching, guiding them to

do their work well and retaining them even if they had tried hard but still could not

do the work very well. With such a definition of caring, Betty would likely feel

that bypassing staff in decision making, mandating them to follow what she

prescribed and closely monitoring their performance would not generate in staff the

feeling that she was uncaring towards them. Conversely, Betty seemed to feel that

she had shown herself as very caring towards staff, as she had done all the things she

defined as expressive of caring. Further, Betty saw that aspects of her control over

staff, such as guiding them to enable them to do their work well, also carried an

element of caring. Thus, Betty’s belief that the control she exercised was indicative

of her caring towards staff would likely lead her to feel that strong control was

perceived positively by staff.

The third reason for viewing Betty as not concerned about negative

effects on staff of her strong control was Betty’s view of how staff perceived

her control:

Because of their qualifications and experience…the majority of the

teachers are not able enough to teach well…they need directions and

inputs on how to guide children…they appreciate what I do for them.

(BV-8)

Betty felt that the great majority of the staff themselves, as a result of their

qualifications and histories of work performance, understood that they were not

sufficiently competent in guiding children, and therefore wanted guidance so that they

could do their work well. Such perceptions would lead Betty to feel that staff

needed and welcomed her directions and guidance, and thus the strong control she

imposed would be welcomed by staff, rather than being perceived negatively. Such

an interpretation by Betty is reinforced by her statement of belief about staff

appreciating what she did, which shows her feeling that staff welcomed her control.

170

Betty’s exercise of strong and direct control over staff as a result of perceived

staff incompetence is consistent with propositions of situational theories of

leadership (Fiedler, 1967; Griffith, 2004; Hersey & Blanchard, 1982; Shamir &

Howell, 1999). While situational theories have discussed the situations under

which a specific style of leading is more effective, they have not addressed how

leaders feel about what they do in deploying one style of leading over others.

Betty considered how her strong control was perceived and received by staff, felt

that staff welcomed her control, and so did not harbour concern about adverse

effects in staff. That Betty considered her impact on staff and her subsequent

emotion point to the importance of examining how leaders feel about what they do.

Had Betty been concerned about adverse effects of her control on staff, she would

probably have acted to minimise such effects, thus lending support to the suggestion

by Blackmore (2004) that part of the work of female school principals entailed

dealing with their own and others’ emotions in the process of leading.

The fourth reason for interpreting Betty as unconcerned about negative

effects of her strong control on staff is her belief that exercising control was

instrumental to the survival of the kindergarten, and maintenance of equity

among teachers:

I need to identify those who are lazy and those who are not able to guide

children at all…if the children are not guided well, their parents will soon

know about it, and send their children elsewhere…I need to ensure that the

kindergarten is running well…if I don’t supervise each staff closely, some

may be lazy…not fair to those who work hard, not fair to those who are

able to guide children…the teachers understand this. (BD2-M8) (BV-8)

What Betty said showed her intent to identify teachers who could not guide children

or those who put insufficient effort into their work, thereby enhancing the survival of

the kindergarten and maintaining a sense of equity among staff. This suggests that

Betty found her control was effective and proper. Her statement about teachers

understanding what she did suggests she thought staff viewed her control as proper

for the survival of the kindergarten and for maintaining equity among staff. Betty’s

perception of the propriety of control, and her view that staff saw her control as

proper, were influential in her belief that staff did not view her control negatively.

171

6.4.3 Control exercised over extra-curricular activities

This section examines what Betty did in leading staff to offer extra-curricular

activities to children. Again, Betty exercised strong control, but also felt that such

control was appropriate. Betty stated what she did when deciding on what and how

to launch extra-curricula activities:

I considered the manpower we had…what we could get from such

activities, I then decided to launch the activities…without seeking inputs

from teachers. (BM-2) (BR-3)(BV-5)

I designated the prefect of studies to get the training material and arrange

training for teachers concerned…I let the teachers know we would be

launching those activities, what they would be for, fees charged, which

teachers would take up what activities and how much they would be

paid…they must do it as this is part of their work, as they are required to

work on Saturday anyway…I don’t welcome any attempt to negotiate

what I have decided on. (BM-2) (BM-3)(BR-3)(BV-4) (BV-7)

I and the prefect of studies worked with the teachers so that they became

familiar with that they would need to do…I organized simulation sessions

so that they become able of doing what I thought was right…I observed

what they did when they conducted the activities with children…told them

what they did wrong and what they did well…I observed again to see to if

they could conduct the activities right and what needed to be changed.

(BR-1)(BV-4) (BV-5)

An air of direct involvement and control is evident in what Betty did in relation to

the extra-curricular activities. She made decisions about launching the activities

without seeking input from staff, made the most of arrangements of how to launch

the activities, mandated staff involvement instead of letting staff choose whether to

be involved, and worked directly with staff to train them for the work. Betty can

thus be regarded as acting autocratically on such matters, exercising strong and

direct control over staff, as she did with the study curriculum and teaching

approaches.

172

Betty stated in relation to her exercise of strong and direct control over staff on

extra-curricula activities:

…these are activities that would give us some competitive advantage and

maintain our operation, these must be launched. (BR-1)(BV-1)

…it’s my role to promote the kindergarten to the community to ensure its

survival…I am given the power to lead in ways I see fit. (BR-1)(BV-1)

I didn’t see I could gain anything from the teachers…I was much more

knowledgeable than them about such activities. (BV-7) (BV-9)

What Betty said about maintaining a competitive advantage over other kindergartens

in recruiting children suggests that she considered the extra-curricula activities as

important to the kindergarten. Betty’s statement of her role in ensuring the survival

of the kindergarten suggests that she, rather than the staff, as specified by the

command structure of the kindergarten, had the responsibility to act in ways she felt

appropriate to enhance the survival of the kindergarten. Betty obviously felt that

she was much more knowledgeable than staff regarding extra-curricular activities,

possibly because of the experience she had in similar activities when she ran a study

centre some time ago. Thus, Betty’s exercise of strong and direct control seems to

have been predicated on the importance she attached to the extra-curricula activities

in promoting the survival of the kindergarten, her perception of her role as the

principal in enhancing the survival of the kindergarten, and her perception of being

better than staff at initiating extracurricular activities. These were the same factors

underpinning the strong and direct control she exercised over the study curriculum

and teaching approach.

In addition, Betty’s understanding of the kind of input likely from staff may

have contributed to her exercise of strong and direct control:

…some teachers didn’t want to do more…some might prefer to take up

some activities which I may not feel suitable…I think I know the teachers

well enough, who are hard working, who are good at what…all might like

to take up those that paid more…it would take too long to have the

activities launched and we would be losing children. (BV-7) (BV-9)

173

These statements show that Betty expected different and conflicting input from staff,

if such were sought. Betty’s statement that she knew the teachers well enough

suggests she had her own view of which teachers would take up the activities, based

on her understanding of the competency of staff. Further, her statement that it

would take too long to have the activities launched and the kindergarten would then

be losing children suggests that Betty was not willing to spend time resolving

conflicting needs of staff and thereby impeding the survival of the kindergarten. A

sense of urgency in launching the activities was expressed by Betty. Thus, it could

be the sense of urgency in having the activities launched and a conception of which

staff members were suitable for the activities that contributed to Betty’s decision to

offer the activities and handle all procedural arrangements without seeking any input

from staff.

Betty’s expectation of conflicting needs and views from staff is akin to research

that showed that one of the job-related difficulties experienced by school principals

practicing school-based management was handling contrasting needs and views of

teachers. These incurred not just the expenditure of time, but also may have

antagonized some, or may have conflicted with the principals’ views or values

(Chaplain, 2001; Dempster & Berry, 2003). Such principals had to involve staff

because of government regulations, but in Betty’s case, in the absence of such

regulations, she opted to bypass staff and made all the decisions and arrangements

herself.

How then did Betty view the strong and direct control she exercised over the

extra-curricular activities? Was Betty concerned that staff would see her way of

leading as inappropriate? In relation to how she viewed her control over staff,

Betty said:

…it’s natural in our society for a leader to be strong to subordinates.

(BV-5)

I care about my staff…that is what women do in our society… I organize

the activities to make the kindergarten stay in operation so that the staff can

keep their work…I guide them through what they should do to conduct the

activities to children, so that they can do their job well…I work with them

174

all the way in what they do so that they can do their work well…I team

them up to work on the tasks, I could have assigned just one teacher to do

the task. (BR-1)(BV-9)

…working together as a team is something important in our society…Staff

see me as part of them. (BR-6)(BV-10)

Betty’s view of her directive way of leading being natural suggests that she found it

consistent with the cultural orientation of high power distance (Hwang, 1999) , and

thus felt that it was appropriate for her to exercise strong control over staff. Betty’s

statements about caring show her awareness of the values and norms surrounding

female behaviour in the society. She defined caring as launching the

extra-curricular activities so that staff could retain their jobs, and felt that she had

done what she should in accord with what she understood as being caring. Such

perceptions suggest that Betty did not view herself as uncaring towards staff. Her

statements about working together as a team suggest, firstly, that Betty was aware of

the important cultural values and norms of collectivism in the society (Chu, 1996),

and secondly, that she found her control being well received by staff who viewed her

as part of their team. Such an understanding would lead Betty to feel that her

directive way of leading had not produced adverse effects in staff. Thus, Betty was

not concerned about having adverse effects on staff because of her view of the

cultural propriety of leaders exercising control over staff, her perception of being

caring towards staff in enabling them to retain their work, and her view of control

being accepted by staff. These were the same factors that also influenced how she

viewed her strong and direct control over the study curriculum and teaching

approach. Betty’s strong control over the extra-curricula activities (in respect of

making decisions without involving staff and close monitoring of their performance)

falls under the realm of structural leadership (Bolman & Deal, 1984, 1992, 2003) as

the activities were aimed to attract parents, and also under the realm of symbolic

leadership, as the activities were meant to signify to parents the ability of the

kindergarten to offer a scholastically-oriented education.

In summary, Betty exercised strong control over staff in relation to what was

taught to children and the teaching that was done. She did so because she thought

the curriculum and teaching approach were instrumental to the survival of the

175

kindergarten and that staff were insufficiently competent or committed to their work.

She did not harbour concern about the exercise of control as she felt that control was

culturally proper and welcomed by staff.

6.4.4 Motivating staff to perform

Betty also demonstrated, as explored in this section, concerns about how

motivated staff were to perform their work in two areas: The study curriculum and

teaching approach, and extracurricular activities.

In regard to motivating staff to perform in the area of the study curriculum and

teaching approach, it is argued that Betty was concerned about staff performance for

two reasons. The first reason for interpreting Betty as concerned about staff

motivation was her view of staff competency or commitment:

From their background and performance…what I worry about most is the

work commitment of the younger teachers…whether they will stay as

kindergarten teachers, as many of them are just doing the work as a

temporary measure…also whether they can do their job acceptably well.

(BV-8)

…of the older ones, they are fine with the basics but I worry about how

well they can learn new changes and techniques…whether they will keep

working hard as they have been doing. (BD2-M8)

Betty’s reference to the background and performance of these teachers suggests that

her perception of the low levels of competency and commitment came from her

understanding of the background of these teachers and from their job performance.

The younger teachers were secondary school graduates whom Betty recruited

because of the difficulty she had in attracting trained teachers. Employing them

also reduced the cost of operating the kindergarten (Section 5.3). As they did not

have training in kindergarten pedagogy, Betty’s view was that they could not

perform well in guiding children, thus contributing to her concern about their

competency. Betty’s concern about the work commitment of these teachers, and

her statement about the teachers taking up kindergarten teaching as a temporary

measure, suggest her understanding of the lower status and salary accorded to

176

kindergarten teachers in the Territory, when compared with primary or secondary

school teachers (Education Department, 2002). Thus, many of the younger

teachers in the kindergarten had taken up teaching for the salary they could get

before finding a better job.

Betty’s statements about the older teachers suggested that she seemed to be

quite satisfied with the performance and commitment of these teachers, which is

understandable given the control she exercised and guidance she gave in what and

how they taught, and her practice of terminating the work of those who could not do

their work at least basically well, or who did not put enough effort into their work.

However, Betty’s perceptions that these teachers were not sufficiently able to learn

and use new teaching approaches, and might not continue to work hard show that she

was still concerned about the performance of these teachers.

The second reason for Betty’s concern about staff motivation had to do with a

host of measures she took to motivate the teachers to work hard and learn how to

teach effectively:

I emphasize to all staff that if they are lazy or not suited to work with

young children, I will terminate their work…through monitoring, I can

identify easily those who are lazy or those who are not capable at all in

guiding children…if they don’t improve after I have warned them, I let

them go immediately…I don’t hesitate to terminate the work of such

individuals. (BV-1) (BV-8) (BD2-M1)

I also emphasize to them that if they work hard and can do their job at

least acceptably well, they can count on having their job here as long as

they wish too. (BV-8) The teachers who have been with the kindergarten

for a long time are those who have been doing their work dutifully, though

they are not bright at all. (BV-8) (BD2-M8)

Betty’s emphasis to staff that their services would be terminated if they did not work

hard, or if they could not guide children appropriately, can be regarded as a threat

she posed to staff to force them to work hard. That she had terminated the work of

staff who were lazy shows that instead of posing a threat verbally, she had

implemented what she said. Posing threats and using the punitive measure of

177

terminating the work of very lazy or incompetent staff show that Betty was

concerned about work effort and performance of staff.

At the same time, Betty’s emphasis to staff about obtaining job security and

guiding children well can be regarded as efforts she made to show staff that she

understood that they were not well-qualified and that she wanted to assure them of

their job security if they worked hard. That Betty used the standard of staff being

able to guide children acceptably well rather than effectively as a criterion for

retaining staff reflects her understanding of the backgrounds of the experienced

teachers, most of whom she believed to be hardworking but not very competent, and

also the backgrounds of the new teachers who had not undertaken any training.

Betty also did other things that seemed to be aimed at motivating staff to work hard:

…at the end of the school years, after reviewing their performance, I give

the hardworking and good performing teachers a small increment to their

salaries for the next year, but also decrease the salaries of those who

seemed to have slacked in their efforts…I also have two awards, each with

a respectable sum of money, one given to the best performing teacher and

one to the most hardworking teacher. (BD2-M5)(BV-10)

Betty’s use of monetary increment and reward to recognize work effort or

performance is against her motive, examined in Section 5.3 earlier, to reduce costs in

operating the kindergarten. These increments and rewards suggest the depth of

Betty’s concerns about staff efforts and performance. It also seems plausible that

the monetary reward and punishments were used by Betty from her belief that many

of the staff members, especially the newer ones, were taking up kindergarten not

from interest, but to be employed and received a salary.

The threat Betty posed, and the use of job security, and monetary rewards and

punishment can be regarded as resources furnished in exchange for effort and

commitment to work. The use of such resources conforms to propositions of

transactional models of leadership wherein leaders provide rewards to staff in

exchange for input staff make to the organisation (Hollander, 1985).

Termination of work, increment in salary, decrement in salary and monetary

awards are parts of the conditions of employment. What Betty did shows the ease

178

and power with which she could make decisions on such conditions. The power

and freedom she had is consistent with findings of research showing that private

primary and secondary school principals in the U.S.A. had the greatest influences on

the conditions of staff services (Apodaca-Tucker & Slate, 2002), due in part to few

constraints and government regulations on matters related to staffing in such schools.

