1

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND TRUST BUILDING

IN A HONG KONG PRIMARY SCHOOL:

A CASE STUDY

A dissertation presented

by

Tsung Lai Fun Maggie

to

The School of Education

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Doctor of Education

in the field of Education

College of Professional Studies

Northeastern University

May 2020

2

Abstract

The transformative educational reform that has impacted Hong Kong, especially since the start of

the second millennium, has prompted changes at every school level. Much attention has centered

on ways school leaders can effectively manage policy making and professional development to

meet the challenges arising from the wave of education reforms. This dissertation investigated

how a highly respected Hong Kong primary school leader uses the four attributes of

transformational leadership--idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual

stimulation, and individual consideration---to build trust with her team members and to facilitate

trust building among the team members themselves. The main research question guiding this

case study is to what extent does the use of transformational leadership factor into faculty trust-

building at a premier primary school in Hong Kong? The four sub-questions considered explore

ways the principal’s behavior results in her being perceived as a role model for the team

members to facilitate trust building, the ways she inspires and motives team members, how she

actually facilitates trust building, and how she displays consideration and concern for her team

members. Major findings revealed that the principal’s transformational leadership practice was

largely responsible for the school’s high level of effectiveness.

Keywords: transformational leadership, trust building, COVID-19

3

Acknowledgements

Leadership styles are the patterns of behaviors leaders adopt in the process of directing the

efforts of subordinates towards the achievement of organizational goals.

The doctoral program at Northeastern University has broadened my horizons on school

leadership. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude and love to a number of people who

helped bring this research study to fruition.

Respectful gratitude is paid to Dr. Lynda Beltz, my dissertation advisor. She persevered

with patience, understanding, and expertise through my research journey. Her ongoing support

and guidance are highly appreciated. A debt of gratitude is also owed to Dr. Kristal Clemons and

Dr. Leslie Hitch for their assistance, profound reflections, and constant encouragement.

A special thank you goes to Dr. Lee Sebastiani, for proofreading this work. My gratitude

is also extended to the principal and teachers of RPS, the target primary school in this research

study. Without the generous support of the principal and her team, I could not have collected

good data and this study would not have been successful.

I would like to acknowledge my husband, who has offered continual encouragement and

support, not only during the completion of this thesis but also over the course of my career.

Without him, I would not be able to perform the role of a principal nor commit the additional

time needed to study and further my learning.

Finally, this thesis is dedicated to the memory of my parents, who inspired me to embrace

life to the fullest without regrets and encouraged me to persist.

4

Table of Contents

Abstract 2

Acknowledgements 3

Table of Contents 4

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study 8

Education in Hong Kong 8

Types of schools in Hong Kong 8

Education Reform in Hong Kong 10

Statement of the Problem and Significance 12

Transformational leadership in schools 12

The Hong Kong school principals 15

Purpose of Study 16

Research Questions 16

Target School for the Research 17

The Principal of the Target School 18

Background of Principal Lee 19

Principal Lee’s leadership style 19

My encounter with Principal Lee 21

Theoretical Framework 22

Positionality Statement 23

My background 23

Numerous positionalities 23

Key roles as a school principal 24

5

Positionality statement 25

Definition of Terms 25

Summation 27

Chapter 2: Literature Review 29

Transformational Leadership 29

Idealized influence 32

Inspirational motivation 32

Intellectual stimulation 33

Individualized consideration 34

Significance of transformational leadership theory 35

An Overview of Trust 37

Attributes of trust 39

Research in Transformational Leadership and Trust in the School Context 40

Cognitive trust 40

Affective trust 41

Research on school leadership and trust 42

Key Activities of Transformational School Leaders in School Context 44

Trust-Building by Transformational School Leaders in School Context 46

Significance of this Case Study Research 47

Summation 48

Chapter 3: Research Design 51

Research Methodology 51

Research Participants 53

The principal of the target school 53

6

Major participants in the target school 54

Demographics 55

Data Collection 55

Timeline 55

On-site Visit 57

Observations 58

Interviews 61

Data Storage and Confidentiality 64

Data Analysis 64

Trustworthiness: Triangulation 65

Summation 65

Chapter 4: Findings 66

Research Questions 66

Data Collection 66

My 2 Weeks Conducting the Case Study at the School 68

Findings from Interviews, Observation, and School Documents 70

Summation 106

Chapter 5: Discussion and Analysis 109

Addressing the Research Questions 109

Main Research Question: Transformational Leadership 110

Subquestion 1: Idealized Influence 114

Subquestion 2: Inspirational Motivation 117

Subquestion 3: Intellectual Stimulation 122

Subquestion 4: Individualized Consideration 125

7

Trustworthiness of the Data 129

Limitations 129

Influencing Current Educational Practices 131

Recommendations for Future Research 132

Transformational Leadership in the time of COVID-19 133

Conclusion 134

References 138

Appendix A: Invitation to Participate in the Research 165

Appendix B: Unsigned Informed Consent Form for Interview 167

Appendix C: Interview Script 171

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Participants’ Demographic Information ..................................................................... 55

Table 3.2 Timeline of the Research Procedures .......................................................................... 56

Table 3.3 Distribution of activities, meetings and observations during the on-site visit...............58

8

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

At the turn of the second millennium, there are changes in different parts of the world

arising from the influence of globalization, competition, and social-economic demands. These

changes include a wave of transformative educational reform. One focal point of this wave of

reform is the city of Hong Kong (Cheng, 2005; Cheng, 2019; Cheng, Chow, & Mok, 2004). In

Hong Kong, apart from their usual responsibilities of school management, school leaders have

had to face numerous problems and challenges, both internal and external. Besides fulfilling their

main teaching roles, teachers in schools are often required to take up extra duties and workloads

related to school management, curriculum development, school promotion, and all kinds of

school-based projects. They have to interact with parents, work with consultants, and, in the case

of experienced teachers, are often required to mentor new teachers. These tasks often demand

extra time and energy (Cheng, Chow, & Tsui, 2001; Cheng, Ng, Cheung, Choi, Tang, Yuen, &

Yuen, 2009). In such a context of swift changes, how school leaders can effectively manage

policy making and professional development to meet those complications arising from the wave

of education reforms is a critical concern to school leaders, particularly in Hong Kong (Cheng et

al., 2004; Cheng, et al., 2009).

Education in Hong Kong

Types of schools in Hong Kong. The education system in Hong Kong has been closely

modeled after United Kingdom’s. Hong Kong was governed by Britain from 1841 to 1997,

before it was handed back to China. In Hong Kong, the Education Bureau (EDB) is the

government board responsible for implementing, developing, formulating, and reviewing

policies and programs and legislation regarding all educational policies from kindergarten to the

tertiary level, and overseeing all schools in Hong Kong. There are 9 years mandatory schooling:

9

Primary One to Six in the primary school setting, and Secondary One to Three in the junior

secondary school setting. Before attending primary schools, a majority of students attend 3 years

in the kindergartens (K1-K3). The school types in Hong Kong can be divided into three major

groups: (a) government schools (administered and fully-funded by the government); (b) aided

schools (usually administered by voluntary bodies but adhering to the EDB’s principles for

financial management), and; (3) private schools (mostly run by different organizations, having

more autonomy from the EDB in financial management, and their admission of students is more

often decided by criteria such as academic merit and social affiliations). Besides these groups of

schools that follow the curriculum set by the EDB, there are also private international schools in

Hong Kong that have education principles and curriculum different from those of the EDB. In

spite of that, 6 years of free primary education is provided for all residents in Hong Kong.

Aided primary schools in Hong Kong. According to statistics provided by the EDB, in

the academic year 2018-19, there were altogether 587 primary schools in Hong Kong, and they

are categorized as government, aided, direct subsidy, private, and international primary schools.

