Leadership style andorganizational learning: the

mediate effect of school visionHanna Kurland

Faculty of Education and Teaching,Oranim – The Academic College of Education, Tivon, Israel

Hilla PeretzDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ort Braude College,

Karmiel, Israel, and

Rachel Hertz-LazarowitzFaculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

Abstract

Purpose – Fundamentally, the success of schools depends on first-rate school leadership, on leadersreinforcing the teachers’ willingness to adhere to the school’s vision, creating a sense of purpose,binding them together and encouraging them to engage in continuous learning. Leadership, vision andorganizational learning are considered to be the key to school improvement. However, systematicempirical evidence of a direct relationship between leadership, vision and organizational learning islimited. The present study aims to explore the influence of principals’ leadership style on schoolorganizational learning, using school vision as a mediator.

Design/methodology/approach – The data were collected from 1,474 teachers at 104 elementaryschools in northern Israel, and aggregated to the school level.

Findings – Mediating regression analysis demonstrated that the school vision was a significantpredictor of school organizational learning and functioned as a partial mediator only betweenprincipals’ transformational leadership style and school organizational learning. Moreover, theprincipals’ transformational leadership style predicted school organizational vision and schoolorganizational learning processes. In other words, school vision, as shaped by the principal and thestaff, is a powerful motivator of the process of organizational learning in school.

Research implications/limitations – The research results have implications for the guidance ofleadership practice, training, appraisal and professional development.

Originality/value – The paper explores the centrality of school vision and its effects on theachievement of the school’s aims by means of organizational learning processes.

Keywords Learning organizations, Leadership, Schools, Israel

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe success of schools fundamentally depends on school leaders. School leaders arebeing held accountable for how well teachers teach and how much students learn (Fullan,2002; Sergiovanni, 2001; Dinham, 2005), and are essential for high-quality education(Leithwood and Riehl, 2003; Harris, 2005; Hallinger, 2003; Stewart, 2006). Schoolleadership effects appear to be mostly indirect. That is, leaders influence student learningby helping to promote vision that guide and ensure organizational learning processes inwhich teachers routinely share their learning with others and improve their ability to

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

Leadership style

7

Journal of EducationalAdministration

Vol. 48 No. 1, 2010pp. 7-30

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0957-8234

DOI 10.1108/09578231011015395

teach well (Leithwood and Riehl, 2003; Hallinger, 2003; Bell et al., 2003; Voulalas andSharpe, 2005). Vision is considered to be the essence of leadership, which create a sense ofpurpose that binds teacher together and propels them to fulfill their deepest aspirationsand to reach for ambitious goals (Leithwood and Riehl, 2003; Ylimaki, 2006). Leadershipin a learning organization starts with the principle of creative tension (Senge, 1990).Creative tension comes from seeing clearly where we want to be, our “vision,” and tellingthe truth about where we are, our “current reality.” The gap between the two generates anatural tension. Without vision there is no creative tension. The natural energy forchanging reality comes from holding a picture of what might be that is more importantto people than what is. With creative tension, the energy for change comes from thevision, from what we want to create, juxtaposed with current reality. With creativetension, the motivation is intrinsic. This distinction mirrors the distinction betweenadaptive and generative learning.

Despite vision being central and vital construct in leadership theories, and essentialdrive organizational learning processes, to date, prior research has not systematicallyexamined how vision used by school leadership reinforces and promotesorganizational learning processes in school.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between principals’leadership style (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) and schoolorganizational learning, using school vision as a mediator in this relationship. Theconceptual framework for this study is rooted in the current organizational learningliterature (Pedler, 1996; Lipshitz et al., 2006; Ortenblad, 2002; Argyris and Schon, 1978;Senge, 1990), on the theory of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978)that considers vision as a key element of transformational leadership (Bass, 1999), andon recent examinations of organizational vision attributes (Ruvio, 2001; Baum et al.,1998; Larwood et al., 1995; Berson et al., 2001).

Transformational leadership appears to take vision as a given in terms of being acomponent of leadership that motivates people to higher levels of effort andperformance in organizations generally (Bass, 1985, 1999; Baum et al., 1998; Bennis andNanus, 1985; House, 1977; Larwood et al., 1995; Sashkin, 1988; Ylimaki, 2006) and inschools in particular (Leithwood and Riehl, 2003; Harris, 2005; Hallinger, 2003; Stewart,2006). Vision implies that the leader knows what the core values and core tasks of theorganization are, and what the organization should achieve. Vision can inspire teachers(as subordinates) to perform exceptionally well (Frese et al., 2003). A collective vision isa crucial element of organizational learning (Johnson, 2002; Bass, 2000; Senge, 1990).Transformational leadership, vision and organizational learning processes are the keyto school improvement (Bass, 2000; Fullan, 1995, 1997; Lam, 2001; Leithwood et al.,1998; Leithwood, 2004). The study reported here follows this line of theoreticalreasoning and proposes a model, which examines the relationship between principals’leadership style (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership), schoolvision and school organizational learning, and the influence of principals’ leadershipstyle on organizational learning, using school vision as a mediator (see Figure 1).

Conceptual background and hypothesesSchool organizational learningThe concept of school as a learning organization has evolved in response to difficulties,experienced in bringing about school reform. For school reform to succeed, it is

JEA48,1

8

important that teachers recognize the value of learning as a continuous collectiveprocess (Schechter et al., 2004). Productive organizational learning is important forboth the organizations and for the quality of working life.

Evidence from a study of Australian secondary schools (Silins et al., 2002) indicatesthat higher performing schools are functioning as learning organizations. Schools thatengage in organizational learning enable staff at all levels to learn collaboratively andcontinuously and put this learning to use in response to social needs and the demandsof their environment (Silins et al., 2002, p. 639). According to Voulalas and Sharpe(2005, p. 196):

A learning organization is one which, as a corporate entity, constantly learns from its pastand present experiences and its contemplation of the future, and consciously uses theselearnings to continuously change and adapt in such a way as to maximize its outcomes interms of its purpose in its constantly changing environment.

The evidence accumulating suggests that schools functioning as learningorganizations improve their effectiveness (Fullan, 2002; Leithwood et al., 1998;Larsson et al., 2001; Chapman and Harris, 2004). Lipshitz et al. (2006), who investigatemilitary and public organizations, emphasize the importance and need for structures,enabling the organization’s members to jointly collect, analyze, disseminate and applyinformation and knowledge. They call these structures “organizational learningmechanisms” (Lipshitz et al., 2006, p. 16). According to Lipshitz et al. (2006):

Organizational learning mechanisms are the fundamental building blocks of organizationallearning, they explain how organizations learn.

At school working and learning merge, teachers engage in both task performance andin learning about their performance, while learning occurs in very close proximity toperformance. Kurland and Hertz-Lazarowitz (2006) identified four organizationallearning mechanisms in elementary schools:

(1) Staff involvement.

(2) Evaluation.

(3) In-school professional development.

(4) Information management.

Staff involvement mechanisms enable staff at all levels to establish mutual goals andtake part in decision-making about the issues that are important to deal with (Lam,2004). People learn while feeling truly responsible for their actions, having the ability tomake decisions and to influence circumstances (Newmann et al., 2000; Voulalas andSharpe, 2005).

Figure 1.Study model

Leadership style

9

Evaluation mechanisms enable organization members to improve constantly on thebasis of data analysis, lessons learned, and conclusions drawn. They promote ongoingimprovement, ensuring progress towards pre-determined goals. In this process theteam decides on the aspects to be improved and the criteria for success, examines theprocesses and outcomes in the light of these criteria, and draws the relevantconclusions (Davis et al., 2003). This type of process becomes the basis for the next stepto be taken (Yeo, 2003; Voulalas and Sharpe, 2005). Systematic use of assessmentmechanisms is a necessary condition for organizational learning in school and itsimprovement (e.g. Silins et al., 2002; Torres and Preskill, 2001).