There were other measures Betty took to promote staff effort or

performance:

…to those whom I think have worked hard and tried their best…I let them

know that I think they have done well and can teach quite well…they can

see themselves in that way. (BV-8)

I stress that if they work hard and guide children well, they will be helping

children grow and develop…it’s so meaningful to be able to do so. (BV-9)

(BV-11) (BV-13)

I have heard a lot about transformational leadership…one element of

which is to change people’s values and perceptions…I stress to teachers

the importance of working hard for a better future and working together

like a family, giving emotional support to each other and lending a helping

hand…I stress to them that, as they all know, these are virtues in our

cultural heritage…what virtuous people do. (BV-13)

Betty’s use of reinforcing comments to those teachers who performed well shows

that she was selective in her praise of staff, rather than offering praising remarks to

all staff as a habit. For example, her selectivity suggests that the reinforcing

remarks were made purposefully to influence staff. Her comment of letting staff

know that she thought they had done well suggests, firstly, that Betty wanted to show

staff she knew what they were doing, and secondly that she wished to acknowledge

and recognize the efforts of hard work. At the same time, her reference to letting

staff know that she thought they could teach well, and staff seeing themselves in the

same light, suggests that Betty offered reinforcing remarks not just as a means to

induce staff to work hard, but also as a means to instill in staff the self-perception

that they could teach. Betty’s recognition of staff performance, and the motives of

inducing effort and changing self-perception, echo the practice of individualized

179

support which is posited as an element of transformational leadership (Avolio et al.,

2004). Here leaders are familiar with the needs and performance of each individual

staff members, recognize staff when they have done well, and give guidance

tailor-made to help staff build confidence.

Linking the work of teachers to the altruistic outcome of helping children

develop, and stating that such work was therefore meaningful can be interpreted as

attempts Betty made to induce staff to feel that what they did was something

meaningful and important. Such an appeal is different from the emphasis Betty

gave to effort as instrumental in achieving the more egotistic goals of job security,

salary increment or monetary awards. That Betty made attempts to emphasise the

meaningfulness of the work of kindergarten teaching, alongside her use of coercive

techniques of job termination and inducement by monetary rewards, suggests she

might find the use of enticement by material means as insufficient in motivating staff.

Rosener (1990) and Fitzgerald (2003) have shown that female principals in western

societies motivated staff through appealing to the meaningfulness of their work, and

Betty may have been doing the same thing.

Betty’s statement about working hard for a better future, and working together

as a family cherishing value, shows that she was aware of the importance placed on

dedication and making sacrifices for achieving long-term development. Similarly,

there is evidence of collectivism in Chinese culture (Hofstede, 1980; Wong, 2001).

Betty’s emphasis to staff that virtuous people held such values and acted accordingly

indicates that she was making an appeal to staff to put their best effort into work and

to work together with others. The implication of such behaviors was personal

virtuosity. What Betty did can be viewed as purposefully using cultural values to

induce work effort in staff.

Betty’s emphasis on cultural values occurred in the context of her understanding

of transformational leadership, in particular, changing the values held by

subordinates. That Betty focused only on changing values and not on other

components of transformational leadership suggests that, from what she learned

about transformational leadership, she used the element felt to be proper for her

situation. Thus, developing a structure to involve staff in decision making in

transformational leadership (Bommer, Rubin, & Baldwin, 2004) was not mentioned

180

by Betty, probably as this was not consistent with the strong control she was

exercising. Further, the values she emphasized to staff were dominant Chinese

cultural values. She drew on the local culture and made use of values she thought

could promote work effort in staff.

Betty thus used a range of means to promote the work performance of staff.

She used appeals to the more egotistic needs of job security and monetary reward,

appeals that linked teachers’ work to more altruistic goals of helping children

develop, and appeals to cultural values and norms. The range of means that Betty

employed suggests two points concerning her style of leadership. First, appeals to

job security and monetary rewards can be viewed as the kind of resources that

transactional leaders (Hollander, 1985) offer to subordinates in exchange for

resources that subordinates offer to the organisation. On the other hand, Betty’s

appeal to staff working hard as contributing to helping children, and her appeals to

cultural values, can be considered as the kind of appeal that transformational leaders

would exhibit (Bass, 1985; Hurty, 1995). That Betty did both – appealing to goals

indicative of transactional leadership and appealing to goals and values indicative of

transformational leadership -- suggests that not all leaders can be clearly

differentiated by type. Second, Betty’s reinforcement of staff for their effort, her

appeals about kindergarten teaching as meaningful work, and appeals to cultural

values, amidst her persistent control over staff, are consistent with research which

has shown school leaders in primary and secondary schools in western societies

demonstrate a dominant style of leadership while also engaged in behaviors

characterized by other styles (Bradley, 2004). Betty’s concerns about staff

motivation and commitment, and her subsequent actions to motivate staff fall within

the realm of human resource leadership (Bolman & Deal, 1984, 1992, 2003).

These aspects revolve around promoting staff work commitment and work

performance.

Betty was concerned about a second area of staff motivation, commitment and

performance and this was the way in which staff conducted extra-curricula activities.

Betty said:

I and the prefect of studies go over the material with the teachers,

explaining to them what to do until they have a good grasp of it…we

181

observed how the teachers conducted sessions with the teachers playing

the role of the children. (BV-9)(BV-5)(BR-1) I or the prefect of studies

observed how the teachers did when they conducted the activities with

children. (BV-5)(BO-2)

Betty’s belief that the extra-curricular activities required specialized knowledge

the teachers might not have, and her guiding of teachers to become familiar with

how to conduct the activities with children, suggest that Betty was concerned about

the competency of teachers in successfully handling such activities.

Betty took a number of measures aimed at inducing staff to make an effort

when conducting the activities:

In school meetings and when monitoring their performance, I emphasized

to teachers that if they don’t conduct the extra-curricula activities well,

parents may send their children to another kindergarten…their job will be

jeopardized…But if they do their work well, parents will spread their

words around…we will then have more children…their job will be

secured…also if the parents are happy with the activities, I will most

likely organize similar activities again, and they may be assigned to

conduct the activities again and can then earn some extra money. (BV-9)

(BV-7) (BM-1)

I tell teachers that what children can learn from the activities would help

them get into a good primary school and so what they do will help the

children. (BV-7)

…during monitoring, if I find that they have done well, I tell them that

they have done well…I appreciate the efforts and contributions they have

made. (BV-7)

I stress to teachers that the activities would only be successful if the

teachers work hard and work together on the activities…I told them that,

as they all knew well enough, that these were things we regard as the most

important attributes of our Chinese heritage…things that virtuous people

do. (BV-11)(BM-2)(BR-9)

182

From what Betty revealed, she employed a range of means to motivate teachers to

conduct the extra-curricula activities. These include appeals that had to do with job

security and monetary rewards, reinforcing good performance, relating teachers’

work to the altruistic goal of helping children to get entry to a good primary school,

and an emphasis on working hard and teamwork; these matters being important

cultural values and characteristic of virtuous people. That all these were done

suggest that Betty was worried about how well staff could conduct the activities or

how hardworking they would be. The means employed were similar to those Betty

used to motivate staff in conducting their teaching. Similar to Betty’s actions in

relation to the study curriculum and teaching approaches, her concerns about staff

motivation and commitment, and her subsequent actions fall within the realm of

human resource leadership (Bolman & Deal, 1984, 1992, 2003), as her concerns and

actions had to do with promoting staff work commitment and work performance.

6.5 Summary

In summary, Betty was shown to exert direct and strong control over the study

curriculum, teaching approach and extra-curricular activities, as she made decisions

without input from staff, mandated staff to follow what she decided, and monitored

staff closely to ensure they had implemented what she prescribed. It is argued that

she exercised strong control because of:

her belief in the importance of the study curriculum and extra-curricular

activities for children’s development and for the survival of the kindergarten;

her judgement of insufficient staff competence and commitment; and

her belief of the propriety of control, given the established chain of command in

the kindergarten and the cultural propriety of hierarchal control. It is further

argued that Betty did not seem to be concerned about adverse effects on staff as

a result of the strong control she exercised, in light of her beliefs that staff

viewed her control in a positive light, and that her control was consistent with

the norms and values surrounding femininity.

In addition, Betty was found to exercise less control over aspects of the

operation of the kindergarten that she felt to be less important, such as matters

related to the yearly picnic for children. Here, she delegated the assistant principal

183

to make related plans and to implement them after she endorsed the plans. In

relation to how staff implemented the study curriculum and in offering

extra-curricula activities to children, Betty was concerned about motivating staff to

perform in their work because of her views about the levels of competency and

commitment of staff.

184

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSIONS

This chapter discusses implications arising from this study. The study

explored how two kindergarten principals in Hong Kong conducted their leadership;

the beliefs, values and motives underlying the way they led; and how these were

related to the gender of the principals and the culture of the society. A conceptual

framework was advanced that highlighted the foci of the study regarding the

leadership enactment of kindergarten principals, Bolman and Deal’s theory as a

heuristic device in examining leadership, key recent events in kindergarten education

in Hong Kong (keen competition among kindergartens for children and the

government’s subsidy scheme), and the role of culture of a society in leadership.

Through interviews and observations regarding how the two kindergarten principals

enacted their leadership in their work settings, findings were obtained, as presented

in the two prior chapters, regarding what the principals did as well as their thoughts,

values and motives underpinning their leadership. This chapter, through the

elements of the conceptual framework, first discusses the implications of the

findings on the issue of women in kindergarten leadership (Section 7.1). This is

followed by implications of the findings on the theorizing of leadership (Section 7.2).

The next section (Section 7.3) explores the implications on the wider systemic

context (competition among kindergartens and the Government’s subsidy scheme)

on leadership of kindergarten principals in the Territory. This is followed by a

discussion of the implications of the findings on the role of culture in kindergarten

leadership (Section 7.4). The significance of this study lies in the knowledge it

adds to understanding how kindergarten principals in Hong Kong conduct their

leadership, and in the implications of the findings obtained on the issue of women in

kindergarten leadership, wider systematic context, and the role of culture in

leadership in the kindergarten settings. The next two sections review the

conceptual framework used (Section 7.5) and methodology employed (Section 7.6)

in this study, followed by a conclusion (Section 7.7).

185

7.1 Women in leadership

The issue of women in leadership pertains to theorizing and findings of research

showing different styles of leading enacted by female school leaders, with some

enacting a dominant style, which is explained by researchers as reflecting the need to

accomplish one’s leadership duties (Gunter, 1997). Some enact a collaborative

style, which is explained by researchers as reflective of a feminine identity (Sherman,

2000). Others enact an androgynous style (Thompson, 2000) for which no

explanation has been offered; and still others have no discernable style. In

preschool settings in western societies, leaders have been shown to exhibit a

collaborative style, or have been advised to do so (Jorde-Bloom, 1995).

Both Amy and Betty understood that a kindergarten setting, as a place for

providing nurturing care to young children, called for relating to others in a caring

manner, echoing a similar conception of the behaviour that is considered appropriate

in preschool settings in western societies. In addition, both leaders were aware of

the relevance of the norms and values of femininity in relating to others in the

kindergarten setting as all their staff were female. At the same time, however, both

leaders understood hierarchal control as the culturally sanctioned practice, found

such to be relevant to their role as leaders, and felt that staff expected them to be

strong and controlling because this was indicative of leadership competence. In

spite of their understanding of the propriety of caring and collaboration for a

kindergarten setting, both leaders exercised strong control because of the importance

they attached to the study curriculum, teaching approaches and promotional

activities for the survival of the kindergarten, and because of their perception of low

staff quality and work commitment. While exercising control, Amy was concerned

that staff would view her as unfeminine, and thus behaved in ways reflective of

femininity to minimize adverse effects. What these leaders did therefore highlights

the complexity of how women kindergarten leaders in Hong Kong and elsewhere

may conduct their leadership. First, the norms and values surrounding femininity

wherein women should relate to each other in caring and collaborative ways are

perceived as relevant to their leadership in a kindergarten context in Hong Kong and

probably elsewhere, as kindergartens are feminised work settings where women

work with other women in providing nurturing care to young children. Second,

concern about norms and values of femininity is balanced against concerns of staff

186

quality and task importance, and inevitably against the cultural conception of the

ideal form of leadership which, in the Chinese cultural context, is hierarchal control

and is inconsistent with norms and values of femininity. Third, kindergarten

leaders, after balancing various and different concerns, opt to lead in a specific way

that is viewed as instrumental in achieving the goals at hand, while experiencing

certain concerns and emotions as outcomes of balancing the factors. Such

complexity suggests that in understanding the leadership of women kindergarten

principals in Hong Kong or elsewhere, we need to consider how leaders view the

relevance of femininity in that specific work setting, and how concerns with

femininity are balanced against demands from within that specific work setting and

against the wider cultural conception of leadership. The complexity also implies

that in understanding women in leadership, it is not sufficient to examine

predominantly how such leaders respond to the demands in fulfilling their duties as a

leader, which is characteristic of theorizing in ‘job-demand theories’ (Gunter, 1997).

Likewise, it is not sufficient to consider predominantly how feminine identities may

influence the way women conduct their leadership, as is the case with ‘feminine

theories’ (Sherman, 2000).

In relation to the notion of leadership style, two points can be made based on

what Amy and Betty did. First, assuming the usefulness of the notion of style at

this point, one of the styles documented in women school leaders is an androgynous

style wherein leaders display both dominating and caring behavior (Bolman and

Deal, 1991, 1992; Donnell and Hall, 1980; Thompson, 2000). Studies that have

documented such a style have not revealed the mechanisms underlying the display of

this style. Both Amy and Betty can be characterised as enacting an androgynous

style of leading, as they demonstrated both control and caring. Thus, what Amy

and Betty did suggests reasons that leaders may enact an androgynous style: that the

strong and direct control was enacted for ensuring that staff performed in the ways

the leaders wanted them to, and that the caring behavior was enacted to motivate

staff or to minimise adverse effects of control over staff.

The second point relating to style concerns its usefulness for understanding

what leaders do. The notion of style presumes consistency in how a leader leads

staff across tasks. Both Amy and Betty exercised strong control over the study

curriculum, teaching approach and activities to promote the kindergartens to the

187

public, yet both exerted much less control on tasks perceived by them as less

important. This therefore shows variations in what these leaders did across tasks,

rather than consistency.

In addition, Amy enacted caring behaviour for minimising adverse effects in

staff arising from the control she exercised and for motivating staff to perform.

Betty, on the other hand, enacted similar behaviour but solely for motivating staff.

This shows that the same style of leading exhibited by different leaders may be

underpinned by different motives, and thus suggests that knowing the style that

leaders enact does not necessarily reveal the motives behind what they do. Thus,

because of variations in how leaders lead staff across tasks and of different leaders

enacting the same style for different reasons, the notion of style is useful at best as an

overall characterisation of leadership.

7.2 Implications of the findings on theorizing of leadership

In relating to staff regarding what and how to teach children, both Amy and

Betty exercised strong and direct control. As to why they did so, both leaders

understood that the hierarchal chain of command in place in their kindergartens,

reflective of the cultural practice of hierarchal control, gave them absolute power and

also the responsibility to oversee the operation of the kindergartens. In addition,

both leaders were determined to lead the kindergartens to face the challenges they

confronted. Amy and Betty believed that what and how to teach children were

important for defining the kind of education offered and for the survival of the

kindergartens, and they also believed that they were conversant with such matters.

Thus, from their understanding of their role and responsibilities, their motives to lead

the kindergartens successfully, and the importance attached to what and how to teach,

both leaders exercised direct and strong control over staff. They did so also

because of their perceptions that their staff were insufficiently competent and

motivated in their work, which had come about from a long history of neglect by the

society of the importance of kindergarten teaching. Both leaders exercised strong

control despite their understanding of the importance of involving staff in decision

making, and both also understood that their strong control was inconsistent with

norms and values of femininity in Hong Kong society. Both Amy and Betty

exercised much less control over staff on aspects they felt were less important.

188

The extent of control exercised on different tasks in both cases can thus be

viewed as an outcome of various factors impacting on their leadership, including

their duties, motives, self-perceived efficacy, task importance, relevant cultural

norms, staff quality and staff reactions. Amy and Betty opted for a way of leading

they saw as instrumental in achieving the goal of maintaining the survival of the

kindergartens, in the face of keen competition from other kindergartens in recruiting

children. What these leaders did highlights the importance of understanding the

reasons and factors that leaders consider when they take particular actions. In these

kindergarten settings, it was not just the attributes of the leaders, but also

characteristics of the kindergarten setting situated within a specific cultural context

that impacted on the leadership.