Aided primary schools plays an important part in the Hong Kong public education system as

they comprise 70% among the 587 primary schools in Hong Kong. Most of their funding and

administrative mechanisms are regulated and protected by the EDB in accordance with the

Education Ordinance, which aims at promoting education in Hong Kong, consolidating and

amending the law relating to the supervision and control of schools and the teaching therein, and

related purposes. They are generally run by nonprofit school-sponsoring bodies, with

government subsidies based on the total number of students and classes. As their funding is

supported by the government, the appointment of the teaching staff is also subject to government

regulation and supervision. In addition, the employment terms, including staff benefits and

10

salaries, are also subject to EDB regulations. Thus, all teaching staff in aided schools should

fulfill the requirements laid down and approved by the EDB. The salary of teaching staff is

adjusted according to the EDB guidelines and seniority following the government pay scale in

Hong Kong, as its finance and administration are regulated and supervised by the EDB.

Moreover, all aided primary schools are subject to the supervision of the Incorporated

Management Committees (IMCs), each of which is comprised of a group of directors and

managers that act as the school board. The Education Ordinance stipulates that the main function

of the IMC is responsible for formulating the education policies accomplished with the vision

and mission set by the sponsoring body, and to ensure that the mission and vision are carried out

well for the school. The IMC is also required to assure that the education of the students, school

planning, and school improvement is uphold properly.

Education Reform in Hong Kong

In terms of scope and intensity, the accumulative educational influences leading to

change were overwhelming (Education Commission, 2000); education reform over the world,

including Hong Kong, continues today. The scope of the education reform covers the admission

systems for various stages of education, the assessment mechanisms, and curriculum (Education

Progress Report, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006).

The core of the education reform focuses specifically on pursuing quality performance in

the development of the curriculum, as well as teaching and learning. This is based on the

fundamental requirements of the basic curriculum. Schools are advised to build on the basic

curriculum in developing their individual school-based curriculum. Modifications may include

re-adjusting learning goals; re-organizing content; revising learning, teaching, and assessment

methods; and adding optional studies, to suit the unique needs of schools, with on-site

11

professional support provided by the EDB. The EDB also supervises the implementation of

educational programs in Hong Kong and assesses the effectiveness of school development. It

also sends professional educators to provide on-site individual support to schools based on their

needs, to lead or to train teachers in various programs that facilitate school development. It

expedites sharing amongst teachers, and disseminates resources and successful practices.

In addition, Quality Assurance for Schools was introduced by the EDB in the 2003-04

academic year. This mandated program identified evidence-based school self-evaluation (SSE)

as an indispensable element for school improvement in Hong Kong. To implement this, the EDB

has launched the External School Review (ESR) and School Self Evaluation (SSE) as an overall

school evaluation process for every school in Hong Kong. The SSE, integrated with External

School Review (ESR) and school inspections, facilitates schools’ self-improvement by

establishing a precise Planning-Implementation-Evaluation (P-I-E) cycle, ratifying the overall

school accomplishment in the SSE and providing professional advice for school enhancement.

These two measures were instituted to help schools valuate their own performance, assure

accountability for the public, and facilitate schools’ self-development (Quality Assurance

Division, 2006).

Furthermore, the Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA), a policy which is conducted

at Primary Three, Primary Six, and Junior Secondary Three at the territory level, facilitates

assessment by providing schools with objective data on the performance of students in

Mathematics, English Language, and Chinese Language from Primary Three to Junior

Secondary Three. Based on the results provided in the TSA reports, schools and teachers can

verify the Basic Competencies of their students, their strengths and weaknesses. Schools and

teachers can thus design various enhancement plans for students to improve their performance

12

and to accommodate their learning differences; this is all done in connection with attempts to

judge the overall effectiveness and successful performance of schools.

Hence, because of the continuous challenges that Hong Kong schools are facing

regarding school performance, school leaders are considered to be the most important ones that

must be at the forefront of school improvement efforts (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Finnigan,

2010). Thus, the leadership practices and approaches that school leaders present in schools are

significant in enhancing students’ overall performance and realizing their ultimate school vision

(Barnett & McCormick, 2004; Chen, Lin, Lin, & McDonough, 2012).

Statement of the Problem and Significance

Schools in Hong Kong have been facing endless complicated and fast-paced educational

reforms that have never been experienced before (Cheng & Walker, 2008). All areas of

education seem to have been targeted by a perpetual stream of education reforms. Such

initiatives have been underscored by the expanded demands that they have been placing on

schools, principals, and teachers (Hallinger & Lu, 2014; Hallinger, Lee, & Ko, 2014).

Simultaneous internal and external pressure has exhausted most frontline educators. In addition,

schools are facing extraordinary force from the swiftly changing outside conditions and the

needs of an ever-evolving universal economy (Hechanova & Cementina-Olpoc, 2013; Walker &

Ko, 2011). This is pressuring schools to develop competitive skills (Park & Jeong, 2013;

Tschannen-Moran, 2003, 2004, 2009; Uddin, 2013), as well as requiring principals to be ready to

take on modern leadership roles.

Transformational leadership in schools

Research regarding school effectiveness has shown that school leadership is one of the

key elements in successful school reform (Bush, 2008; Chen, Tang, Jin, Xie, & Li, 2014; Gilley,

13

McMillan, & Gilley, 2009; Hallinger & Lu, 2005; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005, 2006, 2008); and

research has also identified transformational leadership as one of the key modes to uplift

effectiveness in teaching and learning, quality school education, and facilitating school reform

(Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Hallinger, 2003, 2005; Jovanovica & Ciricb, 2016; Leithwood &

Jantzi, 2005, 2006, 2008; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). According to James MacGregor

Burns (1979), transformational leadership is a series of actions in which leaders and followers

assist one another to achieve to a considerable higher level of morality and motivation. In

addition to acting as role models who challenge and inspire followers to take greater ownership

for their work, transformational leaders bring about positive change in their followers with the

goal of advancing them into leaders as well through a variety of mechanisms. These mechanisms

include uniting the sense of identity of the followers, and the collective identity of the school

goals, to optimize their potential and capability (Forsyth & Adams, 2014; Hamstra, Van Yperen,

Wisse, & Sassenberg, 2014). Hence, transformational leadership is, at its core, a participatory

process of creative collaboration and transformation for mutual benefit between school leaders

and followers. Transformational leadership involves recognizing that an accumulation of small

actions, gestures, and even casual words, will influence relationships in schools (Capra & Luisi,

2014; Elliott, 2013). The development of effective transformational leadership is central to the

followers’ trust in leaders (Jung & Avolio, 2000; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Li, Hallinger, &

Walker, 2016; Mitchell, Ripley, Adams, & Raju, 2011) as trust is consistently employed as a

metric of social exchange between leaders and followers (Kolanc, 2011; Reina, Reina, &

Hudnut, 2017; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011). Lack of trust may lead to low innovation, and

ultimately impair receptiveness to changing conditions (Hallinger et al., 2014; Li, Hallinger &

Walker, 2016; Weiherl & Masal, 2016). Therefore, a trustful relationship can enhance

14

collaboration between team members, increase team cohesion, and improve the work

performance of individuals (Bradach & Eccles, 1989; Daniels, Hondeghem, & Dochy, 2019;

Hallinger & Lu, 2014; Pfeffer, 1994; Powell, 1990).

In sum, it is critical to construct a trustful team-building environment by adopting

transformational leadership. High trust between leaders and team members can lead to a more

engaged and committed workforce. This leads to a higher-performing team that is more likely to

inspire the best from its members, gain the support needed for success, and enhance

collaboration between team members (Bradach & Eccles, 1989; Jovanovica & Ciricb, 2016;

Hallinger & Lu, 2014; Ho, 2007; Pfeffer, 1994; Powell, 1990). In addition, studies based on

examining transformational leadership showed that this style is positively related to motivation,

commitment, professional growth, school culture and student achievement (Arachchi, 2012;

Anderson & Sun, 2015; Griffith, 2004; Kruger et al., 2007; McCarley, Peters, & Decman, 2014;

Sekaran & Bougie, 2010). It is thus worthwhile to find out how school leaders can best build

trust with the team and facilitate trust-building between team members by adopting

transformational leadership.