In-school professional development mechanisms allow teachers to construct theirprofessional knowledge and tie it to their experiences through a joint examination ofdata regarding students’ achievements, investing these achievements with meaning,developing an action plan based on the data, implementing it, and following up thisimplementation (Connelly and Clandinin, 1985). Thus the teachers’ professionaldevelopment is based on shared experiences and their examination, while focusing onthe critical actions of teaching and learning (Fullan, 2001; Newmann et al., 2000;Voulalas and Sharpe, 2005). Shared learning of this type creates a synergy, leading theorganization towards growth and continuous development (Foster et al., 2004).

Information management mechanisms allow the transference of practicalknowledge, developed by teachers in their classes, to other teachers in the school(Kurland and Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2006). Receiving and passing on of information andknowledge is critical for the improvement of performance of the school as anorganization (Fullan, 2002). The contribution to the effectiveness of the school as aneducational organization is higher in schools that make use of documentation ofpractical examples of good teaching practice, based on assessment, and ofrecommendations for improvement, than in schools where all this does not takeplace (Hayes et al., 2004; Wagner, 2001).

It is important for a learning organization to have as a central tenet, a commitmentto help people “embrace change” (e.g. Senge et al., 1994). It does not happenautomatically, but requires a commitment to building the necessary skills throughoutthe organization. Promoting productive learning is part of the managers’ leadershipfunctions, since it requires persuading subordinates that learning and theimplementation of lessons learned is essential for their own performance andwell-being, as well as the performance and well-being of the organization. Evidencefrom a study of the Australian public education system (Voulalas and Sharpe, 2005)indicates that leadership plays a crucial role in the process of transforming schools intolearning organizations. Transformational approaches to leadership have long beenadvocated as productive under conditions fundamentally the same as those faced byschools targeted for reform. Considerable evidence suggests that transformationalleadership contributes to the development of schools as learning organizations(Leithwood et al., 1998; Silins et al., 2002).

Leadership styleLeadership refers to people’s ability, using minimum coercion, to influence andmotivate others to perform at a high level of commitment (Bass, 1985, 1999). Burns(1978) and Bass (1985) developed the transformational leadership theory, based on therecognition that people are motivated by instrumental motivation, but also by such

JEA48,1

10

factors as the need for self-realization and belonging. The theory describes twoleadership patterns: transformational and transactional leadership. The former focuseson instilling belief in one’s ability and on generating positive emotions. The lattergrants followers rewards that satisfy immediate personal interests (Bass, 1999). In thecontext of the school milieu, early empirical work (Leithwood et al., 1998) foundtransformational leadership as a major factor influencing organizational learning atschool.

Bass and Avolio (1990) developed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)to measure the full range of leadership. It covers three leadership styles: transactional,transformational, and laissez-faire leadership. The full-range leadership model permitsobservation across the entire spectrum of behaviors that can be expected from leaders(Bass and Avolio, 1990, 1994).

The transformational leadership style comprises the following five first-orderfactors:

(1) Intellectual stimulation, referring to leaders’ actions, challenging their followers’thinking to be more creative and to find solutions to difficult problems, with theleader acting as a mental stimulator.

(2) Individualized consideration, namely leaders’ behavior that contributes to theirfollowers’ satisfaction by giving advice, support, and attention to eachindividual’s needs.

(3) Inspirational motivation, referring to leaders’ motivating their followers byviewing the future with optimism, projecting an idealized and achievable vision,and stressing ambitious goals.

(4) Idealized influence (attributed charisma), which refers to leaders’ charismaticactions centered on values, beliefs, and a sense of mission.

(5) Idealized influence (behavioral charisma), which likewise refers to leaders’charismatic actions anchored in values, beliefs, and a sense of mission(Antonakis et al., 2003).

Together, these behaviors can have an important impact on the organizational learningprocess. They can contribute to the team members’ commitment and sense ofownership of the outcomes of the learning processes.

The transactional leadership style is an exchange process based on the fulfillment ofcontractual obligations. Transactional leadership comprises these three first-orderfactors:

(1) Contingent reward leadership, which refers to leaders’ behaviors focused onclarifying role and task requirements and providing followers with material orpsychological rewards.

(2) Management-by-exception (active), referring to the active vigilance of a leaderwhose goal is to ensure that standards are met.

(3) Management-by-exception (passive), where leaders intervene only afternoncompliance or mistakes by followers (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Antonakiset al., 2003).

Leadership style

11

The laissez-faire leadership style “represents the absence of transaction of sorts withrespect to leadership in which the leader avoids making decisions, abdicatesresponsibility, and does not use his/her authority” (Antonakis et al., 2003, p. 265).Laissez-faire leadership is virtually an avoidance of leadership behaviors, avoidance oftaking any action (Stewart, 2006; Bass, 1999). This is also defined as non-leadership orthe most passive leadership.

A number of studies confirmed the MLQ questionnaire’s factorial structure (e.g.Avolio et al., 1999; Antonakis et al., 2003). According to this structure, leadership stylescorrelate with work effectiveness in the following way: transformational factors aremore positively correlated with work effectiveness than transactional factors, andlaissez-faire leadership style correlates negatively with effectiveness. Dvir et al. (2002)report on correlations between transformational leadership and performance.Ben-Horin Naot et al. (2004) found correlations between high-level organizationallearning and supportive leadership. Amitay et al. (2005), studied the relationshipbetween leadership style and organizational learning in 44 community health clinics.They found that transformational leadership, which broadens and elevates theinterests and aspirations of employees, was associated with more intensiveorganizational learning activity and with stronger learning facilitative culture thantransactional leadership.

The transformational leadership model emerged in education literature around the1980s in response to the demands on the school system to raise standards and improvestudents’ academic performance, and the recognition that there is a link betweenleadership and school effectiveness (Stewart, 2006). The transformational leadershipmodel emerged also in the wake of a greater dissatisfaction with the instructionalleadership models, which focused too exclusively on the principal as the expert andpowerful authority (Hallinger, 2003). The transformational leadership model is moreconsistent with trends in educational reform such as teacher empowerment, distributedleadership and organizational learning. This model recognizes the organization’scapacity to select its purposes by developing a shared vision, a shared commitment toschool change and to supporting the development of changes in teaching and learning,rather than focusing on direct coordination, control, and supervision of the curriculumand instruction (Hallinger, 2003, p. 330). The transformational leadership style hasbeen recognized as one of the main conditions, affecting and enhancing successfulschool organizational learning processes (e.g. Leithwood et al., 1998; Silins, 1994; Heckand Hallinger, 1999). A study of Australian secondary schools (Silins et al., 2002) foundthat “the conditions for organizational learning are very much the conditions that areassociated with the establishment of the three school leadership variables: principals’transformational leadership, actively involved administrative teams and distributedleadership” (p. 638). These findings lead to the following hypotheses:

H1. Principals’ transformational leadership style will be more positively related toschool organizational learning than transactional leadership; in contrast,laissez-faire leadership will be negatively related to school organizationallearning.

VisionVision is considered the starting point of transformation processes (e.g. Collins andPorras, 1994; Hunt, 1991; Kotter, 1990; Strange and Mumford, 2002, 2005; Dinham,

JEA48,1

12

2005), and a crucial basis for action for leaders of learning organizations (e.g. Johnson,2002; Senge et al., 1994; Leithwood and Riehl, 2003; Hallinger, 2003). What then is therelationship between school principals’ leadership style, vision and organizationallearning processes at school, taking the specific nature of the vision into account?