One implication of the importance of understanding a leader’s consideration of

the range of forces in deciding how to lead relates to theorizing of situational

leadership (Fiedler, 1967; Griffith, 2004; Shamir & Howell, 1999). The strong

control that Amy and Betty exercised in the face of perceived low staff quality lends

support to a key proposition of situational leadership: that leaders deploy a

dominating style when staff are incapable or noninvolved. However, Amy and

Betty exercised strong control over staff partly because they felt that they were much

more conversant than staff on matters related to what and how to teach. Further,

when launching promotional activities about which Amy felt uncertain, she involved

staff though she felt that they were as ignorant as she was on those matters. The

cases of Amy and Betty therefore show that perceptions of self-efficacy of the

leaders also shape how a leader may lead, and thus the way a leader may lead

depends not just on perceived staff quality, as proposed by situational theories

(Fiedler, 1967; Griffith, 2004; Shamir & Howell, 1999), but also on leaders’

self-perceived efficacy on specific aspects of leading, which situational theories have

not yet addressed.

Another implication of understanding the importance of a leader’s reasoning

about the factors that underlie leadership pertains to the theorizing of

transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Hallinger & Heck, 2002).

Transformational leadership focuses on what leaders do, how staff would be changed

as a result, and the processes underlying such changes. Little attention seems to

have been paid to leaders’ perceptions of the conditions under which

189

transformational leadership can be practiced, apart from the notion that this type of

leadership is proper for dealing with school environments that are undergoing

constant and drastic changes. Both Amy and Betty understood the importance of

involving staff in decision making and in granting responsibility to staff. Amy

admitted that she, as a result of her religious belief, respected the views and

comments of staff as worthy of note. Betty admitted that she had read about

transformational leadership. Yet, while recognizing the importance of staff

involvement, both leaders exercised strong control because of their perceptions that

staff were insufficiently competent or motivated in their work, a product of a long

history of neglect of the society on the importance of kindergarten teaching. Thus,

what Amy and Betty did suggests that perceptions of staff quality by a leader may

constitute one factor that influences how willing the leader is to practice

transformational leadership.

Perception of staff teacher quality has not been researched as a condition for

transformational leadership in western societies such as Australia, U.K. and the

U.S.A., perhaps because teachers at the primary and secondary level in these

societies are generally competent in and committed to their work, due to the training

they have undertaken and the respectable social status of teaching. In contrast,

kindergarten teaching in Hong Kong required, until recently, little training, and is not

a highly regarded profession. The reasons behind Amy’s and Betty’s exercise of

strong control rather than practicing transformational leadership highlights the

importance of understanding a leader’s perception of staff quality, which represents

the outcome of the history of attention given to teacher training by a society.

Bolman and Deal’s (1984, 1992, 2003) theory of four leadership frames was

used as a heuristic device to explore the leadership enactment of the two principals.

The theory is considered viable for examining leadership of kindergarten principals

in Hong Kong for reasons, as noted in Chapter 2, relating to comprehensiveness of

the frames with regard to the work of leaders, the frames as capturing the

worldviews of leaders, and research showing the applicability of the theory to

leadership of principals of primary and secondary schools in the Hong Kong context.

The structural frame refers to the leader’s view of how a group is or can be

organized or structured to accomplish the goals set. The human resource frame

refers to the management of human resources in a group. The political frame refers

190

to the work of the leader of a group to resolve conflicts among group members,

while the symbolic frame refers to the set of concepts, belief, faith, and values

created by the leader of a group to induce a particular group culture.

A review of what Amy and Betty did shed light on the facets of leadership these

leaders paid attention to and facets they did not work on, so that some indication was

gained of the applicability of the leadership frames to kindergarten context in Hong

Kong. Amy’s decision-making on the kind of study curriculum that was adopted,

her implementation of work roles, her promotion of a work culture regarding staff

behaviour, her decisions about the teaching approaches staff should employ, her

close monitoring of staff performance, and her making provision for staff to

undertake training fall under the realm of structural leadership. This is because,

through such decisions and actions, Amy believed that the kindergarten could

achieve its function in offering an education to children in accord with the kind of

education she wished to offer and the way children should be guided. In addition,

Amy’s decision-making on the type of activities offered to parents and her close

monitoring of staff performance fall under structural leadership, as such decisions

and actions could, in Amy’s view, enable her to recruit sufficient number of children.

Likewise, in the case of Betty, decision-making on the kind of curriculum adopted,

specifying the teaching approaches staff would use, offering the type of

extra-curricula activities to children, and close monitoring of staff performance fall

under structural leadership in that, through such decisions and actions, Betty

believed she could enable the kindergarten to achieve its function in offering an

education to children and in making a profit.

Amy did a number of things, such as offering reinforcing remarks on good

performance and linking teamwork to the cultural value of collectivism, to show

staff that she cared about their work and to promote a spirit of teamwork. These

behaviours fall under the realm of human resource leadership in Bolman and Deal’s

(1984, 1992, 2003) theory, in that these actions represent Amy’s efforts to make staff

feel that their work was important, to induce staff to exert their best efforts, and to

promote teamwork among staff. Likewise, Betty did a number of things, such as

making appeal to the work of staff in helping children develop and offering

monetary incentives to good performance, so that staff would view their work as

191

important and would work hard. These fall under the realm of human resource

leadership.

In relation to symbolic leadership, the strong control that Amy exercised over

the curriculum and teaching approach and her attending internal seminars with staff

on preschool education can be viewed as efforts she made to signify the importance

of kindergarten education to children. In addition, her working with staff directly

on establishing a parent-teacher association can be considered as efforts she made to

symbolize the importance of teamwork. Further, Amy’s work on different tasks

that could have been assigned to staff showed her efforts to signify to staff the

importance of exerting one’s best effort in one’s work. Likewise, in the case of

Betty, in addition to emphasising directly to staff about the importance of

kindergarten education to children, the strong control that she exercised in relation to

the curriculum adopted, teaching approach that staff should use, and close

monitoring of staff performance can be viewed as efforts she made to symbolize the

importance of kindergarten education to children.

Much of what Amy and Betty did therefore fall under structural, human

resource and symbolic forms of leadership. On the other hand, little seems to have

been shown by both leaders regarding political leadership in terms of behaviour to

resolve conflict among staff. It is possible that several factors might have

contributed to the apparent low level of conflict among staff and the little that the

leaders needed to do regarding conflict resolution among staff. The number of staff

was small in both kindergartens, and that staff met each other daily. The division of

labour among staff was clear, with each being responsible for guiding a particular

group of children. Staff worked together on tasks such as preparing for the open

day or graduation ceremony, but each was given clear responsibility. In addition,

both Amy and Betty monitored staff closely. Thus, frequent interactions, clear

responsibilities and tight control by the two leaders might have resulted in little

conflict among staff. Thus, as revealed by what Amy and Betty did, the structural,

human resource and symbolic frames seem to capture what the leaders did, but that

the political frame appears to be of less relevance in these kindergarten contexts.

This suggests that in other kindergartens in Hong Kong where the numbers of staff

are small, where staff interact frequently with each other and division of labour is

clear, the political frame may also be less relevant.

192

7.3 Impact of systemic context: Government subsidy scheme and competition

among kindergartens

Regarding the impact of government policy on leadership of the principals, it is

plausible, as argued earlier (Section 7.1), that kindergarten principals in Hong Kong

prefer to adopt a collaborative way of leading in light of the feminised context of the

kindergarten setting, but have been unable to do so due to low staff quality, which

has come about through a long history of societal neglect of the importance of

kindergarten education. This is reflected by, until recently, little government effort

in regulating what is taught in kindergarten, how teaching is done, and the training of

kindergarten teachers and principals. The result has been that all kindergartens up

to now are privately owned, adopt various types of study curriculum, recruit

whatever kind of teachers the owners see fit, and pay teachers much less than what is

paid to primary or secondary school teachers. Recently, the society appears to have

been paying more attention to kindergarten education, resulting in increasing

government attention to the operation of kindergartens in the Territory (Rao &

Koong, 2000). Along with increasing training opportunities for pre- and in-service

kindergarten teachers, though still at a level below the Bachelor degree, the most

recent initiative the government has launched is the ‘Government Subsidy Scheme’

where kindergartens that do not aim to make profit can receive a subsidy on

condition that they recruit a specific percentage of teachers having a certain level of

training, and pay teachers according to a specified salary scale. The scheme thus

appears to represent the government’s efforts to gradually safeguard and enhance the

quality of teachers in kindergartens.

In response, many non-profit-making kindergartens have joined the subsidy

scheme whereas most profit-making ones have not. Fulfillment of the funding

requirements of the subsidy scheme by those which have joined the scheme has

resulted in key differences in the type of teachers employed between the two types of

kindergartens. As revealed from Amy’s kindergarten, which did not aim to make a

profit and had joined the scheme, most teachers had been trained, were fairly well

paid and were perceived as at least quite committed to their work, though Amy still

perceived them, in accord with her standard, as insufficiently competent and

motivated. In contrast, Betty’s kindergarten had not joined the scheme as the

owners wanted it to remain a profit making operation. To minimise expenditure for

193

securing higher profit, most of the teachers Betty recruited were young secondary

school graduates with no knowledge of kindergarten teaching, and were paid much

less than teachers in Amy’s kindergarten. Probably partly as a result of the lower

salary, there was a high turnover of teachers, with Betty needing to recruit a sizable

portion of new teachers every year.

The differences in the types of teachers between the two kindergartens had

some impact on how the leaders related to staff. With most of her teachers having

some basic training and being fairly well paid, Amy still exercised strong and direct

control over staff because of her belief that staff were still not sufficiently competent

and committed in accord with her standard. At the same time, in light of staff

having had some basic training, Amy encouraged them to try out new teaching

approaches, encouraged them to undertake further training, and made provision for

staff to do so. Further, in motivating staff to perform, Amy made appeals to

cultural values including the long-term development of the teachers through working

hard and undertaking further training, but did not make any appeal to, nor make any

arrangements for, giving monetary rewards. In contrast, because of her perception

of staff being grossly and insufficiently competent and committed, Betty had

teachers try out new teaching approaches less frequently; and encouraged staff to

undertake training but did not make provisions for staff to do so, as the teachers were

needed to maintain the operation of the kindergarten and as they were perceived to

be uninterested in and incapable of undertaking training. Betty was concerned

about motivating teachers, and used monetary rewards and threats of work

termination to ensure staff effort and performance. Thus, government policy,

through the subsidy scheme, resulted in different ways of relating to staff by the two

leaders in terms of the attention paid to staff development and ways of motivating

teachers. Differences in the way of relating to staff by the two leaders as a result of

levels of staff competence and work commitment are consistent with propositions of

situational theories regarding leaders relating to staff in ways contingent on staff

attributes (Avolio et al, 2004; Herbert & Blanchard, 1982).

Likewise, as a result of having or not having joined the scheme, the two

kindergartens differed in the type of study curriculum adopted, with Amy choosing a

less scholastically oriented curriculum, which was closer to government’s guideline,

and with Betty, whose kindergarten had not joined the subsidy scheme, adopting a

194

more scholastically oriented curriculum in order to maintain competitive advantage

over other kindergartens, with parents choosing such programs for their children,

thus ensuring a profit. Amy’s use of a curriculum closer to the government’s

guidelines echoes research showing that principals in public schools in the U.S.A.

experienced less freedom in relation to what to teach students than did principals in

private schools (Apodaca-Tucker & Slate, 2002). In addition to the type of

curriculum used, the activities in which Amy engaged in promoting the kindergarten,

such as Open House, were those that aimed at informing parents about the benefits

of the kind of education the kindergarten could offer, whereas the activities that

Betty engaged in, such as offering an extra-curricular activity on interviewing skills

for children for entering primary one, were aimed at enhancing the competitiveness

of the kindergarten over other kindergartens.

There are thus differences between the two kindergartens in ways of relating to

staff, the curriculum adopted and the means of promoting the kindergartens that

come from participation or non-participation in the government’s subsidy scheme.

Such differences therefore suggest that to understand how and why a kindergarten

principal in Hong Kong conducts her leadership, we need to examine, in addition to

gender and cultural values and norms, how the leader, with a specific purpose of

offering an education to children, responds to the wider government initiatives and

policies.

In relation to competition among kindergartens, Amy perceived that

competition with other kindergartens for children was keen, because of decreasing

number of children attending kindergartens. She needed to recruit enough children

to the kindergarten as the subsidy from the government was contingent on the

number of children the kindergarten could recruit. Amy was aware of the

preference of many parents for kindergartens that offered a great deal of instruction

on scholastic skills. Nevertheless, partly out of her belief of the importance of a

well-rounded education to the development of children, she had not incorporated a

great deal of instruction on such skills, though she had incorporated some instruction

on such skills in order to attract parents. At the same time, to remain competitive,

Amy attempted to offer a quality education to children by employing teachers who

had undertaken training to provide guidance to children, by inducing a work culture

in staff of providing quality care to children, and by closely monitoring staff

195

performance. Further, Amy organized activities for parents to familiarise them with

the benefits to children of the kind of education she offered.

Betty also perceived keen competition with other kindergartens, and needed to

have sufficient number of children to maintain making a profit. Partly out of her

belief of the importance of scholastic skills for the development of children and

partly to suit parents’ preferences for such instruction, Betty adopted a curriculum

that incorporated a great deal of instruction on scholastic skills. Betty also offered

extra-curricular activities that enhanced children’s capacity to move on to a good

primary school, partly to convince parents that the kindergarten emphasised the

instruction on scholastic skills and was able to teach children such skills. At the

same time, to minimise the cost in operating the kindergarten to enhance profit,

Betty recruited secondary school graduates who had no training in preschool

education as teachers, but as a result had to monitor their performance closely.

The keen competition with other kindergartens echoes research which showed

that school principals in western countries, following the introduction of a market

ethos as part of school-based management reforms, perceived a keenly competitive

environment wherein schools competed with each other for students (Oplatka,

Hemsley-Brown, & Fostkett, 2002). The activities that both leaders designed and

implemented to promote the kindergartens, such as inviting parents to visit a class in

the case of Amy and offering training on interviewing skills to children in the case of

Betty, resonate with research showing that school principals in free market setting

employed various strategies, such as improving school physical appearance and

organizing open days, to promote their schools to parents. Just as some school

principals in the U.S. A. (Harvey, 1996) and in Canada (Oplatka, et al., 2002)

modified the school curriculum to suit the needs of clients, both Amy and Betty

incorporated instruction on scholastic skills into their curricula to satisfy parents’

preferences for such instruction (Chiu, 2004). Betty offered a great deal of such

instruction, partly to attract parents and partly out of her belief of the usefulness of

such skills to the long-term development of children. Amy, in order to attract

parents to send their children to the kindergarten, also incorporated some of this

instruction into the study curriculum. Yet, this incorporation was somewhat

inconsistent with her belief in the propriety of a well-rounded education, and was

also against government guidelines on what to teach children in kindergartens in the

196

Territory. The incorporation of such instruction therefore suggests necessary

responses to the market choice of parents. Further, Amy employed teachers who

had undertaken training to provide effective guidance to children to enhance the

competitiveness of the kindergarten, similar to Canadian principals employing

qualified teachers to enhance the competitiveness of the schools (Oplatka, 2002).

Betty, on the other hand, hired untrained staff to minimise cost.