School leaders. In general, the main role of school leaders is to promote school reform

and they are also the key to successful school reformation (Datnow & Castellano, 2001; Tims,

Bakker, & Xanthopoulou, 2011; Uddin, 2013). Modern school management philosophy

emphasizes both school leaders and teachers, and thus, the interpersonal relationships within a

school are not only part of the mechanism but are also valuable for school development (Lyons

& Schneider, 2009; Moolenaar, Daly, & Sleegers, 2010; Moolenaar & Sleegers, 2015). To this

end, it is imperative that schools employ standard and effective policies that can match the fast-

changing expectations of school leaders and management. A variety of structures should be made

15

clear and adopted (Tschannen-Moran, 2009, 2014a, 2014b; Tse & Mitchell, 2010), particularly

policies affecting organizational structure, labor division in specialized fields, written

regulations, and protocols that help the schools deal with the dimension and intricacy of their

assets and functions (Ussahawanitchakit, 2011; Van Den Akker, Heres, Lasthuizen, & Six,

2009).

When leading schools, determining how to combine endeavors systematically is

fundamental to effective school performance (Cameron, 2013; Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). In

addition, trust in leadership has many implications for schools, so leader-follower relationships

deserve attention. The role and importance of trust in the school management context cannot be

underestimated or undervalued (Lee & Nie, 2017; Szeto & Cheng, 2018). Hence, school leaders

who do not purposefully and consistently try to cultivate trust and build strong connections at

every step are bound to fail or fall far short of achieving their goals, even with the best-

determined and considerable engagement (Starke, Sharma, Mauws, Dyck, & Dass, 2011;

Straiter, 2005). One way to accomplish this is to adopt the transformational leadership style; this

is a unique challenge for school principals in the city of Hong Kong.

The Hong Kong school principals

The significance of Hong Kong school principals is best recognized in terms of their role

in the education reform. They shoulder the responsibility to educate the young generation to

enhance economic competitiveness in the local context and focus on public accountability and

market force. In promoting school reform, school principals can play a crucial part in leading and

uplifting school results based on their leadership and capabilities in school development and

management; thus, school success highly depends on the principal’s leadership (Brownlee,

16

Nailon, & Tickle, 2010; Hallinger, 2003 & 2005; Moolenaar et al., 2010; Noonan & Walker,

2008; Seong-Wung & Seung-Il, 2011).

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to look at the array of practices of one Hong Kong primary

school principal who has adopted the four attributes of transformational leadership: idealized

influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration

(Bass, 1985, 1999; Bass & Bass, 2008) in her management. She has played a role in the school

being considered as exemplary; this study analyzes how her leadership style has contributed to

her school’s reputation for excellence. It also examines how trust building by principals can best

suit the needs of the modern school management, and how this can contribute significant benefits

to the professional development of primary schools in Hong Kong.

In recent years, multiple scholars have investigated leadership and trust; yet, there are

very few studies conducted on how transformational leaders build trust with their team members,

and at the same time facilitate trust-building among the team members themselves (Goldman,

2000; Hu, Wang, Liden, & Sun, 2012). Therefore, this research is significant for both me as the

researcher, who has been serving as a school leader for years, and for other Hong Kong

educators, particularly those who are working at top management levels.

Research Questions

This study explores a main question and four subquestions. The subquestions address the

attributes of transformational leadership identified by Bass (1999) and described under

Theoretical Rationale later in this chapter.

Main question: To what extent does the use of transformational leadership factor into

faculty trust-building at a premier primary school in Hong Kong?

17

Subquestion 1: In what ways does the principal exhibit behavior that results in her being

perceived as a role model for the team members to facilitate trust building? (Idealized influence)

Subquestion 2: In what ways does the principal inspire and motivate her team members to

facilitate trust building? (Inspirational motivation)

Subquestion 3: In what ways does the principal stimulate her team members to facilitate trust

building? (Intellectual stimulation)

Subquestion 4: In what ways does the principal display consideration and concern for her team

members to facilitate trust building? (Individualized consideration)

In sum, this study examined the current situation at a specific target primary school in

Hong Kong to understand how the school leader adopted the transformational leadership style to

facilitate trust building based on Burns’s (1978) and Bass’s (1985) transformational leadership

theories.

Target School for the Research

The school has been established in the district for about 20 years. It has about 700

students in 24 classes. There are about 48 teachers plus 12 clerical and support staff. Most of the

teachers have been working in the educational field for about 3 to 15 years, and their average age

is about 33.

I chose this primary school as the research subject because it is a prestigious school in the

New Territories in Hong Kong, known not only for its strong leadership, but also for its

exceptional professional teaching and learning. Over the years, this school has been invited by

the EDB to provide collegiate sharing with other schools and teachers in disseminating

leadership practices. Teachers of the target school have consistently received awards, including

the prestigious Chief Executive’s Awards (CEATE) presented by the EDB, from 2005 onwards.

18

The CEATE award acknowledges the accomplishments of teachers who exhibit commendable

teaching discipline and competence. In addition, it pools together expert teachers through the

CEATE Teachers Association to expedite sharing of good teaching practices in their teaching

profession.

In addition, the Quality Assurance process conducted by the ESR team recognized the

continuous school development and improvement of the target school throughout these years.

The ESR report (i.e. the written feedback provided by the ESR team to the target school after the

quality assurance review, which identified all strengths and weaknesses, and suggested means for

further school improvement) clearly noted that the effectiveness of the target school’s

professional leadership was one of the keys to sustaining its development and enhancing

teachers’ performance, and the professional knowledge and strategies in managing the school.

The Principal of the Target School

Ann Lee, the principal (Principal Lee), has also been highly affirmed by the EDB in the

ESR report. According to the report, she has been keeping up with the latest trends in education,

and deploying different resources, including funding from the EDB and support from external

professionals, to ensure a diversified teaching and learning experience for all stakeholders, and to

enhance support for their growth and to facilitate their whole-person development. Furthermore,

to align with the development focuses and to cater for team members’ needs, Principal Lee also

solicits external professional support services and arranges visits to fellow schools, to help her

teachers acquire new knowledge and broaden their horizons. Hence, Principal Lee is often

invited by both the EDB as well as other schools to be a guest speaker, and to share her rationale

and strategies regarding effective school management and transformational leadership with the

19

other school principals and school managers. Because she is quite well known in the primary

school sector, her work is especially useful and valuable to my case study research.

Background of Principal Lee

Principal Lee, an educator serving in the field of education for nearly 30 years, is 52

years old. She started her career as a teacher in 1989 after graduating from university, where she

majored in English and Chinese. Her first job after graduation was as an English and Chinese

teacher at a primary school. She joined the current school 18 years ago, first as the person-in-

charge of the Chinese faculty, and then as the curriculum development officer responsible for

designing and arranging the school curriculum at all levels. Subsequently, she was promoted to

be vice principal, and then principal 9 years ago.

Principal Lee’s leadership style

Principal Lee’s key roles as the school principal are strategic planning surrounding school

and staff development, managing daily operations, and accomplishing the school’s vision and

mission with the aid of her colleagues. Bringing all staff together to work as a team to deliver the

best service possible has always been her priority. From her point of view, mutual

communication is important for development, and hence, she holds regular meetings with her

team members so as to ensure that everyone embraces the same vision, i.e. to nurture the

students to their full potential in all aspects.

As the principal, there are two main aspects of school management that she is particularly

concerned with: school administration and curriculum development. As Principal Lee is a person

who holds very high expectations, the curriculum development in her school not only meets the

standard of the centralized curriculum designed by the government, but it also builds up a special

school-based curriculum in her school, with the main focus on the holistic growth of all students,

20

facilitating the all-round development of each student. In her school, every individual staff

member has a clear role and duty to perform, and hence, there is almost always a smooth

communication among the team, and everyone appears to be on the same page. Hence, most of

the team members are able to extend their strengths under Principal Lee’s leadership.

Principal Lee also tries her best to bring people’s thoughts and ideas together, and to

implement them into projects or plans that are going to benefit the school’s development. In

addition, she is responsible for laying out clear guidelines and setting up policies and systems

that facilitate the management process, and to constantly evaluate for continual school

improvement, so as to ensure that they are up-to-date. She also has to perform an annual

appraisal of all team members to assess their work performance, make recommendations for

promoting outstanding staff, and tailor remedial plans for those who are deficient in their

performance. Budget planning is also a key role for her, as she must constantly review the

financial status of each school event and daily operational costs to maximize the effective and

appropriate use of resources.