Vision is considered to be the essence of leadership, fulfilling the role of motivatingfollowers’ actions towards a desirable outcome (e.g. Conger and Kanungo, 1998;Conger, 1992; Reeves and Boreham, 2006; Kantabutra, 2007). Vision has been definedand described in a variety of ways. Some researchers emphasize vision as an image ofthe future of the organization, indicating the direction to be taken: for example Bennisand Nanus (1985, p. 89) explained vision as “a mental image of a possible and desirablefuture state of the organization”. Daft (1999, p. 126) defined vision as “an attractive,ideal future that is credible yet not readily attainable”. Another definition perceivesvision as representing the goals or targets to be aimed at. Conger and Kanungo (1987,p. 640) explained vision as “a set of clear ideal objectives, well-defined, which the leaderwould like the organization to achieve in the future”. Kirkpatrik and Locke (1996, p. 37),define vision as “a general transcendent ideal that represents shared values; it isideological in nature and has moral overtones”. Thus definitions of visions include theimage of the future, provide direction, articulate a sense of purpose and also clarify aset of ideals (Berson et al., 2001). Strange and Munford (2005, p. 122) argue that “visioninvolves a set of beliefs about how people act, and interact, to make manifest someidealized future state”.

Vision works in a number of important ways. An effective vision provides a linkbetween today and tomorrow, serves to energize and motivate employees toward thefuture, provides meaning for people’s work, and sets a standard of excellence in theorganization (e.g. Nanus, 1992; Daft and Lengel, 1998). Bennis (1984) and Senge et al.(1994) stressed the importance of the leader involving others in developing a sharedvision and in communicating that vision to others. Having a vision and goals forattaining it generates meaning, challenges, motivation and a common purpose foreveryone in the organization (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Burns, 1978). A vision not onlydescribes an organization’s goal, but also the means to achieving it. Seeley (1992)describes vision as a goal-oriented mental construct that guides people’s behavior.However, vision is more than an image of the future. It has the power to inspire,motivate, and engage people. Vision rallies people for a joint effort, motivates them tobecome involved and committed, promoting quality performance, causing them toexert additional efforts and devote time to devote to organizational learning processes,aimed at improving school outcomes.

In a search for vision attributes, researchers mostly examined statements writtendown in response to open-ended questions, describing people’s vision for theorganization they work for. Larwood et al. (1993) examined the attributescharacterizing vision statements by asking deans of AACSB business schools torate their own vision statements on 26 items, representative of vision definitions andtheir description in the literature. Cluster analysis of the responses yielded threedistinct groups for the 26-item vision instrument: proactive visionaries, reactive loners,and reactive communicators. In another study conducted among corporate chiefexecutives, using the same method, seven independent factors emerged, includingvision formulation, items indicating a strategic emphasis; implementation, indicatingsuccessful communication of a vision; innovative realism, showing tactical

Leadership style

13

responsiveness; general items difficult to describe in detail; risk taking; and profitorientation, also bottom-line oriented (Larwood et al., 1995, p. 750). Baum et al. (1998)identified seven effective attributes in vision statements by entrepreneurs in awoodwork industry company, influencing organizational performance, including:clarity, challenge, reduction, abstractness, future orientation, stability, and desirability,brevity, and ability to inspire. Berson et al. (2001) examined vision statements ofcommunity leaders, participating in a comprehensive leadership workshop. Thefollowing four factors emerged: optimism and confidence; values, intrinsic rewards andsoliciting follower participation; challenges and opportunities associated with thevision; and focus on specificity and direction (p. 61). A factor analysis of entrepreneurs’vision statements of post-secondary educational institutions in Israel yielded sixfactors: clear and concrete vision; challenge; sense of leadership; flexibility andadjustments; wide acceptance (Ruvio, 2001). Kantabutra and Avery (2007) used sevenvariables of vision attributes (brevity, clarity, challenge, stability, abstractness, futureorientation, and desirability or ability to inspire) to examine the relationships betweenvision attributes and content relating to customer and staff satisfaction imageries inAustralian retail stores. Kurland (2006) identified three factors of teacher visionstatement in Israel elementary schools: task attributes such as process description anddirection; presentation that is realistic, focused, bottom-line oriented, motivating foraction; inspirational attributes, generating enthusiasm, multidimensional, long-term,reflecting values; and communicative attributes such as easy to explain, widelyaccepted, declarative, and detailed.

Berson et al. (2001) found that the characteristics of vision statements oftransformational leaders are more optimistic, emphasize security and provide aspecific goal and direction. In the same way, a negative connection was found betweenpassive leadership and an inspirational or “strong” vision. Visions with theseattributes are considered as bringing about more desirable performance outcomes thanthose lacking them. Visions characterized by these attributes have been foundempirically to have a significant, direct relationship with organizational performancevia staff satisfaction (Kantabutra and Avery, 2007) and venture growth (Baum et al.,1998).

For educational leaders who implement change in their school, vision is “a hunger tosee improvement” (Pejza, 1985). School leaders have to involve teachers in developing avision of what the future should be like, including goals to reach the vision(Zimmerman, 2006, p. 244). A shared and a clear vision is a key element in the forgingof a learning organization (Greenberg and Baron, 2000; Senge et al., 1994). The drivingforce for change and learning stems from “creative tension”. Creative tension marks thedifference between the shared vision and the current reality (Senge, 1990) and willdrive the organization towards its goals. Joiner’s (1987) discussion of these leaders ofchange included the skill to “access the reality of the present and determine the gapsthat exist” (pp. 3-4). In this case the central role of the leader in learning organizations isto lead a process of defining a clear common vision (Hayes et al., 2004; Johnson, 2002;Wick and Leon, 1995). Organizational learning, which is an ongoing expansion of theorganization’s ability to influence its future (Senge, 1990), may assist in the visionimplementation process. The present study claims that a school vision may contributeto the school organizational learning process.

JEA48,1

14

Empirical evidence linking directly leadership, vision and organizational learning isvery limited (Densten, 2002). The literature and the studies we presented here lead tothe following hypotheses:

H2. Principals’ transformational leadership style will be more positively related toschool vision than will transactional leadership; in contrast, laissez-faireleadership will be negatively related to school vision.

H3. School vision will mediate the relationship between principals’transformational leadership style and school organizational learning.

MethodSample and data collectionThe sample consisted of 1,474 teachers at 104 primary public schools in Israel. Schoolsize (number of enrolled students) ranged from 200 to 600 (M ¼ 350, SD ¼ 32:35). Thenumber of teachers in each school ranged from six to 30 (M ¼ 18, SD ¼ 8:25). Themajority of the teachers (96.2 percent) were women, ranging in age from 20 to 62(M ¼ 42:2, SD ¼ 8:05). Years of seniority in the current school ranged from three to 40(M ¼ 17:68, SD ¼ 8:42). As for the teachers’ education, 55.4 percent had a BA/BEddegree, 14.3 percent had an MA degree, and the rest had graduated from a teachers’college. Most of the school principals (79.8 percent) were women. The principals’ meanage was 48.9, and their mean tenure was 9.4 years (ranging from three to 30 years).These data are congruent with data provided by the Central Bureau of Statistics inIsrael (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2007). The criterion for school selection was theduration of principals’ and teachers’ tenure – over three years. The assumption wasthat a period of three years was necessary for the development of a leadership styleaffecting organizational learning processes and to ensure that the teachers and theirprincipal were sufficiently well acquainted. Moreover, we decided that the sample ofkey classroom teachers should be more than 60 percent, since they are thoseresponsible for the class and generally participate in school organizationalprocesses.MeasuresThe teachers evaluated their schools and their principals using a 77-item questionnaireon principals’ leadership style, school vision, and school organizational learning. Allitems were rated on a five-point Likert scale. Personal background information wasalso obtained.