One implication from the kind of teachers that Betty employed in response to

competition is that competition may not necessarily enhance the quality of education

offered. This being the case, the claim that the market ethos introduced in

school-based management in western societies would result in improved quality of

education to students (Bell & Rowley, 2002) can be questioned. Another

implication, derived from the curricula adopted in the two kindergartens, though

much more so in Betty’s kindergarten, is that the instruction on scholastic skills in

the curricula was shaped significantly by market demands (parents’ preferences for

such instruction). However, whether such instruction was beneficial to children

needs to be explored further, as can be seen from the Government’s guidelines on

kindergarten curriculum that such instruction was not advisable (Education

Department, 2002). A third implication, derived from the incorporation of

instruction on scholastic skills by Amy who found such instruction somewhat

inconsistent with her personal value of a well-rounded education, is that principals

may downplay or sacrifice their personal preferences to engage in tasks which,

though inconsistent with their values and beliefs, would enhance the survival of the

schools.

7.4 The role of culture in school leadership

Little work has been undertaken on the role of culture in school leadership,

although a number of models have been proposed. All the models on the role of

culture in the leadership of school administrators posit that culture exerts pervasive

effects on school leadership, influencing school leaders both directly and indirectly

(Bronfenbenner, 1979; Dimmock & Walker, 2000; Cheng, 2000; Hallinger &

Leithwood, 1996). Culture influences leaders directly through the values, beliefs

and norms the leaders have internalised, which, in turn, influence and shape the

conduct of leadership. The models also propose that culture influences leadership

197

indirectly, such as through demands from parents and the impact of government

regulations and policies, with such influences reflective of cultural values, norms and

beliefs of the society.

Some of what Amy and Betty did lends support to the propositions of these

models. Amy’s understanding of the cultural norm of hierarchal control, her

perception of its propriety, and her enactment of control in accord with this norm can

be regarded, in line with the models, as a direct influence of culture. So is Amy’s

concern about staff viewing her leadership negatively due to her understanding of the

inconsistency of her strong control with the norms and values of femininity. Amy’s

perceptions that her staff, reflective of their understanding of the norm of hierarchal

control, would expect her, as the leader, to exercise control, and her perception that

staff, reflective of their recognition of the norms and values of femininity, would

expect to be treated caringly, are instances of the indirect influence of culture, in

accordance with the models. Likewise, Betty’s enactment of a controlling way of

leading that came from her understanding of the cultural norm of hierarchical control

can be taken as indicative of the direct influence of culture, just as her enactment of

caring behaviour to motivate staff came from her understanding of using the norms

and values of femininity to motivate staff. Betty’s belief about staff expectations of

her exercising control is an instance of the indirect influence of culture. Thus, how

Amy and Betty led staff and the reasons underpinning what they did are culturally

grounded, lending support to a key proposition of the models (that schooling,

including leadership, is embedded within the culture of a society).

Other things that Amy and Betty did in their leadership further our

understanding of the role of culture in school leadership. Three points can be made.

First, all of the models posit that the leaders act in accord with the cultural values,

norms and beliefs they have internalized from the culture, implying that leaders are

constrained by those values, beliefs and norms, and therefore act passively in accord

with the values, norms and beliefs. Some of what Amy and Betty did suggests that,

instead of acting passively, they were actively using culture as a strategy to influence

staff. For instance, Amy understood that her strong control was sanctioned by the

hierarchal chain of command in place in the kindergarten. This reflected the norm

of hierarchal control in the society, yet Amy felt that such a norm might not be

sufficient to induce staff to accept her leadership and the decisions she made. This

198

shows firstly that Amy expected staff to know the cultural norm of hierarchal control

and to be influenced by it when they related to her as the leader. Secondly, Amy

was calculating whether such an influence would result in staff accepting the

decisions she made and being positive about her leadership. As she felt that the

cultural norm of hierarchal control alone might not lead to the effects she intended,

she behaved caringly towards staff to induce their acceptance of her decisions and to

provide a positive conception of her leadership.

Likewise, in Betty’s case, in influencing staff to be more cooperative with and

supportive of each other, Betty did a number of things. Her statement that staff

should care for each other, as women should, suggests, firstly, that she was aware of

the cultural norms and values of femininity, and secondly, that she was using such

norms and values as standards against which staff should act. Betty, therefore, was

not just behaving passively in line with the norms and values, but was using them to

influence how staff would behave. Likewise, Betty’s appeals to staff to work

closely together with each other by referring to teamwork as an expression of

collectivism, and thus, as an indication of how virtuous individual staff members

were, again suggest her active use of culture to purposefully influence staff.

Amy’s and Betty’s active use of culture suggests that the role of culture does

not lie simply in its direct and indirect influences as proposed by the models

(Dimmock, 1998; Dimmock & Walker, 2000; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996), but

also serves as a store of commonly held beliefs, values and standards that leaders can

draw on when devising strategies to influence staff. The use of cultural values and

norms as strategies of influence confers the leadership of these principals with a

strong moral element, as they invoke cultural values and norms, which specify

proper and righteous behaviour. As such, the principals themselves need to act in

accord with such norms and values to serve as models for staff. The notion of

moral leadership has been advocated for the leadership of school principals

(Sergiovanni, 2000) to highlight the moral element in education and the standard of

behaviour of the principals. The heightened moral element in the leadership of

these two kindergarten principals in Hong Kong results, however, from their use of

cultural values and norms to influence staff.

199

Further, the use of cultural norms or values as strategies to influence and engage

staff is likely to be effective in light of their implications for staff morality or

virtuosity. In addition, the cultural norms and values of Chinese societies, such as

hierarchal control, collectivism, femininity, working hard, and making current

sacrifices to prepare for a better long-term future can be considered as values and

norms, to which staff adherence would promote greater staff compliance,

cooperativeness, mutual support, and work effort. This being the case, and also

because of the effectiveness of such strategies, kindergarten leaders in Hong Kong

and in other societies with similar cultural norms and values, such as Japan and

Korea, are likely to use culture to influence staff to a greater extent than are

kindergarten leaders in western societies. It is plausible that current models have

not discussed the notion of leaders using culture in this way because these models

were developed mainly in western societies, in which leaders probably use cultural

values and norms as influential strategies to a lesser extent. Thus, what Amy and

Betty did furthers our understanding of the role of culture in that leaders may

actively use culture, especially cultural values, to engage and influence staff.

The second point, derived from what Amy and Betty did in their leadership, that

furthers our understanding of the role of culture in school leadership refers to leaders

purposefully acting inconsistently with culture for some reason. The proposition of

direct and indirect influences in all leadership models views school leaders as

behaving in ways consistent with culture, either as a result of the values and beliefs

they have internalized or as a result of explicit or subtle demands from others within

or outside of the school, which reflect the values, beliefs or norms of the society.

That Amy’s exercise of strong control, while knowing that doing so was inconsistent

with the norms of femininity and collectivism, suggests that she chose to behave

inconsistently with culture as it pertains to women. She did so because she wished

to ensure, through strong control over staff, that the kindergarten offered a balanced

education and could recruit a sufficient number of children to survive. None of the

models has addressed whether or not, and why a school leader would behave in ways

inconsistent with culture. What Amy did, therefore, demonstrates that a

kindergarten leader may act inconsistently with culture in order to achieve goals

perceived as important for the kindergarten.

200

The third point, derived from what Amy did in her leadership, that furthers

our understanding of the role of culture in school leadership refers to a leader’s

perception of inconsistency among the cultural values and norms, and how such a

perception influences the way she acts. Amy understood that the strong control she

exercised was in line with the cultural norm of hierarchal control, yet at the same

time, she also understood that her strong control was inconsistent with the cultural

norms and values related to femininity and collectivism. As Amy felt that matters

related to the study curriculum and teaching approach were important for the

survival of the kindergarten and that her teachers were not sufficiently competent or

committed to be left alone to work on these tasks, she opted to exercise strong

control over staff on those matters, thus behaving inconsistently with the cultural

values of femininity and collectivism, and was aware of such inconsistency.

Subsequently, she engaged in behavior in line with collectivism and femininity, such

as explaining to staff the bases of her decisions, so as to reduce adverse effects in

staff that she might have caused by her control.

None of the models addressing the role of culture has explored the

inconsistency of cultural elements within the culture of a society and how school

leaders’ perceptions of such inconsistency may influence their leadership. The

perceived inconsistency by Amy of the cultural values and norms of hierarchal

control with those of collectivism and femininity highlights the role of culture in the

leadership of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong in two ways. The first pertains

to the form of leading possibly preferred by leaders in kindergartens in the Territory.

The form of leadership considered by people in the society, including kindergarten

leaders, as proper and normative is hierarchal control. Hierarchal control is thus

likely to be perceived as proper and is likely to be practiced in kindergartens out of

the necessity to address low staff quality, as in Amy’s and Betty’s kindergartens. At

the same time, the norms and values surrounding collectivism and femininity are

perceived by kindergarten leaders as relevant to the kindergarten setting, and as

inconsistent with hierarchal control. Thus, the inconsistency of hierarchal control

with the norms and values surrounding collectivism and femininity would have led

kindergarten leaders to view hierarchal control, though proper and ideal for the

society as a whole, as not the preferred way of leading in the kindergarten setting.

Had hierarchal control been seen as the preferred form of leading in a kindergarten

201

setting, Amy would not have had concerns of adverse effects in staff arising from her

exercise of strong control. This suggests therefore that the form of leading

preferred by kindergarten principals in the Territory might not correspond to the

form of leading considered by society at large as the ideal.

The preferred form is likely to be one of collaboration and caring, in light of the

relevance of the norms and values related to femininity and collectivism, but this

form may not dominate due to low staff quality, which necessitates leaders to

exercise control. That the preferred form of leading may be different from that of

the society would probably apply to other work settings in the Territory where norms

and values of collectivism and femininity are prominent and relevant, such as the

leadership of principals in primary schools for girls in which staff and leaders are all

female. This might also apply to kindergarten settings in other societies, such as in

Japan and Russia, in which hierarchal control is the cultural norm but the norms and

values surrounding femininity and collectivism are also prominent and relevant.

An understanding of what is perceived as the preferred way of leading in

kindergartens in the Territory therefore requires not just an understanding of the

wider cultural conception of leadership, but also how this conception is seen in

relation to other cultural norms and values relevant to the characteristics of the

kindergarten settings.

The necessity and propriety of control but its inconsistency with femininity and

collectivism is likely to induce persistent tensions in such leaders. Reay and Ball

(2000) make the point that women school leaders in western societies experience

stress when they lead in a collaborative manner that is inconsistent with the prevalent

cultural conception of leadership, which is one of control and dominance.

Conversely, in the cases of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong, the tension that

these leaders experience arises from exercising control that is inconsistent with the

norms and values of femininity and collectivism. The experience of persistent

tension could lead to negative consequences of ill-health, burnout or a change to

another profession (Bakker, Demerouti, de Bour, & Schaufeli, 2003; Oplatka, 2002).

In-service training programs for principals could thus incorporate information about

such negative experience, how it comes about, and how principals could deal with

such tension.

202

7.5 Conceptual framework employed

A conceptual framework was advanced (Chapter 3), distilled from the literature

reviewed (Chapter 2), to highlight the foci of the study relating to issue of women in

leadership, Bolman and Deal’s (1984, 1992, 2003) theory of four leadership

framework as a heuristic device for exploring leadership, the impact on principal

leadership of wider systemic context in respect of competition with other

kindergartens for children and the government’s subsidy scheme, and the role of

culture in leadership. The framework is shown again below. This section,

drawing on the findings gathered (Chapters 5 and 6) and the implications of the

findings noted in earlier sections of this chapter, examines the viability of the

framework.

Bolman and Deal’sfour leadership frames

Government subsidy scheme

•Culture of the society•Hofstede’s five dimensions

•Kindergarten leadership behavior•Motives, values and belief underlying leadership

Competition among kindergartens

Figure 8 Elements of framework: Leader attributes, leadership frames,

competition among kindergartens and government subsidy scheme and role of

culture

In relation to the issue of women in leadership which has to do with different

styles of leadership documented in women leaders and different explanations for

why they adopted a particular style, as noted in Section 7.1, the ways the leaders led

was an outcome of their consideration of a spectrum of personal and situational

factors, which were more complicated than what current theorizing on the topic has

203

examined. For instance, it has been said that female leaders displayed caring

behaviour out of the feminine identities they have developed (Smulyan, 2000).

Amy and Betty were aware of the norms and values of femininity, and at times acted

in ways consistent with such norms and values. However, they did so because they

wanted to influence the way staff viewed their leadership or to motivate staff to

perform. Such findings add to our knowledge of how women leaders may enact

their leadership, and show the worthiness of close scrutiny in the case of this issue.

In relation to using Bolman and Deal’s (1984, 1992, 2003) theory of leadership

frames as a heuristic device for examining leadership of the two kindergarten

principals, the outcome was fruitful, in that, as noted in Section 7.2, what the two

leaders did was illustrative of structural, human resource and symbolic leadership.

On the other hand, the political frame was not as relevant in the kindergartens,

possibly for reasons related to the work settings of kindergartens wherein staff work

closely with each other and there is clear division of labour.

With regard to competition with other kindergartens for children, which was

one of the two wider systemic contextual factors examined, both leaders in this study

admitted experiencing keen competition with other kindergartens for children, and

both acted in ways to enhance the competitiveness of the kindergartens. Perceived

competition with other kindergartens had an important bearing on the kind of

curricula adopted, how the leaders monitored staff performance, and on the type of

activities the leaders implemented to enhance the competitiveness of the

kindergartens, indicating therefore the usefulness of examining this factor.

In relation to the impact of the government’s subsidy scheme, which was the

second systemic contextual factor examined, Amy and Betty, as noted in Section 7.3,

behaved differently, partly as a result of whether the kindergarten had or had not

joined the subsidy scheme. These differences show therefore the influence of the

government’s subsidy scheme on the leadership of the principals. The

government’s subsidy scheme can be viewed also as influencing the competition

among the kindergartens (Figure 9), in that having or not having joined the scheme

would impose certain constraints on what a kindergarten could or could not do, or

may confer a kindergarten with certain advantages. These would in turn influence

the competitiveness of the kindergarten. Thus, the government’s subsidy scheme

204

can be viewed as influencing the competition among kindergartens in terms of

degree of competitiveness a kindergarten might have in relation to other

kindergartens.

Bolman and Deal’sfour leadership frames

Government subsidy scheme

•Culture of the society•Hofstede’s five dimensions

•Kindergarten leadership behavior•Motives, values and belief underlying leadership

Competition among kindergartens

Figure 9 Impact of subsidy scheme on competitiveness

In relation to the role of culture in the leadership of the two principals, culture,

as noted in Section 7.4, influenced leadership directly and indirectly, much in line

with propositions of theories on the impact of culture on leadership (Bronfenbenner,

1979; Dimmock & Walker, 2000; Cheng, 2000; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996).

However, the two leaders also used culture actively as strategies to influence staff,

and at times experienced inconsistency between two or more cultural values.

Active use of culture and the inconsistency of some cultural values have not been

explored by current theorizing of the role of culture in school leadership.

Documentation of the active use of culture by leaders, and their experience of

inconsistency between cultural values, point to the merit of examining the role of

culture in the leadership of kindergarten principals.

In addition to impacting on leadership of the principals, culture can also be said

to have some bearing on the wider systemic context under which kindergartens

operated (Figure 10), though this is not directly distilled from what Amy or Betty

205

revealed regarding what they did. In connection with competition with other

kindergartens, both Amy and Betty understood that parents preferred kindergartens

that offered a great deal of instruction on scholastic skills so as to prepare their

children to move on to a good primary school, which would, in turn, enhance the

future scholastic and career success of their children. Such beliefs of the parents

reflect the cultural value attached to achieving long-term success through efforts and

through making sacrifices in Chinese societies (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). With regard

to whether such cultural values influenced the government to implement the subsidy

scheme in its specific form, none of what Amy and Betty said seems to have touched

on that topic. The scheme appears to represent the government’s effort to deal with

a long history of neglect of preschool education, to suit the situation in which all

kindergartens were operated by private bodies, and to incur a cost to the government

which was much lower than that for fully financing all the kindergartens, but at the

same time, being able to ensure to some degree the quality of teaching in

kindergartens. Thus, the subsidy scheme seems to have been offered to suit the

situation of kindergarten education in the Territory at the time whether out of

consideration of specific cultural values or not. However, both Amy and Betty did

not express any discontent with the scheme, nor did they question in any way the

propriety or effectiveness of the scheme. This would suggest the acceptance by

these leaders of a scheme that was formulated by government authority. Their

acceptance can be viewed as reflective of the cultural orientation of high power

control in place in Hong Kong society (Hofstede, 1980, 2001).