Principal Lee came across the theory of transformational leadership nearly 20 years ago

when she was attending her master’s degree course in management. She was deeply impressed

by this theory because it stresses building philosophy and reconstructing values within the

organization. Being a serving principal, she tries to apply the theories and principles of

transformational leadership into her daily practice in management, and she has found that such

theories do help inspire her team members to enhance their values and personal goals through

creating a better future as a team, enhancing personal charisma, and delegating authority to

different subordinate parties to maximize their abilities and team building.

21

My encounter with Principal Lee

I first met Principal Lee when I participated in a workshop 3 years ago. Principal Lee was

invited by the EDB to share with the principals and managers of other schools on her strategies

in team building. I found her presentation very interesting and useful because the strategies she

adopts provided me, as a principal, new insights to lead my own team. After the presentation, we

talked for quite a long time, sharing different aspects of the joy, challenges, and difficulties of

managing our respective schools. Afterwards, we exchanged contact information, and from time

to time we shared with each other our best practices in managing our respective schools.

After one year, when I began to consider the research topic for my doctoral thesis, I

approached Principal Lee about the idea of doing a case study in her school. She was very

interested in my research because it was something related to what she was trying to work out in

her management, and through my case study research, she would be able to go in-depth into how

a transformational leader could build trust among team members based on the four attributes—

idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized

consideration—and to facilitate the building of a trustful relationship between the school leader

and the team, as well as among the team members themselves. She offered me the opportunity to

station myself at her school for 2 weeks to conduct in-depth interviews with her and six other

teachers (two middle managers, two senior and two junior teachers), and to observe daily

interactions between her and her staff (for instance, in staff meetings, assemblies, and other

school activities). She was very generous and allowed me to review school documents, such as

school plans, staff meeting agenda and minutes, ESR report, lesson observation sheets, and a

logbook written by her, so I as an outside observer could get a thorough picture of how she used

transformational leadership to run her school.

22

After obtaining oral consent from Principal Lee for doing a case study research at her

school via a phone call, I sent her a formal invitation letter about the rationale of doing the case

study with a suggested timeframe (see Appendix A). With a minor adjustment of the timeframe

to best suit the schedule of the target school, I was stationed at her school for 2 weeks during

school hours. During my stay at the target school, not only did I conduct in-depth interviews with

Principal Lee, the two middle managers, two senior and two junior teachers, but I also attended

the staff meetings, school activities, and school assemblies to collect qualitative data in real-life

situations. In addition, I reviewed school plans, staff meeting agenda and minutes, ESR report,

notes, lesson observation sheets, and the logbook written by Principal Lee in order to investigate

the strategies that she adopts in her school to facilitate trust building with her team. In this case

study research, I aimed at finding out from the teachers’ point of view how trust could be built

by the principal in their job situation and their workplace relationships.

Theoretical Framework

Burns (1978) pointed out that transformational leaders are able to inspire individuals to

accomplish considerably higher purposes and that a leader exhibits behavior that supports others

to develop a shared goal. His study examined how leaders and followers collaborate with one

another.

Bass and Avolio (1994), expanding the work of Burns (1978), identified four main

attributes in transformational leadership: (a) idealized influence—the ability to be role models

for followers; (b) inspirational motivation—the ability to motivate and inspire followers by

giving them meaning and challenges; (c) intellectual stimulation—the ability to stimulate

followers' efforts to be more creative and innovative; and (d) individual consideration—the

ability to pay special awareness to individual's needs for accomplishment and growth.

23

The impact of these four attributes on trust building between the school principal and the

team, as well as among the team members themselves, was examined to obtain a better

understanding of how transformational school leadership was perceived within one of the Hong

Kong primary schools.

Positionality Statement

My background

I am a Chinese, born and raised in Hong Kong. Like most middle-aged Hong Kong

citizens, the first half of my life living in Hong Kong was under the regime of the British

Government as the colony before 1977. It was after that year Hong Kong was returned to China,

and under the Basic Law, Hong Kong citizens are entitled to enjoy “One Country, Two Systems”

for 50 years. Thereafter, in the second half of my life, I have had to adjust life back to my mother

country.

Numerous positionalities

I got married 32 years ago and am the spouse of a medical officer and a mother of an

accountant and a veterinarian. Like most Hong Kong people, I have had double identities, a

mother to take care of my children and also a full-time worker throughout the past years.

The first failure in my life was getting unsatisfactory results in my Hong Kong Secondary

School Examination (HKSEE) in 1982, resulting in the failure to be promoted to Secondary Six

at that time. From then on, I promised myself that I could try my best to advance my study

thereafter whenever I got the chance. Hence, after earning a bachelor’s degree in Educational

Management, I was awarded three master’s degrees in Language Studies, Education, and

Translation. As a life-long learner, I believe everyone has to obligation to upgrade themselves in

24

different aspects so as to keep abreast with societal changes. Years after, I decided to enhance

myself by pursuing a doctoral degree which is a big dream in my academic path.

Working in the field of education as a teacher was my only dream since childhood, and I

am so lucky to be able to serve in the field in which I am totally devoted in my career path. I

have been serving in the field of education for about 30 years. I started my career as an English

and Music teacher at the beginning, then was promoted to be the panel head of the English

department, after that the curriculum development officer who was responsible for designing and

arranging the curriculum for the school in all levels, then the vice-principal, and ultimately

principal in two different primary schools, one in Hong Kong and the present one in Shenzhen,

China, in the past 12 years.

Key roles as a school principal

My key roles as principal at the school include strategic planning surrounding school and

staff development, management of the school’s daily operation, and accomplishment of the

school’s vision and mission with the aid of my colleagues. Bringing all staff together and

working as a team has always been my priority so as to deliver the best service possible. Mutual

communication is one of the important aspects when it comes to development in my point of

view. I hold regular meetings with my colleagues and parents to ensure that everyone embraces

the same vision and is on the same boat. I try very hard to bring people’s thoughts and ideas

together and to build these into projects or plans that are going to be beneficial to the school

development as an entity. In addition, I am responsible to lay out clear guidelines or set up

policies and system to facilitate the management process. These require constant evaluation for

continual school improvement and to ensure that they are up-to-date with the current situation.

Budget planning is also my key role in being the principal. I need to constantly review the

25

financial status for each school event and daily operational cost to maximize the effective use of

resources in the most appropriate way.

Positionality statement

As school principal, all of the fore-mentioned duties are aimed at encouraging the all-

round development of our students. To achieve this, every individual staff member should have a

clear role and duty to perform, to ensure everyone is on the same page and is able to deliver their

own talents with minimal boundaries in a considerate, harmonious work environment. Hence, to

conduct a case study research on transformational leadership and trust building in one of the

Hong Kong primary schools enables me to examine how the leadership style adopted by the

target principal facilitates trust building with team members from the perspective of a third party

in-depth. Coupled with my own experiences, this was a positive addition, in that it serves as a

valuable reference for improving overall school management by the principal.

Definition of Terms

Words or phrases can have various meanings in different situations. These meanings

might convey various thoughts by individuals who share common ground at a certain point of

time, reflecting the meanings from their own perspectives, usage, and time interval. Hence, this

study established and maintained definitions for the terms below, making the definitions more

understandable in this specific context.

Affective-based trust. This represents a kind of reciprocal care, consideration, and

sentimental connection in the way that one is confident in another by means of the perception

engendered through the degree of care and consideration that one exhibits. It is more sentimental

than analytical (McAllister, 1995) and is interdependent on a partner, based on sentiments

(Gilstrap & Collins, 2012; Johnson & Grayson, 2005).

26

Cognitive-based trust. The basis of it is cognitive interpretation (McAllister, 1995) that

will be proportionally high when recurrent communications allows other parties to know,

recognize, and anticipate the processes and patterns of the interaction (Hite, 2005). It represents

the beliefs of individuals about others’ required skills and knowledge, reliance, and efficiency. It

is related to the act and fulfillments of dealing with a partner directly and is often developed

based on the substantiated reliability of individuals (Csorba, 2004; Goodwin, Whittington,

Murray, & Nichols, 2011; McAllister, 1995).