Leadership style. Principals’ leadership style was measured by a shortened versionby Bass and Avolio’s Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X (MLQ) (Avolio et al.,1999). The questionnaire was translated into Hebrew and adapted to the Israeli milieu,to managers by Kark et al. (2003) and for Israeli school principals by Eyal (2000). It wasa 28-item question with a five-point scale ranging from (1) “not at all” to (5) “frequently,if not always”, which included items of the three following behavioral components:transformational (individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirationalmotivation, and idealized influence scales), transactional (management-by-exception,active scale) and laissez-faire. The reliability for the transformational scale wasa ¼ 0:88; for transactional (management-by-exception, active) scale was a ¼ 0:68, andfor laissez-faire scale was a ¼ 0:82 similar reliability reported in Eyal (2000). Examplesof items: transformational (intellectual stimulation) – “seeks differing perspectiveswhen solving problems”; transactional (management-by-exception) – “focuses

Leadership style

15

attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards”;laissez-faire – “is absent when needed”.

School vision. School vision was measured by 22 attributes, based on Larwood et al.(1993, 1995) and Ruvio (2001). Teachers were asked to write a vision statement,representing the ideal future at its best for their schools. Subsequently teachers wereasked to rate their written vision on 22 attributes (Kurland, 2006). Examples of items:easy to explain, detailed, practical, action-oriented, inspirational, and bottom-lineoriented. Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) “not at all” to(5) “very much”. Overall questionnaire reliability level was a ¼ 0:94.

School organizational learning. It was measured via a questionnaire that contained27 items of the four school organizational components: staff involvement, evaluation,in-school professional development and information management (Kurland andHertz-Lazarowitz, 2006). The participants were asked to say to what degree each itemexists in their school. Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1)“completely absent in school”, representing a low level of activities/behaviors oforganizational learning, to (5) “largely present in school”, representing a high level ofactivities/behaviors of organizational learning. The reliability of the staffinvolvement scale was a ¼ 0:89; of the evaluation scale was a ¼ 0:93, of thein-school professional scale was a ¼ 0:91, and of the information scale was a ¼ 0:90.The overall reliability level was a ¼ 0:91. Examples of items:

Ongoing feedback is carried out to check problems and reasons for lack of success.School staff is involved in decision making regarding areas needing improvement.There are simple ways of accessing relevant information in school.Learning is also based on examination of the teachers’ experiences.

Evidence of construct validityTo further examine the validity of our measures, we conducted confirmatory factoranalyses for the leadership style scales, using the AMOS program. The results confirmedthe hypothesized five-factor model (charismatic/inspirational, intellectual stimulation,individualized consideration, contingent reward scale, and laissez-faire). The fit indexeswere satisfactory (NFI, GFI . 0.9, RMSEA ¼ 0:05). All the dimensions were consistentwith Bass and Avolio’s (1994) conceptions of the phenomenon.

Since our hypotheses were based on transformational leadership as acomprehensive concept, we used an aggregate measure of transformationalleadership, including all three factors (charismatic/inspirational, intellectualstimulation, and individualized consideration). Support for the use of a higher orderconstruct to measure transformational leadership can be found in several studies (e.g.Avolio et al., 1999; Berson and Avolio, 2004). Our CFA analysis using transformationalleadership as a higher order construct hardly changed the fit statistics. All fit indicesmet the recommended criteria (NFI and GFI above 0.9, RMSEA ¼ 0:05).

In addition, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses of the school organizationlearning scales. Correlations between the four scales of the organizational learningvariable were examined. The correlation coefficient of all four scales was high(r ¼ 0:76 2 0:89, p , 0.001), so the scales were combined into one construct – schoolorganizational learning. After combining the scales into one construct, all fit indiceswere satisfactory (NFI, GFI . 0.9, RMSEA ¼ 0:05).

JEA48,1

16

Analysis strategyWe used the standards of the mediation model described by Kenny et al. (1998) to testthe hypotheses. According to Kenny et al. (1998), four criteria must be met to supportmediated relationships:

(1) The independent variable (i.e. leadership style) must be related to the mediator(i.e. vision).

(2) The independent variable must be related to the dependent variable, i.e.leadership style must be related to organizational learning.

(3) The mediator must be related to the dependent variables, with the independentvariable included in the model.

(4) The relationship between the independent variable and the criterion variablemust disappear when controlling for the mediator variable.

Reduction in the relationship between the independent and the dependent variables inthe presence of the mediator, while remaining significant, is evidence of partialmediation. To reduce the common source bias, we randomly split the data into threegroups, thus creating three independent sources of groups of teachers.

ResultsAggregation analysesBefore testing the hypotheses, we need to justify our aggregation of individualperceptions to the group level of analysis (schools). ICC2[1] was 0.57, 0.46, and 0.58 fortransformational, transactional, and laissez-faire styles, respectively. ICC for vision andorganization learning was 0.56 and 0.59 respectively. Analyses of variance indicatedthat individual perceptions clustered significantly by group (F ¼ 2:37, 1.86, 2.40, 2.28,2.46 p , 0.001 for principals’ transformational style, transactional style, laissez-fairestyle, vision, and organizational learning, respectively). These results indicated thatthere was a group effect, not only an individual effect, on teachers’ perceptions.

Hypotheses testingThe means, standard deviations and correlations for the variables are presented inTable I.

The results showed that all possible inter-correlations within the leadership styleswere statistically significant and in the right direction (meaning that transformationaland transactional styles correlated positively with each other and both correlated

4 3 2 1 M SD

3.94 0.46 Transformational leadership0.51 * * 3.35 0.48 Transactional leadership

20.32 * * 20.53 * * 2.14 0.50 Laissez-faire leadership20.29 * * 0.29 * * 0.48 * * 3.83 0.36 School organizational vision

0.47 * * 20.31 * * ns 0.50 * * 3.52 0.43 School organizational learning

Notes: n ¼ 104; *p , 0.01

Table I.Descriptive statistics and

Pearson’s correlationcoefficients among

research scales

Leadership style

17

negatively with the laissez-faire style); moreover, vision and organizational learningcorrelated positively.

Table II presents the results of the regression analyses following the stepssuggested by Kenny et al. (1998) to test for mediated relationships. Step 2 in this tabletested H1. The results indicated that the transformational leadership style positivelyaffected organizational learning (b ¼ 0:55 * *). Transactional and laissez-faire stylesdid not affect organizational learning. R 2 for the model was 0.27.

To test H2 and H3, we began by establishing that the independent variables(leadership styles) were related to the mediator variable vision. The results (Table II,step 1) indicated that the transformational leadership style related positively to vision(b ¼ 0:42 * *). The transactional and laissez-faire styles did not relate to vision (R 2 forthe model was 0.24). Moreover, to support H3, the relationship between the leadershipstyle and the organizational learning measures must disappear when the school visionvariable is included in the equation. We entered vision and leadership stylesimultaneously into the equation.

The results (Table II, steps 3 and 4) indicated that the relationship between thetransformational leadership style and organizational learning diminished in thepresence of vision (b ¼ 0:42 * *, R 2 ¼ 0:35), meaning that vision partially mediated therelationship between transformational leadership style and organizational learning (asmentioned above, according to Kenny et al. (1998), reduction in the relationshipbetween the independent and the dependent variables in the presence of the mediator,while remaining significant, is evidence of partial mediation. The relationship betweenvision and organizational learning was significant (b ¼ 0:31 * *). These resultspartially support H3.