In sum, in light of the fruitfulness of the findings gathered and implications

discussed in relation to the elements of the framework (issue of women in leadership,

the use of Bolman and Deal’s theory, the impact of wider systemic context, and the

role of culture), the framework developed for this study appears to be viable for

examining the leadership of kindergarten principals in the Territory.

206

Bolman and Deal’sfour leadership frames

Government subsidy scheme

•Culture of the society•Hofstede’s five dimensions

•Kindergarten leadership behavior•Motives, values and belief underlying leadership

Competition among kindergartens

Figure 10 Impact of culture on systemic contextual elements

7.6 Methodology used

This study explored how two kindergarten principals in Hong Kong conducted

their leadership; the beliefs, values and motives underlying their leadership conduct;

and how these are related to the issues of women in school leadership and the role of

culture in school leadership. An exploratory case study (Yin, 2003) was used to

gather data through in-depth interviews with and observations of the principals.

Rich and thick data were obtained pertaining to what these leaders did in their

natural work settings; the complexity of the beliefs, values and motives of these

principals that underpinned their leadership; the multiple and sometimes conflicting

demands they faced; and the ways the leaders experienced what they did. The

findings that the two principals had different interpretations of the same cultural

norm of femininity, and that they both enacted similar caring behaviour but for

different reasons, confirmed the value of investigating individuals in depth and from

their own perspectives. The methodology used therefore suited the aim of the

study.

207

The key difficulties in conducting this study had to do with the massive data

that were generated, different interpretations that could be made of the data, possible

subjectivity in the interpretations of the data gathered, and different possibilities in

presenting the data and interpretations. Fortunately, the two participants were

highly vocal, open, willing and non-defensive in revealing what they did, why they

did so, how they experienced what they did, and were also willing to spare time for

discussing the interpretations of the evidence, all of which facilitated the completion

of the study. The trustworthiness of the data and interpretations of what the

principals did, why they did so, and how they experienced their leadership is judged

to be high, based on the significant level of agreement by the participants with the

data recorded and the interpretations drawn. Nevertheless, while the agreement of

the participants could represent what they did in conducting their leadership and how

they experienced what they did, the agreement could also represent the participants’

re-interpretations of what they did at the time of the discussions for the purpose of

minimising the researcher’s subjectivity. One problem encountered had to do with

reporting some of the data in English, as all the data gathered from the interviews

were in Chinese. In these cases, when participants supplied idioms, and there

appeared to be no direct match in English to what they said, the interpreted meaning

of what was said was reported. Agreement was sought and obtained from the

participants as to whether the meaning reported matched with what they intended to

convey. Fortunately, such cases were few in number.

The evidence and interpretations made are considered as transferable (Merriam,

1998), in the sense that as information on the characteristics of the two Hong Kong

kindergartens, the forces for changes that two leaders faced, what the leaders did,

why they did so, and how they experienced their leadership has been furnished in

detail. Therefore, readers intending to apply the evidence and interpretations to

their own contexts may judge for themselves regarding the degree of match between

their context and the context of this study.

7.7 Conclusion

The data gathered and interpretations made enable an understanding of the

leadership of the two selected principals, and offer insights on the issues concerned,

permitting not just an understanding of the leadership enactment and experience of

208

the two principals, but also the processes underlying their leadership, such as the

relevance of specific cultural norms and values to the kindergarten settings. Future

research could explore the processes further, such as gathering patterns of leadership

from a large sample of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong to examine the extent

of similarity between what has been documented with the two principals and the

wider population of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong. Comparisons of

leadership of kindergarten principals across cultures may be conducted also to

examine the extent to which cultural values and norms are used as strategies of

influence. Further, cross-cultural comparisons can be made to explore if a

collaborative form of leading is preferred in kindergarten settings across cultures.

The mechanisms underlying such preferences, and the disparity between what is

preferred and what is practiced may also be investigated. Cross-cultural

comparison can also be made in future to examine whether more tension is

experienced by kindergarten principals in cultural contexts where there is

inconsistency between conceptions of femininity and hierarchal control than in

cultures where there is no such inconsistency. On a more practical side, future

studies could explore the extent of tension experienced by Hong Kong kindergarten

principals in relation to perceptions of inconsistency between cultural values, how

these principals cope with the inconsistency and how they could be assisted to cope.

209

Appendix A: Types of leadership theories

Types of Theories Authors Name of Theory Characteristics

First Type (Focus on personal traits or charisma)

Stogdill, 1950 Personal traits (Great Man Theory)

To examine the specific personal traits or charisma of great people

Fiedler, 1967 Contingency Theory To focus on situational factors (i.e. position power, leader-member relations, and task structure).

To examine whether a leader tend to adopt a task-oriented or a relation-oriented style to lead the subordinates.

Hersey & Blanchard, 1982

Situational Theory Identify four leadership styles (i.e. high task - low relationship, high task - high relationship, low task - high relationship, and low task - low relationship.).

The adoption of leadership depends on the maturity of the subordinates

Second Type

(Focus on situational factors)

Burns, 1978 Transformational Leadership. To raise the motivation and morality of staff, so as to achieve higher goals.

210

Appendix A (Continued)

Types of Theories Authors Name of Theory Characteristics

Sergiovanni, 1984 Identify five forces of leadership (i.e. Technical, human, educational, symbolic and cultural forces.).

A leadership force is defined as a strength of the leader that enables him or her to push the school forward towards effectiveness or to prevent the school from moving backward.

Bolman & Deal, 1984

Identify four frames of leadership (i.e. Structural, human resource, political, and symbolic frames.).

The four frames are defined as beliefs, frameworks or worldviews held by leaders which guide and shape how they interpret four different aspects of operation of an organisation, and determine what actions they will take in leading their group towards goal accomplishment.

Third Type

(organizational perspective and multi-dimensional

Cheng, 1994 Identify five dimensions of leadership (i.e. Structural, human resource, educational, political, and cultural dimensions.)

A combination of Bolman and Deal’s model (1984) and Sergiovanni’s model (1984).

Firestone & Wilson, 1985

Instructional leadership A comprehensive scheme of what leaders can do to promote instructional effectiveness

Fourth Type

( A variety of models that focus on different aspects of leadership)

Smith & Andrew, 1989

Instructional leadership Effective instructional leaders are those who provide relevant instructional and support resources, communicate the importance of instructions to their staff and maintain a visible presence on instructional matters.

211

Appendix B: Research on leadership of school principals in Hong Kong

Authors Year Design School

Level

Subjects/

Participants

Research Aims Findings

Cheng 1991 Questionnaires Secondary school

Teachers To measure how the teachers perceived their principal, and how they perceived organisational climate and effectiveness

Leadership of principal was related to organisational climate and effectiveness.

Chan, Cheng & Hau

1991 Questionnaires based on Yukl’s (1991) leadership taxonomy

Secondary school

Principals Teachers

To examine principals’ leadership functions.

To measure principals’ and teachers’ job satisfaction.

Leadership functions of principals were related to teachers’ job satisfaction.

Chan & Cheng

1993 Questionnaires Secondary school

Teachers To examine the impacts of instructional leadership on teachers’ teaching effectiveness.

Instructional leadership was positively correlated to teaching effectiveness.

Chiu, Sharpe & McCormick

1996 Questionnaires Secondary school

Teachers To examine how transformational leadership is associated with different characteristics of principal leadership in schools either under going restructuring, or not undergoing restructuring.

Transformational leadership was important to non-restructured school.

Low transformational leadership was important to restructured school.

212

Appendix B (Continued)

Authors Year Design School

Level

Subjects/

Participants

Research Aims Findings

Shum & Cheng

1997 Questionnaires based on the 5-dimension framework

Secondary school

Teachers To examine the perceptions and the attributes of female principals; and their impact on teachers’ job-related effectiveness.

More androgynous the principal was, the higher she was seen on the leadership dimensions.

The leadership dimensions were positively correlated with teachers’ effectiveness and attitude.

Kwok, Lo, Ng & Cheng

1997 Questionnaires based on the 5- dimension framework

Secondary school

New and experienced principals

To examine the self-efficacy and difficulties encountered.

Relatively lower on self-efficacy in beginning principals

Lee & Dimmock

1997 In-depth interview

Secondary school

Principals

Ass. Principals Teachers

To examine how curriculum or instructional leadership was conducted

Principals engaged themselves quite minimally in curriculum and instructional design, coordination, supervision and monitoring. They empowered the teachers to deal with curriculum and instruction matters. The principals were strong in symbolic but weak in structural leadership.

213

Appendix B (Continued)

Authors Year Design School

Level

Subjects/

Participants

Research Aims Findings

Cheng & Cheung

1999 Questionnaires based on the 5- dimension framework

Secondary school

Principals To examine the leadership profiles of principals

Principals were strong in structural and educational, moderate in human, and weak in political and cultural.

Cheng 1994 Questionnaires based on the 5- dimension framework

Primary school

Principals

Teachers

Students

To examine the extent to which the leadership of principals would affect the performance of the school.

Leadership was directly related to teachers’ performance.

Leadership was indirectly related to students’ performance.

Cheng 1996 Questionnaires based on the 5- dimension framework

Primary school

Principals Teachers

Students

To examine if organisational factors influence teachers’ professionalism, which in turn would affect teachers’ attitudes and students’ perceptions on teachers and their outcome

Leadership was related to teachers’ professionalism.

Teachers’ professional was related to students’ outcome.

214

Appendix B (Continued)

Authors Year Design School

Level

Subjects/

Participants

Research Aims Findings

Lee & Walker

1996 Questionnaires Primary school

Teachers To examine the teachers’ expectations of principals

Teachers’ expectations to principals included: consultation, communication, considerate, support, professional, new ideas and willing to change.

Dimmock & Walker

1997 Interview Secondary school & primary school

Principals To see if the change of sovereignty of Hong Kong has impact on educational policy and administration.

The principals believed that no major change on curriculum, administration and teaching, except religious freedom.

Walker & Dimmock

1999 Interview Secondary school & primary school

Principals To examine if dominant Chinese cultural values influence the behaviour of the principals

Facing dilemmas, principals preferred to maintain good relations with teachers. This is due to the cultural impact on principals’ performance.

215

Appendix C: Information statement

A Case Study of Leadership of Kindergarten Principals in Hong Kong

The aim of the research is to examine the leadership roles and behaviors of the

kindergarten principals in Hong Kong. The significance of the research is to add to

knowledge on leadership roles of the kindergarten principal and offer insights for

in-service training programs.

This research will be conducted in a period of six months to understand the

day-to-day practice of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong. Data will be

collected through observation, interview and documentation. The observations and

interviews will be recorded by cassette recorder. All the information will be kept in

strictest confidence. Participants can withdraw from the study whenever they wish.

216

. Appendix D: Consent form

I, ________________________, understand the purpose and the procedures of

the research. I am willing to participate in this research, and understand that

I can withdraw from the study anytime I like to.

_________________________________

___________________________

Signature of participant of the research Signature of the researcher

_______________________________

Date

217

Appendix E: Case study protocol

1. Scheduling of field visit: Date Name of participant Method Specific

aim Instrument Remarks/

Special arrangement

5 February Amy First interview Obtain general information about the kindergarten

Checklist/ Field notes/ Questions

Audio recording

12 February Betty First interview Obtain general information about the kindergarten

Checklist/ Field notes/ Questions

Audio recording

26 February Amy Second interview Structural frame Questions Audio recording 5 March Betty Second interview Structural frame Questions Audio recording 19 March Amy Third interview Human frame Questions Audio recording 26 March Betty Third interview Human frame Questions Audio recording 9 April Amy Fourth interview Political frame Questions Audio recording 16 April Betty Fourth interview Political frame Questions Audio recording 30 April Amy Fifth interview Symbolic frame Questions Audio recording 7 May Betty Fifth interview Symbolic frame Questions Audio recording 21 May Amy Sixth interview

(Following first observation)

Checklist/ Field notes

Audio recording

28 May Betty Sixth interview (Following first observation)

Checklist/ Field notes

Audio recording

11 June Amy Seventh interview (Following second observation)

Checklist/ Field notes

Audio recording

18 June Betty Seventh interview (Following second observation)

Checklist/ Field notes

Audio recording

2 July Amy Eighth interview Member checks Field notes Audio recording 9 July Betty Eighth interview Member checks Field notes Audio recording

2. Checklist for observations

3. Questions for interviews

4. Report/ summary of the data collection

(1) description

(2) coding

(3) data analysis

218

Appendix F: Checklist for observation

Name:

Date:

Time

Structural Frame/ Human Resource frame/ Political Frame/ Symbolic Frame

Check the

appropriateness

Description

Venue

Participants

And

Number

Principal ( )

Teachers ( )

Students ( )

Parents ( )

Others ( )

Activities/

Functions

Formal ( )

Informal ( )

Plan ( )

Unplanned ( )

Behaviour : Frequency

Duration

Recurrent

Verbal ( )

Non-verbal ( )

Non-happened

behaviour

Principal’s

rationale for the

behaviour or

action

Principal’s

feeling/ Beliefs

Note: Non-happened behaviour refers to instances of behaviour which reflect a specific leadership frame documented in Bolman and Deal’s (1984, 1991, 1992) research.

219

Appendix G: Form for making observation field notes

Name:

Date

Time Context Participants Description of Event/ Activities Interpretation

Of the Event

Comments/

Feelings

Verbal Expression Non- Verbal Behavior

220

Appendix H: Questions for the interviews

Personal Particulars: 1. Name of participant: 2. Name of kindergarten: 3. Academic Background: 4. Experience as a principal: A. General questions: 1. What are the areas of work you think a kindergarten principal needs to deal with?

What areas of work do you need to handle as the principal in your school? 2. Which aspects of work do you think are more important than others are so that

you usually put in more effort to handle them? 3. How do you usually go about completing the various different tasks in your

school? Independently, empowering, delegating, or a combination of two or more of these means? Why? (Is the second sentence here used as a prompt if participants is not sure of question, or as part of the initial question?

B. Questions from Bolman & Deal’s (1984) four leadership frames

Structural frame: 1. Point out the various administrative tasks that you or your staff need to handle

in your kindergarten. Who is in charge of each of the tasks? Why is that person in charge? Are there established principles and procedures you for the person in charge to follow to complete the work?

2. What are the most difficult things you have encountered in accomplishing the administrative work (e.g. making decision, resources, time, co-operation and support from staff, politics.) of your school, and why so?

Human resource frame:

1. How would you describe your relationship with your superior, subordinates, students, and students’ parents?

2. How do you come to know the job-related needs and expectations of these various partners in your work?

3. Do you need to offer some kind of support to your staff, and if so, how do you do it?

4. How do you communicate with your staff, students, students’ parents, and the community? How frequently do you communicate with these people? Have you come across any difficulties in communicating with, getting along with, or getting access to these people?

5. Do you think you need to develop a better relationship with your teachers, students, or students’ parents? If so, why so? How do you think you can accomplish this?

Political frame: 1. How do you go about making decisions on school matters? Whom do you talk

to or discuss with when you need to make important decisions? Are teachers involved or invited to make decisions? If not, why not? If so, in what ways?