Idealized influence. This is the sentimental element of leadership used to describe

leaders who have extensive and profound influence on their followers. It signifies the leaders’

powerful communal charisma and strong determination, and their focus on the higher order

needs and ethical proposition of the followers (Bass, 1985).

Individualized consideration. Leaders consider their followers individually and

empower them to develop their potential to the full. The leaders also provide their followers full

support both socially and emotionally, and individualized consideration is given to mentor,

coach, advise, encourage and support the followers’ actualization and satisfaction (Bass, 1985).

Inspirational motivation. Leaders inspire and incite their followers to achieve desirous

aims that might seem to be impossible by engaging them with nonintellectual, sentimental

attributes to the influence mechanism. It marks the pleasing behavior of the leaders to the

followers by asserting their creative thoughts and tackling thought-provoking dilemma (Bass,

1985).

Intellectual stimulation. Leaders appeal to the intellects and intuitions of their followers

by evolving their consciousness and resolution of problems in terms of conception, assumption,

and values from a most thoughtful and rational perspective. It uses the leaders’ behaviors to

27

energize their followers by projecting a positive future, highlighting determined goals, and

conveying an exhilarating creativity (Bass, 1985).

Transformational leadership. This is a series of action in which leaders and followers

assist one another to achieve to a higher level of morality and desire (Burns, 1978).

Transformational leaders direct their followers to act beyond personal interests, prioritize

organizational achievement, and stimulate their intellectual talents. They encourage them to

acquire new knowledge and skills in doing their work (Bass, 1985), to improve their

performance ultimately (Bartram & Casimir, 2007; Bass, 1985).

Trust. This is a central part of all human relationships that relies on the understanding of

expertise and goodwill of the leaders (Coleman, 2012). It is also a willingness to rely on others

and having the confidence that others will reciprocate if one collaborates (Mayer, Davis, &

Schoorman, 1995).

Summation

Transformational leadership theory is significant for leaders of the schools to shape

shared vision, mentor leaders of the future, foster transformation in others, and act with high

ethical and moral excellence. Bass’s (1985, 1999) four attributes—idealized influence,

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration—are aspects

of modeling, stimulating, inspiring, motivating, developing, facilitating and fostering creativity

among the team at schools. As there are very few studies that have connected transformational

leadership and trust building in the primary school context, or how transformational leadership

can lead to trust building, particularly in Hong Kong, it is worthwhile to take a look at one

primary school in Hong Kong and to examine how the principal has had great success in

adopting transformational leadership in building trust with her team members and among the

28

team members themselves with these four attributes, to showcase their strengths in order to

promote school performance in and bring school development to a higher achievement level

(Bradach & Eccles, 1989; Fukuyama, 1995; Powell, 1990; Uddin, 2013; Weiherl & Masal,

2016).

To this end, this is a study of an exceptional primary school in Hong Kong and how

Principal Lee, the school’s highly respected leader, has used transformational leadership to

facilitate trust building between the school leader and the team that has caused the school to be

considered exceptional in its outcomes for students, and a model for other schools in Hong

Kong. I hoped to discover how this leadership style facilitates trust building within the team,

how it helps build trust among the team members, and how it can benefit other schools in China

or Hong Kong as a management reference for educators and school leaders.

29

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The purpose of this study was to discover how transformational leadership can suit the

needs of modern school management, facilitate school leaders in trust building among their team,

and benefit the development of primary schools in Hong Kong or in other areas. By

understanding how a school leader manages a Hong Kong primary school, other school leaders

in Hong Kong adopting transformational leadership can formulate a policy that creates a

practical, democratic, and mutually trusting environment.

This study explores the main research question and the following four subquestions:

Main question: To what extent does the use of transformational leadership factor into

faculty trust-building at a premier primary school in Hong Kong?

Subquestion 1: In what ways does the principal exhibit behavior that results in her being

perceived as a role model for the team members to facilitate trust building? (Idealized influence)

Subquestion 2: In what ways does the principal inspire and motivate her team members to

facilitate trust building? (Inspirational motivation)

Subquestion 3: In what ways does the principal stimulate her team members to facilitate trust

building? (Intellectual stimulation)

Subquestion 4: In what ways does the principal display consideration and concern for her team

members to facilitate trust building? (Individualized consideration)

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership theory began with Burns in 1973 when he first introduced

this concept in his expository study on political leaders. According to his explanation,

transformational leadership is a process through which leaders and followers enable one another

to accelerate integrity, motivation, and incentive to higher levels (Burns, 1978). Burns (1978)

30

also distinguished between transactional and transformational leadership (Burns, 1978, 2010).

Transactional leadership is defined by a sensitive eye for chances, and a good hand at

negotiating, influencing, and interchanging (Burns, 1978), and it appears when one takes the first

step to contact another to interchange for valued things (Burns, 1978, 2010).

Burns (1978) further interpreted ways to measure the effectiveness of these two

leadership theories and demonstrated their influences on followers’ motives and performance at

work. Burns (1978) claimed that the theory of transformational leadership inspires leaders to be

authentic and credible and influences them to motivate followers in a suitable manner. Hence,

the rewards of transformational leadership have been widely certified by researchers (Judge &

Piccolo, 2004; Luyten & Bazo, 2019; Mitchell, Kensler, & Tschannen-Moran, 2015; Robinson,

Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008; Simola, Barling, & Turner, 2012; Tang, 2011; Uddin, 2013;

Ussahawanitchakit, 2011; Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011).

In the last 30 years, a number of researchers have scrutinized the direct influences of

transformational leadership on the work outcomes of followers, including their job performance,

inventiveness, and citizenry behaviors in the organization (Burke, Sims, Lassara, & Salas, 2007;

Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Tschannen-Moran, 2004,

2009, 2014). In recent years, researchers in leadership have attempted to extricate the

psychological mechanisms that underlying these connections (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Puja, 2004;

Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011). Transformational leaders influence, strengthen, instill, and

motivate followers to initiate changes that help shape the forthcoming success of the

organization by setting examples at the managerial level through substantial insights of corporate

perception, ownership of followers, and independency in the work environment (Bass, 1985,

31

1998; Hallinger, 2003, 2005; Hanaysha et al., 2012; Hechanova & Cementina-Olpoc, 2013;

Seong-Wung & Seung-IL, 2011).

Following the 1980s, transformational leadership has been a leading topic of discussion

among those who research Western leadership theory. With the origin of transformational

leadership in leaders’ personal merits and beliefs (Hoy & Miskel, 2005), it was defined as an

approach based on the abilities of the leaders to change the organizational direction and culture,

and enhance coworkers’ trust in the organization (Hoog, Johansson, & Olofsson, 2007; Long et

al., 2014; Krishnan, 2012). The endeavors of transformational leaders go well beyond the

satisfaction of basic needs (Finnigan, 2010; Heck & Moriyama, 2010; Schwepker & Good,

2010). Not only do they attempt to engage subordinates, they also empower and inspire their

followers to gratify their higher needs, self-respect, and self-actualization (Hackman & Johnson,

2009; Louis, Dretzkea, & Wahlstrom, 2015). During the interaction between leaders and

followers, the scope of values and collective good will be broadened and their motivation and

morality will be raised (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Hoy & Miskel, 2005; Kuhnert, 1994; Northouse,

2007, 2013).

Characteristics of transformational leadership. Bass and Avolio (1995) identified

behaviors that distinguish transformational leaders. They employ idealized influence,

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration to promote

reachable ultimate goals (Marks & Printy, 2003; Long et al., 2014). Transformational leaders

support and recognize their followers on an emotional level, through which leaders share their

dedication.