Dependent variable

Independent variablesVision

B

Organizationallearning

b

Step 1:Transformational 0.42 *

Transactional 0.07Lassiez-faire 20.05R 2 0.24

Step 2:Transformational 0.55 *

Transactional 20.17Lassiez-faire 20.07R 2

Step 3 and 4:Transformational 0.42 *

Transactional 20.19Lassiez-faire 20.04Vision 0.31 *

R 2 0.35

Note: *p , 0.01

Table II.Summary of themediation regressions

JEA48,1

18

DiscussionThe present study explored the issue of the relationship between leadership, vision andorganizational learning in primary schools. Overall, the results demonstrate that schoolvision is significantly predicted by principals’ transformational leadership style and isalso a significant predictor of school organizational learning. Moreover, vision was foundto partially mediate the relationship between principals’ transformational leadership andschool organizational learning, with principals’ transformational leadership predictingorganizational learning. These empirical results confirm theoretical claims that vision isconsidered to be the impetus for school transformation processes and a crucial element ofeffective leadership of learning organizations (Goldring et al., 2007; Hallinger, 2003;Leithwood and Riehl, 2003; Senge, 1990).

The outcome of the study, showing a positive relationship between transformationalleadership style and school vision, supports our hypothesis and confirms leadershiptheories that consider vision as a key element of transformational leadership (Bass, 1999;Yukl, 2006), and literature that considers vision as a given in terms of being a componentof leadership, setting the direction and developing shared understanding about schoolactivities and goals (Leithwood et al., 2004). This finding is also in line with Kotter’sclaim that “leadership is about coping with change by setting directions; aligning people;motivating and inspiring towards a vision” (Kotter, 1999, p. 54).

It appears that by articulating a common school vision that is task-oriented(expressing direction and process, focused and bottom-line-oriented),inspiration-oriented (generates enthusiasm, inspires, expresses values), andcommunication-oriented (declarative, detailed, and easy to explain), school leadersprovide meaning and a strong sense of purpose that motivates school staff to act. AsYukl (2006) defines it – a vision simple enough to be understood, appealing enough toevoke commitment and credible enough to be accepted as realistic and attainable.Burns (1978) suggests that followers need to have a strong sense of purpose if they areto be motivated to act. An inspiring vision, clear, challenging and stable will havepower to generate emotional commitment, since it presents a view of a better future(Nanus, 1992). This was corroborated in the current study by the teachers’ perceptionsof principals’ transformational leadership and school vision.

Yukl (2006) noted that the ability to articulate a vision is considered to be one of thebasic characteristics of leaders, a way leaders connect with their followers and pass onto them their message and agenda. School vision implies that the leader knows whatthe core values and core tasks of the organization are and what the school has toachieve (Frese et al., 2003). Our findings demonstrate that school leaders thatencourage, respect, support and involve teachers in decision-making, care about themand want them to succeed, generate enthusiasm and commitment – namely use thetransformational leadership style – influence how teachers perceive the vision(Mulford and Silins, 2003). The vision becomes a “shared covenant that bonds togetherleader and follower in a moral commitment” (Sergiovanni, 1990, p. 24). Furtherresearch is needed to enable a much closer look at the reciprocal relationship created.

Second, the results of the study demonstrate that the principals’ transformationalleadership style positively affects school organizational learning. These results areconsistent with previous finding, showing that the role of transformational leadershipis crucial in cultivating organizational learning at school. (Leithwood et al., 1998; Silinset al., 2002; Johnson, 2002). Teachers appreciate principals who give them personal

Leadership style

19

attention, encourage them to look at problems and issues in a new way and shareresponsibility with the team (Marzano et al., 2005), in playing a key role in shapingroutine school activities. The creation of organizational learning systems andstructures enables teachers to carry on a professional dialogue, enhancing the qualityof their teaching by refining their repertoires of pedagogic skills (Little, 1982;Newmann, 1997). It appears that teachers’ perceptions of such transformationalleadership behavior as having important consequences for their involvement inorganizational learning processes in turn stimulate them to think reflectively andcritically about their own practices and enables them to develop shared goals andparticipate in decision-making about aspects to be improved. These school processesenable the transfer of practical knowledge developed by teachers in their own classesto other teachers in the school. The spotlight here is on transformational leadership andon organizational processes, employing effective methods to increase the team’sefficiency and productivity (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2005; Marzano et al., 2005).Principals of effective schools actively promote the creation of a learning organization,the development of staff cohesion and support, and the growth of communities ofprofessional practice (Little, 1982; Newmann, 1997; Dinham, 2005). They can play a keyrole in providing the conditions under which teachers can operate effectively andstudents can learn (Dinham, 2005, p. 335). These leaders are particularly attentive toensuring that there is a variety of mechanisms for teachers to communicate and worktogether (Murphy et al., 2007). Teachers that engage in organizational learningprocesses learn collaboratively and continuously through routinely evaluating theirteaching and their students’ achievements, put their learning to use. In doing so, theyimprove their professional competence, their students’ achievements and the school’seffectiveness, thus responding to the social needs demands of their environment(Leithwood and Levin, 2005).

Third, the results indicate that principals’ transactional and laissez-faire leadershipstyle has no effect on school vision and school organizational learning. One possibleexplanation is that principals’ transactional leadership style, which is basicallygrounded in controlling or coordinating others (Hallinger, 2003) and is an exchangeprocess based on the fulfillment of contractual obligations (Antonakis et al., 2003; Bassand Avolio, 1994), using conventional rewards and penalties to gain compliance fromthe followers, does not foster emotional commitment by teachers to engage inorganizational learning processes. A similar outcome is typical of principals’laissez-faire leadership style, characterized by the avoidance of making decisions,abdication of responsibility and renunciation of their authority (Antonakis et al., 2003;Bass, 1999; Stewart, 2006). Burns (1978) describes managers as transactors and leadersas transformers. Managers concern themselves with procurement, coordination anddistribution of human and material resources needed by an organization (Ubben andHughes, 1987). Leaders facilitate the identification of organizational goals. Theyinitiate the development of a vision of what their organization is about:

Management controls, arranges, does things right; leadership unleashes energy, sets thevision so we do the right thing (Bennis and Nanus, 1985, p. 21).

Another explanation might be that reward or punishment, contingent on performancethrough transactional leadership, is insufficient to motivate teachers to engage inschool organizational learning processes demanding a high level of commitment and

JEA48,1

20

additional effort. Teachers need to have a strong sense of purpose and caring in orderto participate in complex organizational learning processes. They have to believe thattheir efforts will lead to desirable outcomes and a better future.

Finally, the findings of this study demonstrate that school vision functions as apartial mediator only between transformational principals’ leadership style and schoolorganizational learning. This empirical result supports the assertion that the ability tocreate a vision of the future shared with other members of the organization appears tobe crucial for leaders of learning organizations (Johnson, 2002; Kotter, 1999; Senge,1990). Researchers maintain that leaders ensure organizational learning processes inwhich teachers routinely share their learning with others and improve their ability toteach well by helping to formulate and promote a vision, guiding these processes(Leithwood and Riehl, 2003; Hallinger, 2003; Bell et al., 2003; Senge, 1990). This meansthat outstanding transformational principals have the ability to create a collectivevision by which they exert their influence on teachers’ motivation and enable them tounderstand how they might integrate their efforts and engage in school organizationallearning processes for making the school vision a reality. This study’s findings implythat by articulating a shared vision and exposing the gap between the vision of theideal school and the current situation, principals create a tension generating energy forchanging reality, motivating teachers to work together to reduce the gap throughorganizational learning processes. This finding might indicate the way principalsinspire and motivate teachers to perform exceptionally well through engaging inschool organizational processes. Future research needs to pay much more attention toexpose these relationships.

The study’s results suggest that teachers will be more willing to participate incomplex organizational learning processes, such as staff involvement, evaluation,in-school professional development and information management mechanisms, whenprincipals establish a clear direction, provide meaning and a shared focus, intellectualstimulation and individualized attention, involving attending to each teacher’s needs,modeling the role of mentor or coach and listening to their concerns and needs. In thiscase vision serves as both an inspiration and a sense of what needs to be done to realizeit (Mintzberg et al., 1998, p. 124).