221

Appendix H (Continued)

2. How do you obtain support for your policies and/or views from the different

people (Supervisor, teachers, students and parents) in your kindergarten? What do you do if these people do not accept or think highly of your policies and/or views? What are the means or strategies you use to convince or influence these people?

3. Do you have any problems in leading your staff? What problems have you encountered in competently or successfully leading your staff? Why have such problems developed?

4. What do you usually do when conflicts arise in your kindergarten (e.g. between you and teachers, teachers and teachers, teachers and students, or teachers and students’ parents)?

5. How is power distributed or allocated in your kindergarten? Why is it so? Have there been problems related to such distribution or allocation of power?

Symbolic frame: 1. What ideas, values, and/or goals do you think are important or valuable to your

school, and why so? 2. How do you help your staff realize or identify with such ideas, values, and/or

goals? 3. Do you provide any directions to your staff in relation to promoting the ideas,

values, and/or goals that you think are important to your school? What form do these directions take, and why?

4. What is the image about you that you want your staff to develop?

222

Appendix I: Use of documents

Frame

Document

Structural Human Resource Political Symbolic

Routine Record, School Regulations Planning, organizing, and coordinating

skill

Interpersonal relations. - Manipulation of power

- Leading strategies

- Principal’s expectations of the

teachers and students.

- Principal’s beliefs, values, faith, and

commitment.

Agenda/

Minutes/

Memos

Planning, organizing and coordinating

school activities.

- Discussion about allocation or

purchase of resources, school

personnel affairs.

- Activities enhancing interpersonal

relations.

- Decision making process

- Involvement of teachers in decision

making.

- Leading strategies

- Problems encountered

- Problem solving

Discussion of particular issue may reflect

the beliefs and values.

Government Document Effect on school plan Effects on staffing. Effects on school policy and school

administration.

Rationale and values expressed?

223

Appendix I (Continued)

Program Records

(Curriculum Plan, Lesson Plan, workshop,

seminar, etc.)

Planning, organizing, coordinating, and

evaluation skills

- Involvement of teachers and students

and communities in school activities,

and decision making

- Opportunity for interaction among

people.

Delegation and distribution of power Beliefs, and values can be reflected from

teaching and learning activities

Financial Records Planning, organizing, and coordinating

skills

- Planning for staff development

- Expenditure on staff relations

- Expenditure of school activities reflects

the beliefs and values on teaching and

learning

Teacher Appraisal/

Self-Evaluation

Planning for quality assurance and the

mechanism of quality control

Peer support Criteria in assessing staff

- Principal’s expectations of teachers

- Importance of self-reflection

School Calendar/

Time Table

Planning for school activities in an

academic year

Special activities for enhancing

interpersonal relations

Beliefs and values on school activities

Diaries - Administrative activities

- Time management

- Regular appointments and

interrelations with teachers and

parents.

- Involvement of the communities.

Beliefs and values on the importance of

school activities

Telephone listings Relations with teachers, parents,

communities, and education department

Photo Albums Relationship with teachers, students and

parents and the communities

Beliefs and values on different kind of

activities.

224

Appendix J: Transcriptions

Leadership Frames S= Sturctural, H= Human P= Political, B= Symbolic O= Other

Interview Diary Document Observation

S H P B O

Principal roles “My roles are to lead the school, to supervise the teachers and students, to plan for school curriculum, to provide guidelines and instructions to the teachers, and to promote and improve the school quality of education provided by the school.” (1)

The principal’s work included organizing school activities (e.g. planning procedures and buying things), administrative tasks, financial management, curriculum planning, supervision of teachers and students, allocation of staff members and work, staff development, communication with the school personnel and the Education Department, liaison, calling meetings, school premise maintenance and involvement in the school activities. (J1, J2)

Instructions on the allocation of work, job descriptions of the teachers, sharing of school facilities and equipment, regulations of using equipment, caring of students, school activities, deadlines of work and etc. (D2-M1 to D2-M7)

S

225

Appendix J (Continued)

Leadership Frames S= Sturctural, H= Human P= Political, B= Symbolic O= Other

Interview Diary Document Observation

S H P B O

Principal roles

Financial Management: Checked and paid the bills Went to the bank.

S

Principal roles

Maintenance: Checked on the school building including the toilets and the kitchen. (J1) Liaised with the Housing Department about the maintenance of the school building. (J1) Liaised with a company about cleaning the air conditioners of the kindergarten. (J1)

S

226

Appendix J (Continued)

Leadership Frames S= Sturctural, H= Human P= Political, B= Symbolic O= Other

Interview Diary Document Observation

S H P B O

Principal roles

Paper work: Took care of letters. (J1) Filled out forms for renting a hall for the graduation ceremony. (J1) Drafted and arranged the printing of the program for the graduation ceremony. (J1)

On 26.5.99, the principal read students’ book report, letters and commercials, wrote letters to parents, and prepared some information for the teachers to circulate. On 15.6.99, the principal read letters and filled out a form to the Education Department to report on the number of students in the kindergarten. She made plan on manpower allocation for next academic year. She wrote the graduates’ names on the graduation certificates. On 29.6.99, the principal read lesson plans prepared by teachers.

S

227

Appendix J (Continued)

Leadership Frames S= Sturctural, H= Human P= Political, B= Symbolic O= Other

Interview Diary Document Observation

S H P B O

Principal roles

Contacts with the Education Department: Filled out forms to report on the number and the age of students in the school. (J4) Called the ED to ask for further information about how to filling out the forms. (J4)

On 15.6.99, the principal filled out a form to be sent to the Education Department to report on the number of students in the kindergarten.

S

228

Appendix J (Continued)

Leadership Frames S= Sturctural, H= Human P= Political, B= Symbolic O= Other

Interview Diary Document Observation

S H P B O

Principal roles

Telephone calls: Called the assistant principal to check on matters related to the kindergarten. (J1)

On 26.5.99, 15.6.99, 29.6.99, the principal called the assistant principal of another branch of the kindergarten to check on student recruitment matters. She discussed with the assistant principal on phone the arrangement of the graduation ceremony, summer courses, and a picnic. The principal called the accountant to check on some bills. She called the custodian to distribute certain pamphlets to people in the neighbourhood. She called a book publisher to order textbooks for students.

S

229

Appendix J (Continued)

Leadership Frames S= Sturctural, H= Human P= Political, B= Symbolic O= Other

Interview Diary Document Observation

S H P B O

Principal roles

Telephone calls/ Faxes On 26.5.99, 15.6.99, 29.6.99, the principal received phone calls about the transportation fee for a picnic, the fee for conducting a summer course, and buying toys for students. Received a fax from an organization about offering summer courses for student.

S

Principal roles

Called meetings Minutes of school meetings. (D2-M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7)

On 24.4.99, the principal called a school meeting. (M1) The principal made decisions on certain school matters, asked for feedback from the teachers and provided guidelines to the teachers to follow. (M1)

S P

230

Appendix J (Continued)

Leadership Frames S= Sturctural, H= Human P= Political, B= Symbolic O= Other

Interview Diary Document Observation

S H P B O

Principal roles

School bus fee: Discussed with the driver about the fee of school bus for children, and decided not to change the fee. (J3)

26.5.99, received a phone call from a bus company about the fee for booking a bus.

S

Principal roles

Checked on the fire hoses and extinguishers of the school. (J1)

Made a plan on the safety procedure at the school. Arranged a fire escape exercise for children, and gave procedure and instructions to the teachers on this matter. (D2-M4)

On 26.5.99, called a clerk to check on the brand of the extinguisher they were using.

S

231

Parents Children Staff

Means of Interaction Communication Rationale

Formal: - Discussion

for staff appraisal. 297

- Staff meetings. 503, 569

Informal - expressing

views 302 - Having

lunch. 491 - Chatting in

the classroom. 493

- Memos, notice, verbally 573

- Assessment 35, 553

- Caring & support 537

- Knowing staff difficulties 619

Rationale

- Caring & support 505

- Knowing the children 525

Formal: - Establish

parent – teacher Association.559

- Parent conference 504

- One-to-one meeting 504

Communication

- Establish relationship 557

- Collect views 603, 605

Rationale

Formal: - Assembly

499, 506 Informal: - Visiting

classroom 495

- Group activities, outdoor activities, 506

- Tea break 506 - Counseling

282

Human Relations (Interactions)

Appendix K: An example of mapping system

232

Appendix L: Examples from the coding system

(AV-1)

Amy Interview the first map

This indicates the data were from the interview with

Amy shown in the first page of the Amy’s data map.

(BR-2)

Betty Diary The second map

This indicates the data were from the diaries written

by Betty shown in the second page of the Betty’s data

map.

(AO-1)

Amy Observation The first map

This indicates the data were from the first observation

of Amy.

(BD2-M2)

Betty Document Meeting

This indicates the data were from the documents

collected from Betty. The information was about a

meeting on the second set of document file.

233

Appendix M: Identification number of statements

ID No.

Researcher/

Participant

Questions and answers

1. R: 你認為一般校長應該擔任哪些職務?

2. P: 主要是行政上的職務,領導著整間學校、老師,而且也需監

管老師的質素。總之事無大小,也須牽涉我在內。有一些工

作雖是給予主任負責,然而我也為其提供工作的指引。

3. P: 如有什麼活動舉行如畢業典禮,我也需想像所有可能發生

的事情,然後清楚交帶給老師,因有時我若說得不詳盡,那麼

實際活動便會有別於我原定的。

4. P: 甚至連學生的秩序、放學程序等我也會兼顧。

5. P: 所以我(校長)學校的事無大少雖不是每一件事也親力親

為,但至少雖提供負責的老師、員工一個清晰、明確的指引,

另外,更要 supervise 跟進有關工作,監督著工作的進度。

6. P: 此外,我也需計劃校內的事務,解決難題,如當推行一個新計

劃,欲改進學校的質素。

234

Translated versions of Appendix M: Identification number of statements

ID No.

Researcher/

Participant

Questions and answers

7. R: 你認為一般校長應該擔任哪些職務?

What, in your view, are your duties and responsibilities as the principal?

8. P: 主要是行政上的職務,領導著整間學校、老師,而且也需監

管老師的質素。總之事無大小,也須牽涉我在內。有一些工

作雖是給予主任負責,然而我也為其提供工作的指引。

Mainly administrative, leading the whole kindergarten, the teachers. Also, monitor the teachers and ensure they do well. I am involved in all the matters related to the kindergarten. I designate some of the work to the assistant principal, but I give them instructions and guidelines.

9. P: 如有什麼活動舉行如畢業典禮,我也需想像所有可能發生

的事情,然後清楚交帶給老師,因有時我若說得不詳盡,那麼

實際活動便會有別於我原定的。

When we are going to hold certain activities, such as the graduation ceremony, I think of all the things that could happen, all the different scenarios that can emerge, and then I give the teachers concerned detailed and clear instructions on what they should be doing. Otherwise, things could happen in ways different from what I wanted.

10. P: 甚至連學生的秩序、放學程序等我也會兼顧。

I have to decide on the sequence of steps we take in releasing children from the kindergarten at the end of the school day.

235

Translated versions of Appendix M (Continued)

11. P: 所以我(校長)學校的事無大少雖不是每一件事也親力親

為,但至少雖提供負責的老師、員工一個清晰、明確的指引,

另外,更要 supervise 跟進有關工作,監督著工作的進度。

I am involved in almost everything happening in the kindergarten. Of course, I am not able to do that for some of the tasks, because I can’t be doing several things at the same time. When I delegate teachers or the assistant principal to handle certain tasks, I give them detailed and clear instructions. I also supervise and monitor them closely to ensure that they are making the kind of progress I told them.

12. P: 此外,我也需計劃校內的事務,解決難題,如當推行一個新計

劃,欲改進學校的質素。

In addition, I do the planning for things related to the kindergarten. I deal with difficulties and problems we have, such as when we try out a new thing to improve the kindergarten, I do the planning and solve the problems in implementing the new task.

236

Appendix N: Ethical clearance

237

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47(12), 1597-1611.

Apodaca-Tucker, M. T., & Slate, J. R. (2002). School-based management: View from public and private elementary school principals. Educational Policy and Analysis Archives, 10(23), 214-224.

Aubrey, C., David, T., Godfrey, R., & Thompson, L. (2000). Early childhood educational research: Issues in methodology and ethics. London: Routledge Falmer Press.

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951-968.

Bajdo, L. M., & Dickson, M. W. (2001). Perceptions of organizational culture and women’s advancement in organizations: A cross-cultural examination. Sex Roles, 45(5/6), 399-414.

Baker, R. G., & Dellar, G. (1999). If it’s not one thing it’s another: Issues of concern to school principals. International Studies in Educational Administration, 27, 12-21.

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., de Bour, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Job demands and job resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(2), 341-356.

Ball, S. (1994). Competitive schooling: Values, ethics and cultural engineering. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 9(4), 350-367.

Banister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M., & Tindall, C. (1994). Qualitative methods in psychology: A research guide. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Barber, A. (1996). School reform, managerial approaches and teacher unions. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.)

238

International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 171-194). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Barnett, K., McCormick, J., & Conners, R. (2001). Transformational leadership in schools – panacea, placebo or problem? Journal of Educational Administration, 39(1), 24-46.

Barack, L. (2005). Field trips, minus the smelly bus ride. School Library Journal, 51(6), 24.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. London: Collier Macmillan.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for multi-factors leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychology Press.

Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications. New York: Free Press.

Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Belgane, E. (2001). Principals who faced obstacles to learning style instruction. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 85(627), 79-84.

Bell, L. (1999). Back to the future: The development of educational policy in England. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(3), 200-229.

Bell, L., & Rowley, A. (2002). The impact of educational policy on headship in primary schools in England, 1994-2001. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(3), 195-210.

Bennett, N., & Anderson, L. (2002). Rethinking educational leadership. London: Sage.

Bennis,W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Organizational learning: The management of the collective self. New Management, 3(1), 6-8.

Birch, C. (1998). Research notes: Marketing awareness in UK primary schools. Journal of Marketing Practice, 4(2), 57-63.

239

Blackmore, J. (1990). The text and context of vocationalism: Issues in post-compulsory curriculum in Australia since 1970. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22(2), 177-184.

Blackmore, J. (1999). Troubling women: Feminism, leadership, and educational change. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Blackmore, J. (2004). Leading as emotional management work in high risk times: The counterintuitive impulses of performativity and passion. School Leadership and Management, 24(4), 339-459

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1998). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349-378.

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Implementation of shared governance of instructional improvement: Principals’ perspective. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(5), 476-500.

Blase, J., Dedrick, C., & Strathe, M. (1986). Leadership behaviour of school principals in relation to teachers stress, satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 24, 159-171.

Bogdan R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (4th ed). Boston: Pearson Education Group.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi-frame, multi-sector analysis. Human Resource Management, 30(4), 509-534.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1992). Leading and managing: Effects of context, culture, and gender. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 314-329.

Bolman L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

240

Bommer, W. H., Rubin, R. S., & Baldwin, T. T. (2004). Setting the stage for effective leadership: antecedents of transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 15(2), 195-210.

Bond, M., & Hwang, K. (1986). The social psychology of the Chinese people. In M. Bond (Ed.) The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 213-265). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., Lee, G. (1982). The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 34-64.

Bradley, P. (2004). The roles that principals play. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 14-21.

Brady, L. (1985). The supportiveness of the principal in school-based curriculum development. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(1), 95-97.

Bredekamp, S. (1989). Regulating child care quality: Evidence from NAEYC's accreditation system: An NAEYC policy perspective. Washington, D.C.: NAEYC.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

Bush, T. (1996). Theories of educational management. London: Chapman.

Bush, T. (1999). Crisis or Crossroads? The discipline of educational management in the late 1990s. Educational Management and Administration, 27(3), 239-252.

Bush, T., & Bell, L (2002). The principles and practice of educational management. Educational management: Research and practice. London: Educational Resources Information Center.

Caldwell, B. (1995). Megatrends hampered by micro pace. The Times Educational Supplement, 4109, iii.