32

Idealized influence

Idealized influence provides a high ethical behavior model, encourages pride, and

pursues trust and respect. Leaders employ idealized influence by exhibiting behaviors that are

widely appreciated in society, including exemplary ethical and altruistic behaviors, especially

when they serve as role models (Bass & Riggio, 2005, 2006; Sun, Xu, & Shang, 2014). With

acute foresight they can gain agreement from followers and effectively build a vision together

(Bono & Judge, 2004; Simic, 1998; Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003). By using persuasive

language and action, transformational leaders stimulate the loyalty and satisfaction of followers

in the organization (Charbonnier-Voirin, El Akremi, & Vandenberghe, 2010; Hanaysha et al.,

2012).

Inspirational motivation

Transformational leaders also use inspirational motivation to achieve organizational

goals. They do this by challenging their team members, conveying confidence about prospective

goals, and providing justification for the tasks at hand. If followers are to be motivated to

perform tasks, they need to have a strong sense of rationale.

Transformational leaders have an influential vision and engage followers in their vision

through their communication skills. Leaders with this attribute use all sorts of strategies and

communication techniques to stimulate the morale of the team (Dirani & Kuchinke, 2011;

Geijsel et al., 2003), as well as fine-tuning team behavioral patterns that gradually help

accomplish the organizational goals (Kelly, 2003; Stone et al., 2003; Tang, 2011). By conveying

clear expectations, transformational leaders demonstrate their responsibility in reaching shared

goals. They also optimize the attitude of followers toward developing a preferred vision and

33

inspire hope for the future, to motivate the team to achieve their best for the organization success

(Bass, 1985; Dubrin, 2015; Geertz, 1983).

Intellectual stimulation

Transformational leaders with this attribute act as a coach or a mentor. They

give individualized attention to the professional development of individuals by customizing

learning opportunities based on each follower’s unique needs and desires (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev,

2009a, 2009b; Hamstra, Van Yperen, Wisse, & Saddenberg, 2014; Hechanova & Cementina-

Olpoc, 2013). Leaders with this attribute help followers address organizational

problems, supporting their creative and inventive solutions. They also teach them ways to

develop innovative strategies, encourage them by implementing their new ideas (Feldhusen &

Goh, 1995; Hamstra et al., 2014; Hu et al., 2012). Leaders prompt the creativity and ability of

followers to think independently by encouraging them to challenge presumptions and to have the

courage to take risks, and by soliciting their thoughts (Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg, & Boerner,

2008; Gholamreza et al., 2009). They consistently motivate their followers to reexamine their

work and review old problems. They are open to others’ ideas, even though the ideas may seem

to lack forethought at the beginning (Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011; Yu, Leithwood, & Jantzi,

2002; Yukl, 2001).

In addition, leaders see learning opportunities as a significant value and unforeseen

situations as chances to improve, thus helping followers develop independent and innovative

thoughts. Leaders also inspire followers to think thoroughly about their roles and find out ways

to accomplish their tasks with creativity (Bass & Avolio, 1999, 2003; García-Morales, Jiménez-

Barrionuevo, & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, 2012; Finnigan, 2010). Thus, this leadership style helps

strengthen the problem-solving ability of followers by encouraging objective solutions to

34

problems and by altering perceptions of the problems themselves (Bono & Judge, 2004; García-

Morales et al., 2012; Lam, 1996; Kelly, 2003). Transformational leaders with this attribute are

willing to persuade their followers to spend more time on professional development and training,

to enhance their skills and knowledge, to widen their scope with a variety of experiences, and to

build up an innovation-oriented climate in the organization (Brownlee et al., 2010; Chen et al.,

2012).

Individualized consideration

Individualized consideration is the attribute by which leaders consider the needs of

followers individually by acting as mentors or coaches, and by listening to their concerns and

needs (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1999; Overstreet, 2012). Through individualized consideration,

leaders exhibit concern for the well-being of their followers. They are conscious of the strengths

and weaknesses of their followers and allocate work accordingly (Salfi, 2012; Schwepker &

Good, 2010; Tse & Mitchell, 2010).

Leaders with this attribute are empathetic and supportive. They communicate with

followers openly, and challenge them for their personal growth (Hussain, Talib, & Shah, 2014;

Irshad & Hashmi, 2014; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Leithwood et al., 1996). When leaders

recognize their followers and let them know that their well-being is genuinely cared about, it

increases their eagerness for self-development and strengthens their motivation (Judge &

Piccolo, 2004; Michaelis, Stegmaier, & Sonntag, 2010; Podsakoff et al., 1990).

Moreover, transformational leaders with this attribute exhibit confidence in followers’

capacity for innovation and recognize their contributions to the team particularly when they

adopt new strategies in the organizational context (Hechanova & Cementina-Olpoc, 2013;

Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005, 2006, 2008; McCarley et al., 2014). This attribute can help leaders

35

create and sustain a nurturing, non-punitive atmosphere for innovations (Bass & Avolio, 1999;

Kim, Kumar, & Kumar, 2012). In a psychologically safe workplace where there is no fear of

being ridiculed, innovation can be encouraged (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996;

Bartram & Casimir, 2007). Thus, this attribute stresses the interpersonal relationship between

leaders and followers, particularly when the leaders build a mutual trusting relationship that

allows each member to feel valued (Kimura, 2012; Michaelis et al., 2010; Zand, 1997).

Another important aspect of this attribute is to allow leaders to play the role of teaching

coaches who can visualize the needs of individuals, their weaknesses, and the differences

between each member (Chen et al., 2014). From this, leaders can individualize each follower’s

needs and expectations, and amplify and maximize each of their learning experiences to uncover

their fullest potential (Chekwa, 2001; Stone et al., 2003; Tang, 2011).

Significance of transformational leadership theory

A refined and broadened version of Burn (1978)’s transformational leadership theory has

been adopted by organizations since the 1980s. Followers of transformational leaders perceive

trust, recognition, and respect for the leaders and they are willing to work harder than what the

leaders expected (Cheng, 2005, 2017; Covey & Merrill, 2014; Geijsel et al., 2003; Hassan &

Ahmed, 2011). These results are achieved because transformational leaders are able to offer their

followers more than merely working for their own benefits; instead they equip them with an

inspirational mission and vision and provide them a very clear role and identification in the

organization.

Drawing from Burns’s (1978) work on political leadership, Bass (1985) further expanded

a model of transformational leadership that conceptualized transactional and transformational

leadership as distinct but complementary scopes. According to Bass (1985), transactional leaders

36

focus on engaging in exchanges with their followers based on a system of rewards and

punishment (Dubrin, 2015; García-Morales et al., 2012). In contrast, transformational leadership

involves the leader’s ability to enhance organizational engagement and efficiency as well as

members’ involvement in meeting organizational goals (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005, 2006; Marks

& Printy, 2003). Transformational leaders trust their followers and are concerned about their

individual needs. With the attributes of intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration,

transformational leaders express respect and concern to their followers as a kind of social

exchange resource (Basu & Green, 1997; Cullen & Yammarino, 2014; Gillespie & Mann, 2004;

Hu et al., 2012). Overall, transformational leaders have been shown to be more effective than

transactional leaders (Bass & Avolio, 1999, 2003; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Lowe

et al., 1996; Sekaran & Bougie, 2010).

In sum, this leadership style is one of the most prominent contemporary models of

leadership (Heck & Moriyama, 2010; Mitchell et al., 2015; Tschannen-Moran, 2004, 2009,

2014). There is of no doubt transformational leaders possess many strengths; one of the most

significant is the ability to build trust. Before examining how transformational leaders can build

trust with the followers, it is worthwhile to understand the component of what trust is. As

transformational leaders transform and motivate their followers through the attributes of

idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation and individual consideration

(Bass, 1985, 1999; Bass & Bass, 2008), it is important to examine how such leaders encourage

their followers to come up with new and unique methods to challenge the existing state, and to

modify the environment to support the success through trust building.

37

An Overview of Trust

Trust is the cornerstone of outstanding interpersonal affiliations, leadership, teamwork,

and competent organizations (Forsyth, Adams, & Hoy, 2011). It is extensively perceived as one

of the key attributes that successful leaders need to bring about transformation and alteration

within their organization particularly for its crucial role in effectual leadership (Blase & Blase,

2001; Sergiovanni, 2005; Tschannen-Moran, 2004, 2009, 2014a, 2014b). According to

Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (1998, 2000), in our complex society trust can build a work

environment on a flexible and group-oriented foundation (Fukuyama, 1995). Trust between

individuals is the foundation of building a qualified team, with a focus on constructing good

interrelations between leaders and followers (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Hurley, 2012; Tyler &

Degoey, 1996; Van Den Akker et al., 2009).