Limitations and further researchFirst, the data were largely gathered by means of self-reported questionnaires and weresubject to biases. In this respect, the study does not differ from previous research(Lovelace et al., 2001). However, recent research suggests that self-reported data are notas limited as was previously believed, and people often perceive their socialenvironment accurately (Alper et al., 1998). Regarding leadership style, Yukl (1994)suggested that in contrast to most research, centering on leaders’ perceptions of theirown behaviors, the study of subordinates’ perceptions of the leaders’ behavior might bemost useful in examining linkages between organizational variables and leadershipstyles. Second, in this study we examine new issues – the relationship between visionand school organizational learning. However, since only primary schools wereinvolved, more research is needed to examine the appropriateness of the measures tojunior high schools and high schools.

Third, regarding the generalizability of the outcomes, we are aware that since thesample was limited to northern Israel, any attempt to generalize the study’s findings,

Leadership style

21

conclusions, and implications to the whole population of teachers in the entire countrymust be approached with caution.

The present results provide an impetus for further research regarding the centrality ofschool vision and its significance for the achievement of the school’s purpose via schoolorganizational learning processes. Further research is needed to clarify the concept ofschool vision, these relationships and their impacts on school outcomes. Moreover, theresults of this study require further analysis of the influence of other school variables, inan attempt to extend our understanding of how schools can encourage teachers toengage in school organizational learning to promote their school’s effectiveness.

Summary and conclusionsThe present study, examining linkages between school organizational variables andleadership styles, makes several contributions to educational leadership literature. Thestudy’s empirical findings regarding visionary and transformational leadership theoryconfirm the assumption that vision is indeed a key aspect of leadership (e.g. Congerand Kanungo, 1987; Harris, 2005; Stewart, 2006; Bass, 2000) and in particular in thecase of principals’ transformational leadership, promoting school organizationallearning processes to enhance the quality of teaching and student performance. Theresults of this study have meaningful application in view of the challenge facingschools today to improve student achievement, ultimately depending on improvingteaching practice (Goldring et al., 2007; Voulalas and Sharpe, 2005). Vision is animportant device helping schools to reorganize in ways that ensure their continuedviability, legitimacy, and value as core institutions in our society. Withoutorganizational learning mechanisms, namely evaluation (assessment and analysis),staff involvement, information management, and in-school professional development,the vision may remain, a glossy facade rather than becoming a vital, living presence inthe life of the school (Fritz, 1996). Therefore the more transformational the leadership,as perceived by the teachers, the more task oriented, inspirational and communicationoriented the vision, the more likely they are to engage in school organizational learningprocesses. As Mulford and Silins (2003) suggested, when there is confidence in whatthe school is doing and why, the teachers are encouraged to make the school vision areality by means of organizational learning processes.

From the methodological point-of-view, one of the strengths of this study lies in thestrict application of the rules regarding mediation. Moreover, to reduce a commonsource of bias, two different sources were used in each regression equation. These twoimprovements in methodological techniques reinforce the results of the study.

The present model and findings also offer a rich agenda for practice. Theeducational system as a loosely linked organization faces difficulties in creatingcoherent activities related to school performers. Therefore a study model, indicating arelationship between school leadership, vision and school organizational learning,provides coherence and co-ordination, enabling the necessary interaction between thestaff member (Reeves and Boreham, 2006), in order to achieve the school purposes anddestination. These relationships enhance webs of professional interactions aroundissues related to teacher educational practice (e.g. specific principles of practice,teaching and learning strategies, assessment of students, educational/professionaldebate and communication skills), which lead to improved teaching and learning. Theconcept “teacher as learner” is the key to school improvement and effectiveness.

JEA48,1

22

Specifically, the present results offer a description of school leadership dynamicsthat can be used in the training and professional development of principals. Schoolleaders who understand the function of school vision and the added value oforganizational learning processes and are able to make use of them, are likely to havethe ability to develop a widely shared vision, encompassing the potential for achievinga vision that stimulates a sense of meaningfulness and motivates teachers towardscontinuous improvement and to use organizational learning as a strategy to implementthis vision. In practice we suggest developing specific training programs to helpprincipals articulate a shared school vision that is task-oriented, inspiration-orientedand communication-oriented, helping principals to establish certain mechanisms oforganizational learning, encouraging the staff to act in ways that seem helpful inmaking the vision operational within the classrooms. It is particularly important totrain principals to nurture ongoing learning that creates coherence and meaninginstead of constant overload and fragmentation, created by attempts to implement thelatest fads (Fullan, 1995); in short to develop the ability to transform the school into amore effective organization, fostering teaching and learning beneficial to all students(Davis et al., 2005).

It is necessary to guide principals in ways of providing intellectual stimulation andto make certain that teachers have a high-quality sequence of job-embeddedopportunities to expand, enhance, and refine their repertoires of instructional skills(Leithwood et al., 2004; Newmann, 1997); to demonstrate personal interest in the staffand make themselves available to them (Marzano et al., 2005): to give feedback aboutperformance that is essential to the learning process, on a consistent basis and in atimely manner. Moreover, in order to foster teachers’ engagement in organizationallearning processes, principals should support teachers in transcending theirself-interest for the common good (Bass, 2000; Silins and Mulford, 2004), toencourage them in developing to their fullest potential (Murphy et al., 2007), andproviding them with individualized support. Educational leaders need to view teachersas equal partners in this process, acknowledge their professionalism and capitalize ontheir knowledge and skills (Darling-Hammond, 1988). Principals have to encourageinitiative and a proactive attitude, long-term and sustained learning in the quest forbetter education. Developing organizational learning processes, driven by a schoolvision that guides the daily work of the teachers appears to hold considerable promisefor building sustainable improvement.

Note

1. Extent to which members of a single group/unit provide proportional (i.e. correlated) ratings(i.e. extent to which ratings are consistent) high reliability indicates ratings consistentlydiffer across units – i.e. variance is smaller within units than between units (Hox, 2002).ICC2 ¼ ½MSB 2 MSW�=MSB ICC2 indicates whether unit means can be used to reliablydifferentiate between units Where MSB is mean square between groups, MSW is meansquare within groups. MSB and MSW were obtained by one-way analyses of variance inwhich the focal variables (e.g. leadership styles measured by the teachers) were thedependent variables and group ID was the independent variable. If the ratio is above 0.25,the variables can be aggregated into the group-level.

Leadership style

23

References

Alper, S., Tjosvold, D. and Law, K.S. (1998), “Interdependence and controversy in groupdecision-making: antecedents to effective self-managing team”, Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 33-52.

Amitay, M., Popper, M. and Lipshitz, R. (2005), “The effects of leadership style on organizationallearning in community clinics”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 57-70.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003), “Context and leadership: anexamination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactorleadership questionnaire”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 261-95.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory in Action Perspective,Addison-Weseley, Sydney.

Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examining the components of transformationaland transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire”, Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 441-62.

Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectation, Free Press, New York, NY.

Bass, B.M. (1999), “Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership”,European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 9-32.

Bass, B.M. (2000), “The future of leadership in learning organizations”, Journal of LeadershipStudies, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 18-40.

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990), “The implications of transactional and transformationalleadership for individual, team, and organizational development”, Research inOrganizational Change and Development, Vol. 4, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 231-72.

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), Improving Organizational Effectiveness throughTransformational Leadership, Sage, New York, NY.

Baum, J.R., Locke, E.A. and Kirkpatrick, S.A. (1998), “A longitudinal study of the relation ofvision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 43-54.

Bell, L., Bolan, R. and Cabrillo, L. (2003), “A systematic review of the impact of school headteachers and principals on student outcomes”, EPPI-Centre, Institute of Education,University of London, available at: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid¼318(accessed 25 November 2005).