Caldwell, B. J. (1998). Strategic leadership resource management and effective school reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(5), 445-461.

241

Carley, K. (1997). Network text analysis: The network position of concepts. In C. W. Roberts (Ed.), Text analysis for the social sciences: Methods for drawing statistical inferences from texts and transcripts (pp. 79-100). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong Government (1992). Results of Census. Hong Kong.

Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong Government (1993). Results of Census. Hong Kong.

Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong Government (2002). Results of Census. Hong Kong.

Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong Government (2003). Results of Census. Hong Kong.

Chan, B., Cheng, Y. C., & Hau, K. T. (1991). A technical report on the study of principal-teachers relationship in Hong Kong secondary schools. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.

Chan, C. Y. (2002). Famous schools? Small Writers, 15, 7-12.

Chan, Y. C., & Cheng, Y. C. (1993). A study of principals' instructional leadership in Hong Kong secondary schools. Educational Research Journal, 8, 56-67.

Chaplain, R. P. (2001). Stress and job satisfaction among primary headteachers: A question of balance. Educational Management and Administration, 29(2), 197-215.

Chapman, E. N., & O’Neil, S. L. (2000). Leadership: Essential steps every manager needs to know. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Chapman, J. (1996). A new agenda for a new society. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corsan, P. Hallinger & B. Hart. (Eds). International handbook of educational leadership and management. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Cheng, K. M., & Wong, K. C. (1996). School effectiveness in East Asia: Concepts, origins and implications. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 32-49.

242

Cheng, Y. C. (1991). Strategies for conceptualizing research on school administration: An effectiveness approach. Education Journal, 19(1), 69-81.

Cheng, Y. C. (1994). Principal’s leadership as a critical indicator of school performance: Evidence from multi-levels of primary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 5, 299-317.

Cheng, Y. C. (1996). Relation between teachers’ professionalism and job attitudes, educational outcomes and organizational factors. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(3), 163-171.

Cheng, Y. C. (2000). Cultural factors in educational effectiveness: A framework for comparative research. School Leadership and Management, 20(2), 207-225.

Cheng, Y. C. (2002). Towards the third wave of school effectiveness and improvement in Hong Kong: Internal, interface and future. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 1-5.

Cheng, Y. C., & Cheung, W. M. (1999). Towards school-based management: Uncertainty, meaning, opportunity, and development. International Journal of Educational Reform, 8(1), 25-36.

Cheung, R. M. B. (2000). Securing a better future: A Hong Kong school principal’s perception of leadership in times of change. In C. Dimmock and A. Walker (Eds.). Future school administration: Western and Asian perspectives (pp. 225-248). Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press.

Christians, C. G. (2000). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Chiu, K. H. (2004). Passion for education. Hong Kong: Jing Jing.

Chiu, H. S., Sharpe, F. G., & McCormick, J. (1996). Vision and leadership of principals in Hong Kong. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(3), 30-48.

Chu, N. C. (1996). Culture of Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Sun Wah.

243

Clarke, S., & Wildy, H. (2004). Viewing small school leadership from the inside out. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(5), 555-572.

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.

Cohen, N. E., & Pompa, D. (1996). Multicultural perspectives on quality. In S. L. Kagan and N. Cohen (Eds.) Reinventing early care and education: A vision for a quality system. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Coleman, M. (2000). The female secondary headteachers in England and Wales: leadership and management styles. Educational Research, 42(1), 13-27.

Coleman, M. (2003). Gender and the orthodoxies of leaders. School Leadership and Management, 23(3), 325-339.

Collard, J. L. (2001). Leadership and gender: an Australian perspective. Educational Management and Administration, 29(3), 343-355.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic leadership : The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Conners, R. D., & Sharpe, F. G. (1996). Devolution and the changing role of the principal: dilemmas and a research agenda. In S. L. Jacobson, E. S. Hickox, & R. S. Stevenson (Eds.), School administration: persistent dilemmas in preparation and practice (pp. 226-246). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Cranston, N., Ehrich, L., & Billot, J. (2002). The secondary school principals in Australia and New Zealand: An investigation of changing roles. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 2(3), 159-188.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Cronback, R. (1975). Beyond the two divisions of scientific psychology. American Psychologists, 30(2), 116-127.

244

Cubillo, L., & Brown, M. (2003). Women into educational leadership and management: International differences? Journal of Educational Administration, 41(3), 278-291.

Culkin, M. L. (2000). Managing quality in young children's programs: The leader's role. New York: Teachers College Press.

Curry, B. K. (2000). Women in power: Pathways to leadership in education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dempster, N., & Berry, V. (2003). Blinded in a mine-field: Principal ethical decision making. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 457-478.

Dempster, N., Carter, L., Freakley, M., & Parry, L. (2004). Conflicts, confusion and contradiction in principals’ ethical decision making. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(4), 450-461.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research (pp.1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dimmock, C. (1998). Restructuring Hong Kong’s school: The applicability of western theories, policies and practices to an Asian culture. Educational Management and Administration, 26(4), 363-377.

Dimmock, C. (1999). The management of dilemmas in school restructuring: A case analysis. School Leadership and Management, 19(1), 97-113.

Dimmock. C. (2000). Designing the learning-centred school: a cross-cultural perspective. London: Falmer Press.

Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (1997). Hong Kong’s change of sovereignty: School leader perceptions of the effects on educational policy and school administration. Comparative Education, 33(2), 277-302.

Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (1998). Comparative educational administration: Developing a cross-cultural conceptual framework. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(4), 558-595.

245

Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2000). Developing comparative and international educational leadership and management. Educational Leadership and Management, 20(2), 143-160.

Dobbins, G. H., & Platz, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in leadership: How real are they? The Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 118-127.

Doherty, G., Friendly, M., & Forer, B. (2002). Child care by default or design. An exploration of differences between non-profit and for-profit Canadian child care centres using the you Bet I Care data sets. Occasional Paper, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.

Donnell, S. M., & and Hall, J. (1980). Men and women as managers: A significant case of no significant difference. Organizational Dynamics, 8(4), 60-77.

Duignan, P. A. & Collins, V. (2003). Leadership challenges and ethical dilemma in front-line organizations. In N. Bennett, M. Crawford, and M. Cartwright. (Eds.) Effective educational leadership (pp.281-294). London: Paul Chapman.

Duignan, P. A. & Macpherson, R. J. S. (1992). Educative leadership: A practical theory for new administrators and managers. London: Falmer Press.

Ebbeck, M. A., & Waniganayake, M. (2003). Early childhood professionals: Leading today and tomorrow. Sydney, NSW: MacLennan and Petty Pty.

Ebrahimi, B. P. (1999). Managerial motivation and gender roles: A study of females and males in Hong Kong. Women in Management Review, 14(2), 44-53.

Edson, S. K. (1988). Pushing the Limits: The female administrative aspirant. New York: State University of New York Press.

Education and Manpower Bureau (2003). Preschool education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Press.

Education and Manpower Bureau (2004). Preschool education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Press.

Education Commission. (2000). Learning for life, learning through life: Reform proposals for the education system in Hong Kong. Retrieved July 14, 2004, from http://www.e-c.edu.hk/eng/reform/rf1.html

246

Education Department. (1985). Guide to the kindergarten curriculum. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Press.

Education Department. (1993). Education in Hong Kong: A brief account of the educational system with statistical summary. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Press.

Education Department. (1994). Information sheet. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Press.

Education Department. (1995). Report of the reconstituted working party on kindergarten education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Press.

Education Department. (1996). Guide to the pre-primary curriculum. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Press.

Education Department. (2000). Performance indicators (for Kindergartens). (First Edition). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Press.

Education Department. (2002). Kindergarten. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Press.

Edwards, A. (2001). Qualitative design and analysis. In G. MacNaughton, S. A. Rolfe, & I. Siraj-Blatchford (Eds.) Doing early childhood research: International perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 117-135). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Ellison, C., & Barbour. N. (1992). Changing child care systems through collaborative efforts: Challenges for the 1990s. Child and Youth Care Forum, 21(5), 299-316.

Erickson, F. (1986). Cultural differences and science education. Urban Review, 18(2), 117-124.

Evetts, J. (1994). The new headteacher: The changing work culture of secondary headship. School Organisation, 14(1), 37-47.

Feistritzer, P. (1987). Resources for teaching the American Black experience. Momentum, 18(1), 29-30.

247

Fennell, H. (1999). Power in the principalship: Four women's experiences. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(1), 23-49.

Ferguson, E. and S. Prentice. (2000). Exploring parental involvement in Canada: An ideological maze. In J. Hayden (Ed.) Landscapes in Early Childhood Services: Cross-National Perspectives on Empowerment (pp. 219-237). Sydney: Peter Lang Publishing.

Fidler, B. (1997). School leadership: Some key ideas. School Leadership and Management, 17(l), 23-37.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: The McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Firestone, W. A. (1987). Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 16(7), 16-21.

Firestone, W. A., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Using bureaucratic and cultural linkages to improve instruction: The principal's contribution, Educational Administration Quarterly, 21(l), 7-30.

Fitzgerald, T. (2003). Changing the deafening silences of indigenous women’s voices in educational leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(1), 9-23.

Fleer, M., & Waniganayake, M. (1994). The Education and Development of Early Childhood Professionals in Australia. Australian Journal of Early childhood, 19(3), 3-13.

Foskett, N., & Lumby, J. (2003). Leading and managing education: International dimensions. London: Paul Chapman.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: New York: Falmer Press.

Gammage, P. (1999). Review paper: The once and future child. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 7(2), 103-117.

Gammage, P. (2000). Fitness for purpose: Early childhood and its implications for professionals in the ‘post-natural’ world. Today for Tomorrow, 31(1), 11-23.

248

Getzel, H., Lipham, J., & Campbell, R. (1968). Educational administration as a social process. New York: Harper & Row.

Ginsberg & Davis, (2003). The emotional side of leadership. In N, Bennett, M. Crawford, and M. Cartwright (Eds.). Effective Educational leadership (pp.267-280). London: Paul Chapmen.

Glasman, N. S. (1988). Mandated student testing and the school principal: An emerging case in California. Journal of Educational Administration, 20(1), 74-82.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York: Longman.

Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plain, N.Y.: Longman.

Gold, A., Evans, J., Earley, P., Halpin, D., & Collarbone, P. (2003). Principled principals: Evidence from ten case studies of outstanding schools. Educational Management and Administration, 31(2), 127-138.

Goodwin, C. J. (1995). Research in psychology methods and design. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 357-374.

Gronn, P. (2002). The new work of educational leaders. London: Paul Chapman

Gross, N., & Trask, A. E. (1976). The sex factor and management of schools. New York: John Wiley.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gunter, H. (1997). Rethinking education: The consequences of Jurassic management. London: Cassell.

249

Hall, V. (1996). Dancing on the ceiling: A study of women managers in education. London: Paul Chapman.

Hall, V. (1997). Dusting off the phoenix. Educational Management and Administration, 25(3), 309-324.

Hall. V. (1999). Gender and education management: duel or dialogue? In T. Bush, L. Bell, R. Bolam, R. Glatter, & P. Ribbins (Eds.). Educational Management: Redefining Theory, Policy and Practive (pp.155-165). London: Paul Chapman.

Hall, V., & Southworth, G. (1997). Headship. School Leadership and Management, 17(2), 151-170.

Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to instructional to transformational leader. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), 35-48.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191.

Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. (2002). What do you call people with vision? The role of vision, mission and goals in school leadership and improvement. In Leithwood, K., & Hallinger, P. (2002). Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 9-14). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1996). Culture and educational administration: A case of finding out what you don’t know you don’t know. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 98-116.

Hara, K. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative research approaches in education. Education, 115(3), 351.

Hardy, L. (1997). Pay to play. American School Board Journal, 184(8), 25-27.

250

Harvey, F. (1997). National cultural differences in theory and practice evaluating Hofstede’s national cultural framework. Information Technology & People, 10(2), 132-146.

Harvey, J. (1996). Marketing schools and consumer choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 10(4), 26-32.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, New York : State University of New York Press.

Hayden, J. (1995). Applying early childhood principles in extraordinary circumstances -- child care in a refugee camp, Child Care Information Exchange, 104, 64-66.

Hayden, J. (1996). Management of early childhood services: An Australian perspective. Wentworth Falls, N.S.W.: Social Science Press.

Hayes, D. (1995). The primary head's tale: Collaborative relationships in a time of rapid change. Educational Management and Administration, 23(4), 233-244.

Hayes, D., Christie, P. Mills, M., & Lingard, B. (2004). Productive leaders and productive leadership. Journal of Education, 42(5), 520-538.

Heck, R. H. (1991). Towards the future: Rethinking the leadership role of the principal as philosopher-king. Journal of Educational Administration, 29(3), 67-79.

Heck, R. (1996). Leadership and culture: Conceptual and methodological issues in comparing models across cultural settings. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 74-97.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men and women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(6), 935-942.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1988). The vagaries of sex bias: Conditions regulating the under-evaluation, equivaluation, and over-valuation of female job applicants. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41(1), 98-110.

251

Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women’s way of leading. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Henderson-Kelly, L., & Pamphilon, B. (2000). Women’s models of leadership in the child care sector. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25(1), 8-12.

Henkin, A. B., Cistone, P. J., & & Dee, J. R. (2000). Conflict management strategies of principals in site-based management schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 142-158.

Herbert, D. (2000). School choice in the local environment: Headteachers as gatekeepers on an uneven playing field. School Leadership and Management, 20(1), 79-97.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Leadership style: Attitudes and behaviors. Training and Development Journal, 36(5), 50-52.

Hill, M. S., & Ragland, J.C. (1995). Women as educational leader: Opening windows, pushing ceilings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Ho, C. H., Liu, P. L., & Lau, S. Y. (2002). An investigation into the teaching of Chinese handwriting at Hong Kong kindergarten. New Horizons in Education, 46, 51-56.

Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. H. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hollander, E. P. (1985). Leadership and power. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds). Handbook of social psychology (pp. 485-537). New York: Random House.

Hong Kong Economic Times (2001). Teaching approaches in kindergartens in the Territory. Hong Kong.

Hong Kong Government (1998). Hong Kong Annual Report. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Press.

252

Hong Kong Government Archive (1997). Chapter 3: Consultation papers and consultancy reports: Report on review of 9-year compulsory October 1997 education (revised version). Retrieved July 8, 2002 from http://www.info.gov.hk/emb/eng/archive/consult/rep/content/html

House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321-338.

Hoy, W. K. (1994). Foundations of educational administration: Traditional and emerging perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(2), 178-198.

Hoy, W. K., Hannum, J., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). School organizational climate and student achievement: A parsimonious view. Journal of School Leadership, 8, 1-22.

Hujola, E. J. & Puroila, A. (1998). Towards understanding leadership in early childhood context. ACTA: Universitatis Oulensis Oulu: Finland: Oulu University Press.

Humphries, E., & Senden, B. (2000). Leadership in child care: A dialogue. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25(1), 26-31.

Hurty, K. (1995). Women principals leading with power. In D. Dunlap, and P. Schmuck (Eds.) Women leading in education (pp. 380-406). New York: SUNY Press.

Hwang, K. (1999). Filial piety and loyalty: Two types of social identification in Confucianism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 163-183.

Hwang, K. K. (2000). Introducing human rights education in the Confucian society of Taiwan: Its implications for ethical leadership in education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(4), 321-332.

Iannaccone, L., & Jamgochian, R. (1985). High performing curriculum and instructional leadership in the climate of excellence. NASSP Bulletin, 69(481), 28-35.

Imants, J. G., & De Bradbander, C. J., (1996). Teachers’ and principals’ sense of efficacy in elementary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(2), 179-195.

253

Jamison, L. S. (1997). Leadership -- Is gender an Issue? Women’s leadership in the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: The Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2000). Educational research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Jorde-Bloom, P. (1992). The child care center director: A critical component of program quality. Educational Horizon, Spring, 138-145.