According to Butler (1991), relations among all members in an organization are built on

trust, and leaders play a significant role in building and cultivating trust by means of special

behavioral modification within the organization (Salfi, 2012; Tschannen-Moran, 2014a, 2014b,

2014c). Enhancing trust between leaders and the team, and among the team members

themselves, contributes to the cooperation between individuals, and promotes the success of both

the individuals and the organization. Hence, greater trust should be fostered within the

organization (Cranston, 2012; Mitchell et al., 2011; Tschannen-Moran, 2009, 2014a, 2014b,

2014c).

Csorba (2004) mentioned that trust serves as a primary impetus for interpersonal

development between leaders and followers. Individuals in a high-trust relationship are more

willing to share information and believe in the content of information received, and team

members are more inclined to share responsibilities and solve problems together whenever

38

necessary (Csorba, 2004; Ho, 2007; Kwon & Suh, 2004; Li et al., 2016). When there is mutual

trust and respect among team members, they can promote personal professional development and

quality in their work (Handford & Leithwood, 2013; Robinson et al., 2008). An open, supportive

work environment thus helps lessen the feeling of isolation and strengthens team spirit (Hyman-

Shurland, 2016; Straiter, 2005). In a highly trustful work environment, cooperation will be easier

between individuals, and information which promotes the success of the organization can be

shared (Mischra, 1996; Tschannen-Moran, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2009, 2014a, b, c; Tschannen-

Moran & Hoy, 1998, 2000).

Coleman (2012) claimed that trust is dependent on the expectations of capacity and

compassion in leaders. He identified three distinct elements of trust: (a) the values and integrity

of the potentially trusted person; (b) the ways in which these values and integrity are displayed

on a day-to-day basis; and, (c) perceived authenticity and integrity. In the work environment,

interpersonal relationships provide opportunities for self-identification and interpersonal

connections, and at the same time shape the life of members (Bryk & Schneider, 1996, 2002;

Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015a, 2015b). A trustful relationship can smooth the collaboration

between team members -- not only can it increase a team’s cohesion, but it can also facilitate the

work satisfaction of individual workers (Bradach & Eccles, 1989; Cranston, 2011; Pfeffer, 1994;

Powell, 1990). Trust forms the basis of reciprocal communication within the organization by

reducing ambivalence and predisposing people to collaborate, whether between individuals or

teams, or even among the entire staff (Jones & George, 1998; McAllister, 1995; Zand, 1971,

1997). Hoy and Sweetland (2001) and Tschannen-Moran (2003, 2004, 2009, 2014a, 2014b)

agreed that interpersonal trust among the staff enhances understanding of their obligations,

maximizes cooperation with one another, and strengthens professional exchanges among all. In a

39

trustful environment, not only can the members’ attitude towards their work be uplifted, but also

the needs of their inner self-development be stimulated. This results in team collaboration to best

achieve the goals of the organization (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Straiter, 2005; Wahlstrom & Louis,

2015).

Attributes of trust

Butler and Cantrell (1984) suggested that trust comprises five unique features: integrity,

competence, consistency, loyalty, and openness. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness of those

that are being trusted (Caldwell & Hayes, 2007). Competence refers to professional skills and

knowledge related to work performance. Consistency refers to a steadfast adherence to the same

principles, especially within a team (Forsyth & Adams, 2014). Loyalty refers to those who are

filled with kindness and mercy, and are willing to protect, support, encourage, and cause no harm

to others (Butler, 1991; Borum, 2010). Openness refers to the willingness to share thoughts and

information with others (Hosmer, 1995; Kolanc, 2011).

Tschannen-Moran (2001, 2003, 2004, 2009) defined trust as a form of benevolence

towards another person with honesty, openness, reliability, and competency. Recent literature

indicates that there are two forms of trust: cognitive or character-based, and relational or

exchange-based (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Wang, Tomlinson & Noe, 2010; Yang & Mossholder,

2010; Yang, Mossholder & Peng, 2009). McAllister (1995) reconceptualized trust as a two-

dimensional construct composed of cognitive-based and affective-based trust. Cognitive trust is

built upon characteristics of a leader, such as integrity, capability and reliability. It is the

foundation for affective trust, which is based on emotional assets and expressions of heartfelt

care and concernment in trust relationships (Bird et al., 2009, 2012). Colquitt et al. (2012)

40

mentioned that cognitive and affective trust can strengthen relationships between

transformational leaders and followers.

In sum, trust is a multidimensional construct in which people and groups are willing to

expose themselves to others and take risks, with faith and confidence that others will respond to

their behaviors in a positive way (Forsyth et al., 2011).

Research in Transformational Leadership and Trust in the School Context

Although multiple studies have used cross-sectional data on leadership styles, not many

studies have explained the relationship between transformational leadership and trust building,

and how trust can be built by leaders’ actions (Avey, Hughes, Norman, & Luthans, 2007; Harms

et al., 2011; Moynihan, Pandey, & Wright, 2012; Raelin, 2005, 2006; Zacharatos, Barling, &

Kelloway, 2000), particularly in the primary school context. Research examining how different

leadership styles inspire trust has only started to gain impetus in the past two decades; and it is

just in the last decade that scholars have begun to conduct research on the essence of trust and

the leadership of school principals in the school context (Ping Li et al., 2011; Simola et al., 2012;

Tschannen-Moran, 2004, 2009, 2014; Van Den Akker et al., 2009).

Cognitive trust

Cognitive trust is regarded as one of the most important basic elements in building a

trustful relationship. It originates from a rational analysis of whether others can be trusted by

making use of the individual’s ability to assess another’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability

(Forsyth & Adams, 2014; Noonan, Walker, & Kutsyuruba, 2008). Dirks and Ferrin (2002)

claimed that cognitive trust is based on the evaluation of leaders’ personal characteristics, such

as their competence, consistency, dependability, honesty, integrity, openness and reliability. In

41

other words, it influences perceptions of trustworthiness and confidence in leaders’ abilities and

qualifications (Mayer et al., 1995; Schaubroeck et al., 2011).

In the school setting, cognitive trust helps team members review their work experiences

in a positive light and encourages them to adopt behaviors that are beneficial to the school. It

also gives them confidence about the decisions and actions of the school leaders (Mayer et al.,

1995; Simola et al., 2012) by reducing unpredictability and risk grounded in the school hierarchy

(Colquitt et al., 2012; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Yang et al., 2009; Yang & Mossholder, 2010). It

also helps improve the interrelationship between the school leader and the school members and

strengthens the bond among them.

Affective trust

Affective trust relates to the trust that is based on sentimental ties between two parties in

a connecting relationship. It results from reciprocal concern and care (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002;

Kolanc, 2011; McAllister, 1995). It is also a good intermediary in the social exchange process,

given that it indicates the degree of concern and care in a relationship (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002;

McAllister, 1995; Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985; Schaubroeck et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2009).

As a social interchange process (Blau, 1964), affective trust also implies a sense of

accountability to requite and underline s emotional bonds (Kwon & Suh, 2004).

In the school context, affective trust between the school leader and the members is built

upon mutual interaction and affection between human beings in modern society (Chua, Ingram,

& Morris, 2008; Colquitt et al., 2012). It also gives the person being entrusted a sense of trust

that originates from closeness and reliance (Clark & Mills, 1979; Handford & Leithwood, 2013).

Affective trust is obtained via interaction, values, and recognition of social groups; trust building

42

in schools has a remarkable effect on achieving new standards (Hurley, 2012; Kolanc, 2011;

McAllister, 1995).