Ben-Horin Naot, Y., Lipshitz, R. and Popper, M. (2004), “Discerning the quality of organizationallearning”, Management Learning, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 451-72.

Bennis, W.G. (1984), “The four competencies of leadership”, Training and Development Journal,Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 6-19.

Bennis, W.G. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper & Row,New York, NY.

Berson, Y. and Avolio, B.J. (2004), “Transformational leadership and the dissemination oforganizational goals: a case study of a telecommunication firm”, The Leadership Quarterly,Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 625-46.

Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B.J. and Popper, M. (2001), “The relationship between vision,strength, leadership style and context”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 53-73.

Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, HarperCollins, New York, NY.

Central Bureau of Statistics (2007), “Central Bureau of Statistics (Israel)”, available at: www.cbs.gov.il/engindex.htm (accessed 10 February 2008).

JEA48,1

24

Chapman, C. and Harris, A. (2004), “Improving schools in difficult and challenging contexts:Strategies for improvement”, Educational Research, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 219-28.

Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.I. (1994), Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies,HarperCollins, New York, NY.

Conger, J.A. (1992), Learning to Lead, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1987), “Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership inorganizational settings”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 637-47.

Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1998), Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor inOrganizational Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Connelly, F.M. and Clandinin, D.J. (1985), “Personal practical knowledge and the modes ofknowing: relevance for teaching and learning”, in Eisner, E. (Ed.), Learning and Teachingthe Ways of Knowing, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Daft, R.L. (1999), Leadership: Theory and Practice, The Dryden Press, New York, NY.

Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1998), Fusion Leadership: Unlocking the Subtle Forces that ChangePeople and Organizations, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1988), “Policy and professionalism”, in Lieberman, A. (Ed.), Building aProfessional Culture in Schools, Teachers College Press, New York, NY, pp. 55-77.

Davis, D., Ellett, C.D. and Annunziata, J. (2003), “Teacher evaluation, leadership and learningorganizations”, Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 287-301.

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M. and Meyerson, D. (2005), School Leadership Study:Developing Successful Principals (Review of Research), Stanford University, StanfordEducational Leadership Institute, Stanford, CA.

Densten, I.L. (2002), “Clarifying inspirational motivation and its relationship to extra effort”,Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 Nos 1/2, pp. 40-5.

Dinham, S. (2005), “Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes”, Journal ofEducational Administration, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 338-56.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. and Shamir, B. (2002), “Impact of transformational leadership onfollower development and performance: a field experiment”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 735-44.

Eyal, O. (2000), “Developing a public school entrepreneurship inventory: theoreticalconceptualization and empirical examination”, unpublished doctoral dissertation,Hebrew University, Jerusalem, in Hebrew.

Foster, S.F., De Bono, S. and Wanwen, D. (2004), “Antecedents and components of organizationallearning”, European Consortium for the Learning Organization, Web Conference,Leadership for Learning-collaborative Learning, Dublin, available at: www.eclo.org/pages/Dublin%20Conference%20Proceedings.html (accessed 20 February 2006).

Frese, M., Beimel, S. and Schoenborn, S. (2003), “Action training for charismatic leadership: someevaluations of studies of a commercial training module on inspirational communication ofa vision”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 671-85.

Fritz, R. (1996), Corporate Tides: The Inescapable Laws of Organizational Structure,Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.

Fullan, M. (1995), “The school as a learning organization: distant dreams”, Theory into Practice,Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 230-5.

Fullan, M. (1997), Change Forces Probing the Depths of Educational Reform, The Falmer Press,New York, NY.

Fullan, M. (2001), Leading in a Culture of Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Leadership style

25

Fullan, M. (2002), “The role of leadership in the promotion of knowledge management inschools”, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, Vol. 8 Nos 3/4, pp. 409-19.

Goldring, E., Porter, A.C., Murphy, J., Elliott, N.S. and Cravens, X. (2007), “Assessinglearning-centered leadership: connections to research, professional standards, and currentpractices”, prepared for the Wallace Foundation Grant on Leadership Assessment, March,1-27, available at: www.wallacefoundation.org (accessed 10 February 2008).

Greenberg, J. and Baron, R.A. (2000), Behavior in Organizations: Understanding and Managingthe Human Side of Work, 7th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 251-509.

Hallinger, P. (2003), “Leading educational change: reflections on the practice of instructional andtransformational leadership”, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 329-52.

Harris, A. (2005), “Leading from the chalk-face: an overview of school leadership”, Leadership,Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 73-87.

Hayes, D., Christie, P., Mills, M. and Lingard, B. (2004), “Productive leaders and productiveleadership – schools as learning organizations”, Journal of Educational Administration,Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 520-38.

Heck, R.H. and Hallinger, P. (1999), “Next generation methods for the study of leadership andschool improvement”, in Murphy, J. and Louis, K.S. (Eds), Handbook of Research onEducational Administration, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 463-87.

House, R.J. (1977), “A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership”, in Hunt, J.G. and Larson, L.L. (Eds),Leadership: The Cutting Edge, University Press Carbondale, Carbondale, IL, pp. 189-207.

Hox, J. (2002), Multilevel Analysis, Techniques and Applications, Hillsdale, Erlbaum, NJ.

Hunt, J.G. (1991), Leadership: A New Synthesis, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Johnson, J.R. (2002), “Leading the learning organization: portrait of four leaders”, Leadership andOrganization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 241-9.

Joiner, C.W. Jr (1987), Leadership for Change, Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge, MA.

Kark, R., Shamir, S. and Chen, G. (2003), “The two faces of transformational leadership:empowerment and dependency”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 246-55.

Kantabutra, S. (2007), “Identifying vision realization factors in apparel stores: empirical evidencefrom Australia”, International Journal of Business, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 445-60.

Kantabutra, S. and Avery, G.C. (2007), “Vision effects in customer and satisfaction: an empiricalinvestigation”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 209-29.

Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A. and Bolger, N. (1998), “Data analysis in social psychology”, in Gilbert, D.,Fiske, S. and Lindzey, G. (Eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill,Boston, MA, pp. 233-65.

Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1996), “Direct and indirect effects of three core charismaticleadership components on performance and attitudes”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 36-51.

Kotter, J. (1990), A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management, The Free Press,New York, NY.

Kotter, J.P. (1999), What Leaders Really Do?, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Kurland, H. (2006), “Organizational learning as a function of leadership style and vision, and itscontribution to teachers’ extra effort, job satisfaction, and students’ academicachievements in elementary schools”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofHaifa, Haifa.

Kurland, H. and Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2006), “Organizational learning as a lever for realizing aneducational vision”, Dapim, Vol. 41, pp. 230-71.

JEA48,1

26

Lam, Y.L.J. (2001), “Toward reconceptualizing organizational learning: a multidimensionalinterpretation”, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 15 No. 5,pp. 212-9.

Lam, Y.L.J. (2004), “Factors for differential developments in organizational learning: a case for?Hong Kong schools”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,pp. 155-66.

Larsson, P., Lowstedt, J. and Shani, A.B. (2001), “IT and learning organization: exploring mythsof change”, Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 73-88.

Larwood, L., Kriger, M.P. and Falbe, C.M. (1993), “Organizational vision: an investigation of thevision construct-in-use of AACSB business school deans”, Group and OrganizationManagement, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 214-36.

Larwood, L., Falbe, C.M., Kriger, M.P. and Miesing, P. (1995), “Structure and meaning oforganizational vision”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 740-69.

Leithwood, K. (2004), Educational Leadership, The Laboratory for Student Success, A Review ofthe Research, LSS, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2005), “A review of transformational school leadership research1996-2005”, Leadership and Policy in Schools, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 177-99.

Leithwood, K., Leonard, L. and Sharratt, L. (1998), “Conditions fostering organizational learningin school”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 243-76.