Jorde-Bloom, P. (1995). Shared decision making: the centerpiece of participatory Management. Young Children, 55-60.

Jorde-Bloom, P. (1997). A great place to work: Improving conditions for staff in young children's programs. Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Kagan, S. L. (2000). On being president: Heart, head, and hands. From our president. Young Children, 55(5), 4-5.

Kagan, S. L., & Neuman, M. J. (2003). Integrating early care and education. Educational Leadership. 60(7), 58-63.

Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Katz, L. G. (1997). The prophecy approach. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, Champaign, ILL.

Kitch, S. L. (1994). Women in Management. In Carol W. Konek & Sally L. Kitch (eds). Women and Careers: Issues and Challenge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Konek, C. W., & Kitch, S. L. (Eds.)(1994). Women and careers: Issues and challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Konczak, L. J., Stelly, D., & Trusty, M. L. (2000). Defining and measuring empowering leader behaviors: development of an upward feedback instrument, Educational & Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 301-312.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press.

254

Kropienwnicki, M. I., & Shapiro, J. P. (2001). Female leadership and the ethic of care: Three case studies. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Seattle, Washington, April 10-14, 2001).

Krug, S. E. (1992). Instructional leadership: A constructivist perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 430-443.

Kruger, M. L. (1996). Gender issues in school headship: Quality versus power? European Journal of Education, 31(4), 447-461.

Kwok, M. L., Lo, S. K., Ng, M. B., & Cheng, Y. C. (1997). New and experienced secondary school principals: Leadership, management difficulties, confidence, efficacy, and satisfaction. Educational Research Journal, 12 (1), 60-72.

Lakomski, G. (2001). Organizational change, leadership and learning: Culture as cognitive process. International Journal of Educational Management, 15(2), 68-77.

Lau, S. K., Lee, M. K., Wan, P. S., & Wong, S. L. (2003). Indicators of social development. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.

Lauder, H., & Hughes, D. (1999). Trading in futures: Why markets in education don’t work. (ED453584).

LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research, (2nd ed.). San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Lee, M. N. (2000). The politics of educational change in Malaysia. In T. Townsend, & Y. C. Cheng (Eds.) Educational change and development in the Asian Pacific regions; Challenges for the future (pp. 107-132). Lisse, the Netherland: Swetsch Zellinger.

Lee, J. C. K., & Walker, 1996). Images of leadership: Pre-service teachers’ expectations of school leaders. New Horizon in Education, 37, 29-38.

Legislative Council (2004). Information on kindergarten education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.

255

Leithwood, K. (1996). Commitment-building approaches to school restructuring: Lessons from a longitudinal study. Journal of Education Policy, 11(3), 377-398.

Leithwood, K. (2001). School leadership in a context of accountability policies, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(3), 217-235.

Leithwood, K., Chapman, J., Corson, D., Hallinger, P., & Hart, A. (1996). International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Leithwood, K., & Hallinger, P. (2002). Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1990). Transformational leadership: How principals can help reform school cultures. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(4), 249-280.

Leithwood, K., & Montgomery, D. J. (1986). Obstacles preventing principals from becoming more effective. Education and Urban Society, 17, 73-88.

Leithwood, K., Tomlinson, D., & Genge, M. (1996). Transformational school leadership. In K. Leithwood, K. (Ed.). International handbook on educational leadership (pp. 785-840). Kluwer, Norwall, MA.

Leung, B. (1996). Perspectives on Hong Kong society. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Leung, B. (2003). Hong Kong: Legacies, prospects and development. Hong Kong: Ashgate.

Levin, B., & Farthing, G. (2004). Building connections with parents and communities: the Manitoba K-S4 agenda (Manitoba education agenda for student success), Orbit, 34(3), 13-16.

Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in Small Group Research, Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585-634.

256

Limerick, B., & Anderson, C. (1999). ‘Go out there and go for broke’: Senior women and promotion in education. Women in Management Review, 14(2), 37-43.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ling, W., Chia, R., & Fang, L. (2000). Chinese implicit leadership theory. Journal of Social Psychology, 140(6), 729-741.

Llewellyan, J. (1982). A perspective on education in Hong Kong: Report by a visiting panel. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Press.

Lofthouse, M. (1995). Managing the curriculum. Harlow: Longman.

Marsh, D. D., & LeFever, K. (2004). School principals as standards-based educational leaders: looking across policy contexts, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32(4), 387-404.

Marshall, C. (1995). Imagining leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31 (3), 484-492.

Marshall, C., & Mitchell, B. (1989). Women’s careers as a critique of the administrative culture. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Mertz, N. T., & McNeely, S. R. (1998). Women on the job: A study of female high school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(2), 196-222.

Nias, J., Southworth, G., & Yeomans, R. (1989). Staff relationships in the primary school: A study of organizational cultures. London: Cassell.

Nivala, V. & Hujala, E. (2002). Leadership in early childhood education: Cross-cultural perspectives. Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education, Early Childhood Education, University of Oulu.

O’Donoghue, T., & Dimmock, C. (1998). School restructuring: International perspectives. London: Kogan Page.

257

Oakley, J. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4), 321-334.

Ogawa, R. T. (1992). Institutional theory and examining leadership in schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 6(3), 14-21.

Ogawa, R. T., & Bossert, S. T. (1995). Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(2), 224-243.

Oplatka, I. (2001). ‘I changed my management style’: The cross-gender transition of women headteachers in mid-career. School Leadership and Management, 21(2), 219-233.

Oplatka, I. (2002). The emergence of educational marketing: Lessons from the experiences of Israeli principals. Comparative Education Review, 46(2), 211-233.

Oplatka, I. & Hemsley-Brown, J. (2004). The research on school marketing: Current issues and future directions. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 375-400.

Oplatka, I., Hemsley-Brown, J., & Foskett, N. H. (2002). The voice of teachers in marketing their school: Personal perspectives in competitive environment, School Leadership and Management, 22(2), 177-196.

Opper, S. (1992). Early childhood education in Hong Kong. In S. Feeney (Ed.). Early childhood education in Asia and the pacific: A source book (pp. 27-51). New York: Garland Publishing.

Paik, Y., Vance, C. M., & Stage, H. D. (1996). The extent of divergence in human resource practices across the Chinese national cultures in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore. Human Resources Management Journal, 6(2), 20-31.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pigford, A. B., & Tonnsen, S. (1990). The women's institute: Preparing women to deal effectively with sexism and racism in school administration. Teaching Education, 3(1) 87-91.

258

Pitney, W. A., & Parker, J. (2001). Qualitative inquiry in athletic training: Principles, possibilities, and promises. Journal of Athletic Training, 36(2), 185-189.

Portin, B. S., Shen, J., & Williams, R. C. (1998). The changing principalship and its impact: Voices from principals. NASSP Bulletin, 1-4.

Powell, G. N. (1989). The value of androgynous management. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 54(2), 10-13.

Rao, N., & Koong, M. (2000). Enhancing preschool education in Hong Kong. International Journal of Early Childhood, 32(2), 1-11.

Reavis, C. A., & Griffith, H. (1992). Restructuring schools: Theory and practice. Lancaster: Technomic.

Reay, D., & Ball, S. J. (2000). Essentials of female management: Women’s ways of working in the education market place? Educational Management and Administration, 28(2), 145-159.

Regan, H. B., & Brooks, G. H. (1992). Out of women’s experience: School leadership for women and men. Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Educational Research Association’s Special Interest Group.

Riley, R., & Macbeath, J. (2003). Effective leaders and effective schools. In N. Bennett, M. Crawford, and M. Cartwright. (Eds.) Effective educational leadership (pp.281-294). London: Paul Chapman.

Rindfleish, J. (2000). Senior management women in Australia: Diverse perspectives. Women in Management Review, 15(4), 172-183.

Rodd, J. (1994). Leadership in early childhood: The pathway to professionalism. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Rodd, J. (1996). Towards a typology of leadership for the early childhood professional of the 21st century. Early Child Development and Care, 120, 119-126.

Rodd, J. (1998). Building and leading a team. Leadership in early childhood: the pathway to professionalism (2nd ed.). St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Irwin.

Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68, 119-125.

259

Rowan, W. (2000). Organizational culture analysis. Strategic Communication Management, 4(6), 16-21.

Rutherford, D. (2003). The green paper and beyond: how primary headteachers see their duties. School Leadership & Management, 23(1), 59-74.

Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 769-802). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Sachs, J., & Blackmore, J. (1998). You never show you can’t cope: Women in school leadership roles managing their emotions. Gender and Education, 10(3), 265-279.

Sarantakos, S. (1998). Social research. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education.

Schechter, C. (2002). Marching in the land of uncertainty: Transforming schools culture through deliberative process. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 5(2), 105-128.

Schermerhorn, J. R., & Bond, M. (1997). Cross-cultural dynamics in collectivism and high power distance settings. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 18(4), 187-195.

Schmuck (1987). Women educators. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Sergiovanni. T. J. (1984). Leadership and excellence in schooling. Educational Leadership, 41(5), 4-13.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1991). The principalship: a reflective practice perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000). Standards and the lifeworld of leadership. School Administrators, 57(8), 6-12.

Sergiovanni, T. J., & Elliott, D. L. (1975). Educational and organizational leadership in elementary schools. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Shakeshaft, C. (1987). The gender gap in research in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(4), 324-337.

260

Shakeshaft, C. (1989). Women in educational leadership. (2nd ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Shakeshaft, C. (1995). Gender leadership style in educational organizations. In B. Limerick, B. and B. Lingard, B. (Eds.). Gender and changing Educational Management. Rydalmere, NSW: Hodder Education.

Shakeshaft, C., Nowell, I., & Perry, A. (1991). Gender and supervision. Theory into Practice, 14(2), 134-138.

Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 20-37.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., & Brenin, E., & Popper, M (2000). Leadership and social identification in military units. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 612-640.

Sharman, R. G. (1987). Organisational supports for implementing an instructional innovation. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 33, 236-246.

Sharp, W. L., & Walter, J. K. (1994). Principal as school manager. Pennsylvania: Technomic.

Shepard, I. S. (1998). Perception is reality: Perceptions of employment characteristics of women in administration. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal, 1(3), 1-8.

Sherman, A. (2000). Women managing/managing women: The marginalization of female leadership in rural school settings. Educational Management and Administration, 28(2), 133-143.

Shum, L. C., & Cheng, Y. C. (1997). Perceptions of women principals’ leadership and teachers’ work attitudes. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(2), 165-184.

Silins, H. (1992). Effective leadership for school reform. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 38(4), 317-334.

261

Silins, H. C. (1994). The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and school improvement outcomes. School effectiveness and school improvement, 5(3), 272-298.

Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Schools as learning organisations: The case for system, teacher and student learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(4/5), 425-446.

Skinner, D., Tagg, C., & Holloway, J. (2000). Managers and research: The pros and cons of qualitative approaches. Management Learning, 31(2), 163-179.

Slater, R. O. (1995). The sociology of leadership and educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(3), 449-472.

Smith, W. F., & Andrew, R. L. (1989). Instructional leadership: how principals make a difference. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Smulyan, L. (2000). Balancing acts: Women principals at work. NewYork: State University of New York Press.

Snodgrass, S. E. (1992). Further effects of role versus gender on interpersonal sensitivity, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(1), 154-158.

Southworth, G. (1998). Change and continuity in the work of primary headteachers in England. International Journal of Educational Research, 29(4), 311-321.

Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: reflections and empirical evidence. School Leadership and Management, 22(1), 73-92.

Sowell, E. J. (2001). Educational research: An integrative introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill Company.

Steiner, I. (1974). Whatever happened to the group in social psychology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 94-108.

Stogdill, R. (1950). Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological Bulletin, 47, 1-14.

Strachan, J. (1999) Feminist educational leadership: Locating the concepts in practice. Gender and Education, 11(3), 309-322.

262

Symes, C. (1998). Education for sale: A semiotic analysis of school prospectuses and the forms of educational marketing. Australian Journal of Education, 42(2), 133-152.

Tayler, C. (1992). Preferred models of early childhood teacher education: A Western Australian perspectives. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 16(1), 11-21.

Tayler, C. (2000). Preparing the early childhood profession: An Australian analysis. In J. Hayden (Ed.). Landscapes in Early Childhood Education: Cross-national perspectives on empowerment -- a guide for the new millennium (pp. 253-270). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Qualitative research methods: The search for meanings (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.

The 1997 Policy Address by the Chief Executive (1997). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Press.

The 1998 Policy Address by the Chief Executive. (1998). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Press.

The 1999 Policy Address by the Chief Executive. (1999). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Press.

The 2001 Policy Address by the Chief Executive. (2001). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Press.

The Hong Kong Institute of Education. (1998). Three-year full-time certificate in early childhood education (Chinese) Course. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Education.

The Hong Kong Institute of Education. (2002). Prospectus. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Education.

Thomas, K.W., & Velthouse, B.A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An 'interpretative' model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666-81.

263

Thompson, M. D. (2000). Gender, leadership orientation, and effectiveness: Testing the theoretical models of Bolman & Deal and Quinn. Sex Roles, 42, (11/12), 969-992.

Trompenaar, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997) Riding the waves of culture. London: Nocholes Brealey.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Garies, C. R. (2004). Principals’ sense of efficacy. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 573-585.

Tse, L. S. P., & Opper, S. (1992). Hong Kong’s young children: An overview of their preschools and families. Hong Kong: Ling Yiu.

Tuckman, B. W. (1999). Conducting educational research. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers.

Vandenberghe, R. (1995). Creative management of schools: A matter of vision and daily interventions. Journal of Educational Administration, 33(2), 31-51.

Walker, A., & Dimmock, C. (1999). A cross-cultural approach to the study of educational leadership: An emerging framework. Journal of School Leadership, 9, 321-348.

Walker, A., Bridges, E., & Chan, C. (1996). Wisdom gained, wisdom given: Instituting PBL in a Chinese culture. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 12-31.

Wallace, M., & Hall, V. (1994). Inside the SMT: Teamwork in secondary school management. London: Paul Chapman.

Waniganayake, M. (1998). Leadership in early childhood in Australia: A National review. In E. J. Hujola, and A. Puroila (Eds.) Towards understanding leadership in early childhood context (pp. 95-108). ACTA: Universitatis Oulensis Oulu: Finland: Oulu University Press.

Waniganayake, M., Morda, R., & Kapsalakis, A. (2000). Leadership in child care centres: Is it just another job? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25(1), 13-20.

Webb, R., & Vulliamy, G. (1996). The changing role of the primary-school headteacher. Educational Management and Administration, 24(3), 301-315.

264

Wellington, J. (2000). Educational research: Contemporary issues and practical approaches. New York: Continuum.

West, A., & Pennell, H. (1995). Survey of inner London headteachers: Educational expenditure and out of school and extracurricular activities. Educational Research, 37(2), 159-176.

Whitaker, K. S., & Lane, K. (1990). What is ‘a woman’s place’ in educational administration? The Education Digest, 56(3), 12-15.

Wildy, H., & Louden, W. (2000). School restructuring and the dilemmas of principals’ work. Educational Management and Administration, 28(2), 173-184.

Williams, R., & Portin, B. (1997). The changing role of the principal in Washington State. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24-28, 1997). (ERIC Number: ED408655)

Wohlstetter, P. (1991). Accountability mechanisms for state education reform: Some organizational alternatives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(1), 31-48.

Wohlstetter, P., & Mohrman, S. A. (1993). School-based management: Strategies for success. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Wong, K. C. (1998). Culture and moral leadership in education. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(2), 106-125.

Wong, K. C. (2001). Chinese culture and leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(4), 309-319.

Yeakey, C. C. (1986). In pursuit of equity: A review of research on minorities and women in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(3), 110-149.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of case study research. (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

265

Yukl, G. (1991). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.