Research on school leadership and trust

Although trust has been recognized as a significant aspect of organizational life for years

(Golembiewski & McConkie, 1973), the beginnings of the precise and standardized study of

trust in schools date back to early 1980s when Hoy and his colleagues (Hoy & Kupersmith,

1985; Hoy, Sabo, & Barnes, 1996) started a series of investigations, in which they

conceptualized trust and developed both constituent and practical interpretations for it. They

developed analytical dimensions in school-based trust based on both quantitative and qualitative

studies that scrutinized the impact of trust in schools. Through their work, five facets of trust,

benevolence, competence, honesty, openness and reliability and have been analyzed and

measured (Arnold et al., 2001; Bird et al., 2009; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999, 2003, 2004).

From the results, trust between co-workers has been related to a sort of stipulate organizational

outcomes, such as cooperation and collaboration between colleagues (Tschannen-Moran, 2001,

2004), organizational citizenship (Tschannen-Moran, 2003, 2009, 2014a, b), a healthy, vigorous

and open school atmosphere (Borum, 2010; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998, 2000; Tyler &

Degoey, 1996), organizational mindfulness (Hoy, Gage, & Tarter, 2006; Li et al., 2016),

organizational integrity (Hoy & Tarter, 2004), and student accomplishment in the elementary

schools (Goddard, Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2001; Mitchell et al., 2011; Hoy, Tarter, &

Witkoskie, 1992).

Bryk and Schneider (1996, 2002) also investigated trust in schools using both qualitative

and quantitative approaches. Bryk and Schneider (2002) collected extensive quantitative data

from public schools in Chicago and also conducted longitudinal case studies among 12

43

elementary schools in Chicago. Drawing from the results, they found that schools with high trust

showed remarkable improvements particularly in student learning. Their work has not only

documented the significance of trust in schools, but it has also unveiled the interrelationships

between collegiate trust, teacher eagerness to initiate in the midst of reform actions, solving

problems within schools and social controls that are promoted within communities of teachers,

and teachers’ affinity to the mission and vision of the schools.

In addition, Tschannen-Moran (2004) conducted a mixed method study in three urban

elementary schools. The results indicated that school leaders could sustain trust building between

teachers by cultivating a collaborative culture, constructing time and structure to support

cooperation, implementing benchmarks for communication, intermediating or resolving

conflicts, or establishing norms of behavior, and enhancing resolution skills of teachers in

dealing with conflicts.

Blase and Blase (2001) reviewed the concept of shared governance in developing the

collaborative relationships intended to reach reciprocal goals among a group of competent

principals in the United States. Their study emphasized an understanding of shared governance

principles that impacted both directly and indirectly on teachers’ sense of empowerment. They

collected evidence from teachers, asking them to express themselves openly in order to analyze

characteristics of their principals, and how those characteristics affected them. Although Blase

and Blase (2001) did not initially set out to investigate trust, one of their conclusions was that a

key challenge of principals in a shared-governance context was building a trustful workplace.

They advised that principals could accomplish this by encouraging openness, expediting

effective interaction, and modelling. Their finding also suggested that principals could build trust

by creating a school culture that was free of coercion, anxiety, threatening, and criticism. They

44

further indicated that a high-trust environment was likely to produce confident, contented,

motivated, and positive teachers. As a result, teachers are more likely to work strenuously, be

optimistic, and have a sense of professionalism.

Research indicates that a climate of trust contributes to broad benefits for every

individual in schools (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). In modern research, scholars have further identified

that trust in transformational leaders was related to the performance of the team, and also showed

high levels of desirable outcomes (Wang et al., 2011).

In sum, trust has been perceived as an essential and practical attribute to advance schools

towards strategic development and improvement, and also to build professionalism of teachers

and enhance the success of the schools (Hassan & Ahmed, 2011).

Key Activities of Transformational School Leaders in School Context

In the past three decades, many empirical and theoretical studies have examined the

effectiveness and impact of transformational leadership (Barling, Christie & Hoption, 2010; Bird

et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014). Leithwood and Jantzi (2005, 2006) further developed Bass’s

(1985) transformational leadership model by identifying behaviors of those leaders in the

educational context. These include: (a) establishing a school vision; (b) determining school

goals; (c) contributing intellectual stimulation; (d) supporting professional discipline and values;

(e) making accurate performance predictions; (f) strengthening participation in school decisions,

and (g) providing individual support. Likewise, transformational leadership affects human

interactions and mobilizes the school’s power through inspirational encouragement, stimulation

of intelligence, and individualized consideration (Bass & Bass, 2008; Shields, 2012, 2014; Tims

et al., 2011) that delivers a common vision and helps members to reach their fullest potential

(Griffith, 2004; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). The transformational school leader combines visionary

45

and authentic leadership, aiming at changing not only the educational environment at the school,

but also the teachers working in it.

Transformational school leaders may also be able to monitor the emotional level of team

members and show their dedication to them, especially when intellectual stimulation is used to

encourage members to constantly reexamine their work and revisit old problems (Day &

Leithwood, 2007; Eisenbeiss et al., 2008). Thus, teachers’ consciousness about the importance of

school goals is raised and their interest at work in the school is inspired by their school leader

(Cooper 2009; García-Morales et al., 2012; Marks & Printy, 2003). Moolenaar et al. (2010)

claimed that leadership actions that support an innovative atmosphere enhance teachers’

cooperation and expand new ideas and practices that uplift the improvement and development of

the school. Hence, school leaders’ personal values and leadership beliefs (Hallinger & Ko, 2015;

Hoy & Miskel, 2005; Kark et al., 2003) play a key role in school organizational efficacy, as

leadership styles and administrative decisions greatly affect the whole teaching team (Irshad &

Hashmi, 2014; Purkey & Smith, 1983). Transformational school leaders are in the best position

to provide essential direction for school development by helping members uphold their

respective roles and duties in conjunction with others to achieve the mutual goals for the school

(Jovanovica & Ciricb, 2016; Kim et al., 2012).

School leaders who adopt transformational leadership stimulate and encourage the team

to enhance their professionalism in the school context. This allow members to contribute to the

school policy decision-making and administrative work. By doing so, they increase transparency

in the school, minimizing any insecurity that teachers might encounter with the unknown

(Bolman & Heller, 1995; Fullan, 1991, 1998; Leithwood, 1992a, 1992b, 1994; Lieberman &

Miller, 1992; Sleegers, 1999; Van den Berg, Vandenberghe, & Sleegers, 1999).

46

Transformational school leaders not only influence human interaction in the school context, but

also lead their team members to support constant school development and improvement (Gronn

& Ribbins, 1996; Hallinger & Heck, 1996).

Leithwood, Tomlinson, & Genge (1996) evaluated the effectiveness of transformational

leadership in schools (Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). They have identified nine

different purposes in transformational leadership, clustered in three aspects: (a) mission-centered,

which promotes an extensive school vision, and establishes consent about aims and priorities; (b)

performance-centered, which holds high performance expectancies by giving individualized

backing and furnishing intellectual stimulation; and (c) culture-centered, which models school

values, upholds school culture, frames collaborative culture, and shapes a framework for

decision-making in school (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005;

Mourino-Ruiz, 2010; Schwepker & Good, 2010).

Trust-Building by Transformational School Leaders in School Context

The transformational leadership model recognizes that trust in school leaders often plays

a central role in leadership (Bass, 1985; Kark & Shamir, 2002). Leadership trust is grounded in

the exchange theory that suggests that leaders and team members shape a mutual relationship

(Rusaw, 2000). Such a leader-member relationship is based on mutual recognition, collaboration,

engagement, trustworthiness, and righteousness (Brower, Schoorman, & Tan, 2000; Dirks &

Ferrin, 2002). When team members trust their school leader, they are more willing to be directed

by the actions of the leader and are certain that their equities and interests will not be abused

(Hosmer, 1995).

Transformational school leaders also promote personal development in each individual

member by developing their personality and leadership qualities and encouraging them to resolve

47

problems in an innovative way (Bass, 1999; Kelly, 2003; Xenikou, 2017). Moreover,

transformational school leaders also use charisma to gain teachers’ approval and trust spiritually

and morally, to promote personality growth and cooperation (Bird et al., 2012; Chen et al.,

2012), and to transform team members’ values and to bring more dedication into the work

towards a united vision (Cashin et al., 2000; Cheng & Walker, 2008). Hence, setting higher goals

in the education environment