Leithwood, K. and Levin, B. (2005), “Assessing school leader and leadership program effects onpupil learning”, Department for Education and Skills, London, Research report RR662,available at: www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR662.pdf (accessed 15 February2007).

Leithwood, K. and Riehl, C. (2003), “What we know about successful school leadership”, a reportby a division of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), autumn, 2003,ACSL, available at: http://forms.ncsl.org.uk/mediastore/image2/randd-leithwood-successful-leadership.pdf (accessed 20 February 2006).

Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S. and Wahlstrom, K. (2004), How LeadershipInfluences Student Learning: A Review of Research for the Learning from LeadershipProject, The Wallace Foundation, New York, NY.

Lipshitz, R., Friedman, V.J. and Popper, M. (2006), Demystifying Organizational Learning, Sage,London.

Little, J.W. (1982), “Norm of collegiality and experimentation: workplace conditions of schoolsuccess”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 325-40.

Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D.L. and Weingart, L.R. (2001), “Maximizing cross-functional new productteams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: a conflict communications perspective”,The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 779-93.

Marzano, R.J., Waters, T. and McNulty, B.A. (2005), School Leadership that Works: FromResearch to Results, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,Alexandria, VA.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. (1998), Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour through theWilds of Strategic Management, Free Press, New York, NY.

Mulford, M.D. and Silins, H. (2003), “Leadership for organizational learning and improvedstudent outcomes”, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 175-95.

Murphy, J., Elliott, S.N., Goldring, E. and Porter, A.C. (2007), “Leadership for learning: aresearch-based model and taxonomy of behaviors”, School Leadership and Management,Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 179-201.

Leadership style

27

Nanus, B. (1992), Visionary Leadership: Creating a Compelling Sense of Direction for YourOrganization, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Newmann, F.M. (1997), “How secondary schools contribute to academic success”, in Borman, K.and Schneider, B. (Eds), Youth Experiences and Development: Social Influences andEducational Challenges, McCutchan, Berkeley, CA.

Newmann, F., King, B. and Youngs, P. (2000), “Professional development that addresses schoolcapacity: lessons from urban elementary schools”, American Journal of Education, Vol. 108No. 4, pp. 259-99.

Ortenblad, A. (2002), “A typology of the idea of learning organization”, Management Learning,Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 213-30.

Pedler, M. (1996), The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development, McGraw-HillInternational, Maidenhead.

Pejza, J.P. (1985), “The Catholic school principal: a different kind of leader”, paper presented atthe Annual Meeting of the National Catholic Educational Association, St Louis, MO.

Reeves, J. and Boreham, M. (2006), “What’s in a vision? Introducing an organizational learningstrategy in a local authority’s education service”, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 32 No. 4,pp. 467-86.

Ruvio, A. (2001), “The process of establishing post-secondary institutions as entrepreneurship”,an unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Haifa, Haifa in Hebrew.

Sashkin, M. (1988), “The visionary leader”, in Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (Eds), CharismaticLeadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, SanFrancisco, CA, pp. 122-60.

Schechter, C., Sykes, I. and Rosenfeld, J. (2004), “Learning from success: a leverage fortransforming schools into learning communities”, Planning and Changing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4,pp. 154-68.

Seeley, D.S. (1992), “Visionary leaders for reforming public schools”, paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), SanFrancisco, CA.

Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday Currency, New York, NY.

Senge, P.M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R.B. and Smith, B.J. (1994), The Fifth Discipline FieldBook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization, Doubleday/Currency,New York, NY.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1990), “Adding value to leadership gets extraordinary results”, EducationalLeadership, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 23-7.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (2001), The Principalship: A Reflective Practice, 5th ed., Trinity Press, SanAntonio, TX.

Silins, H.C. (1994), “The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership andschool improvement outcomes”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 5 No. 3,pp. 272-98.

Silins, H.C. and Mulford, B. (2004), “Schools as learning organizations: effects on teacherleadership and student outcomes”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 15Nos 3/4, pp. 443-66.

Silins, H.C., Mulford, W.R. and Zarins, S. (2002), “Organizational learning and school change”,Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 613-42.

Stewart, J. (2006), “Transformational leadership: an evolving concept examined through theworks of Burns, Bass, Avolio and Leithwood”, Canadian Journal of Educational

JEA48,1

28

Administration and Policy, Vol. 54, CJEAP, available at: www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/pdf_files/stewart.pdf (accessed 20 June 2007).

Strange, J.M. and Mumford, M.D. (2002), “The origins of vision: charismatic versus ideologicalleadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 343-77.

Strange, J.M. and Mumford, M.D. (2005), “The origins of vision: effects of reflection, models andanalysis”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 121-48.

Torres, R.T. and Preskill, H. (2001), “Evaluation and organizational learning: past, present andfuture”, American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 387-95.

Ubben, G.C. and Hughes, L.W. (1987), The Principal: Creative Leadership for Effective School,Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.

Voulalas, Z.D. and Sharpe, F.G. (2005), “Creating schools as learning communities: obstacles andprocesses”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 187-208.

Wagner, T. (2001), “Leadership for learning: an action theory of school change”, Phi DeltaKappan, Vol. 83 No. 5, pp. 378-83.

Wick, C.W. and Leon, L.S. (1995), “From ideas to action: creating a learning organization”,Human Resource Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 299-311.

Yeo, R. (2003), “Linking organizational learning to organizational performance and success:Singapore case studies”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 Nos 1/2,pp. 70-82.

Ylimaki, R.M. (2006), “Toward a new conceptualization of vision in the work of educationalleaders: case of visionary archetype”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 4,pp. 620-51.

Yukl, G. (1994), Leadership in Organizations, 3th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Yukl, G. (2006), Leadership in Organizations, 6th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Zimmerman, J. (2006), “Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do about it”,NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 90 No. 3, pp. 238-49.

Further reading

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Transformational leadership: a response to critiques”, inChemmers, M.M. and Ayman, A. (Eds), Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives andDirections, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 49-88.

Manasse, A.L. (1986), “Vision and leadership: paying attention to intention. Peabody?”, Journal ofEducation, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 150-73.

Ogden, E.H. and Germinario, V. (1995), The Nation’s Best Schools: Blueprints for Excellence,Technomic, Lancaster, PA.

Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-report in organizational research: problems andprospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.

About the authorsHanna Kurland received her PhD, from the University of Haifa in Israel. Currently she is aManager of Diploma and Certificate Studies and Lecturer at the Faculty of Graduate Studies atOranim – The Academic College of Education. Her research interests focus on: leadership, schoolvision, organizational learning and school improvement. She has written a number of papers andhas presented these papers in a number of international academic conferences such as theAmerican Educational Research Association (AERA), International Society for the Study ofWork and Organizational Values (ISSWOV) and European Association for Research on Learning

Leadership style

29

and Instruction (Earli). Hanna Kurland is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:hkurland@oranim.ac.il

Hilla Peretz received her PhD, summa cum laude, from the University of Haifa. She completeda postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Whitman School of Management at Syracuse University inNew York. Currently she is an Assistant Professor of Management at Ort Braude College. Herresearch interests can be situated on the interface between two disciplinary areas: educationstudies and management studies. Specially, she focuses on training, leadership, values, andculture. She has written a number of papers and has presented these papers in a number ofinternational academic conferences such as the International Society of Work and OrganizationalValues and the American Educational Research Association.

Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz is a Professor of Social-educational Psychology at the Faculty ofEducation at the University of Haifa in Israel. Her current research and action focus on “Araband Jewish Life on a diverse campus.” With a team of researchers, she works on the developmentof interpersonal and intergroup relationships, positive and negative perception and attitudes,identity development, and academic and personal empowerment to understand the predictors ofcoexistence and conflict. She is a founding member (1979) of the International Association of theStudy of Cooperation and an active researcher in the Center for Jews and Arabs at HaifaUniversity.

JEA48,1

30

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints