Mapping four leadership styles in Japan: how has the role of the principal been shaped by policies?
| Published date | 27 November 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-03-2019-0032 |
| Pages | 187-207 |
| Date | 27 November 2019 |
| Author | Hirokazu Yokota |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy,Educational administration,Leadership in education |
Mapping four leadership styles
in Japan: how has the role of the
principal been shaped by policies?
Hirokazu Yokota
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Tokyo, Japan
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine how internationally recognized styles of transactional,
instructional, transformational and distributed leadership have emerged in the Japanese education system.
Design/methodology/approach –National legislation and policy documents in Japan since 1945 were
collectedby searching for the word “principal”or “head of school.”Then,four types are excluded:those that are
unique only to one school type, do not explicitly deal with the role of the principal, are in subordinate laws
prescribingcontents that essentiallyoverlap with those in superordinatestatutes and define proceduralroles of
the principal.As a result, 17 legal provisionsand 35 policy documents remained,each of which was analyzedby
using four leadershi p styles.
Findings –Despite an increasing focus on instructional, transformational and distributed styles, Japan has
not comprehensively articulated attributes and abilities expected of the principal. Additionally, a movement
away from instructional leadership in the 2000s contrasts with the recent emphasis on “educational
leadership.”Moreover, transformatio nal leadership has centered on the school –family–community
collaboration and the expansion of principal autonomy, and distributed leadership has taken the forms of
new positions that support the principal, both of which were influenced by the decentralization movement.
Research limitations/implications –It points to thesusceptibility of the role of the principalin Japan and
western countriesalike to broader structural reformsbut with different implications and distincttiming of the
advent of leadershipstyles among them. Additionally, Japan has adopted a modified approach to distributed
leadershipstyle, which is somewhat similar to delegation, to make a compromisebetween the emergent theory
and the centralityof the principal in the school hierarchy.Furthermore, instructional leadership seems to be a
“late bloomer”in Japan because of itspractice-based nature and unsuitability to daily realities of the principal.
Originality/value –As an arguably unprecedented attempt to apply leadership styles to legislation and
policy documents, this study builds a foundation for understanding how school leadership is shaped by
education policies. Moreover, while making connections to the western view, it creates a paradigm for future
studies of school leadership in Japan and in the field of comparative educational administration.
Keywords Educational policy, Transformational leadership, Distributed leadership,
Instructional leadership, Comparative educational leadership, Principal in Japan
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Research has supported the view that school principals can be a key agent for school
improvement. Even though school leadership is regarded as being a relatively small factor,
it has measurable, positive and significant effects on student learning (Hallinger and Heck,
1998; Witziers et al., 2003). Although studies differ in how the construct of leadership is
measured as well as how impactful leadership behaviors are, they provide overall empirical
support for the importance of school leadership.
On the other hand, as ambiguity and complexity in education increases, the traditional
model of the principal as an administrative manager does not continue to hold weight
(Cheney and Davis, 2011). The looming gap between expectations and reality has nudged
researchers and practitioners into identifying effective types of school leadership –each
with their distinct characteristics as well as considerable overlap with each other. Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 58 No. 2, 2020
pp. 187-207
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-03-2019-0032
Received 4 May 2019
Revised 14 August 2019
16 August 2019
23 October 2019
Accepted 24 October 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
The author wishes to acknowledge the support of Prof Carolyn Riehl of Teachers College, Columbia
University for her invaluable advice on the content of this study.
187
Mapping four
leadership
styles in Japan
Despite the crucial role of principals, research on school leadership in Japan is scarce,
both internationally and when compared to other Asian countries (Hallinger and
Bryant, 2013). However, given that Japan has demonstrated fairly high performance in the
Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA) (OECD, 2016), the role of the
Japanese principal is a research desideratum. Therefore, the objective of this study is to
answer the following research question:
RQ1. How has the role of Japanese principals been shaped by policies?
Research context
Japan has a unique education system characterized by key features such as a standard
national curriculum, a focus on equity characterized by school finance and school staff
assignmentpolicies at a prefectural leveland practices such as lesson studyin which teachers
learn from each other (OECD, 2011). The national government (the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, hereafter MEXT) is in charge of establishing
nationalstandards on curriculum, classsize and school staff allocation(Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2013). In addition, 47 prefectural Boards of
Education (hereafter BOEs) administer educati onal practices that require broader
implementation, such as the appointment and assignment of school staff, in cooperation
with municipalBOEs that directly administerelementary and junior high schools( Ministryof
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2013).
Moreover, analyses of Japanese schools, as well as principals, highlight additional unique
traits. Japanas a country has not been enthusiastic aboutdevolving authority to schools.This
reflects a conflict between the demands of a creative culture that highly values individual
initiatives and the Japanese collectivism that prioritizes group approval (OECD, 2011).
Additionally, school leadership in Japan is regarded as relatively top-down, but Japanese
principals do not seem to be keen on offering instructional guidance to teachers (Cisse and
Okato, 2009;Loveless, 2016). These contextswill be taken into account as this study examines
how each leadership style below has materialized in Japanese schools.
Four leadership models
Review of the literature
Starting from the 1960s, researchers and policy makers have increasingly sought specific
styles to articulate the attributes of successful school leaders. As a traditional style,
transactional leadership is composed of a mutual exchange of valued things and entails the
use of contingentrewards and sanctions to make the self-interest of individualsalign with the
organizational goal without necessarily building a shared sense of purpose (Burns, 1978;
Jensen et al., 2019). In the context of schooling, this style focuses on the management of the
school’s system, efficiency/effectiveness and achieving prescribed outcomes (Huber and
West, 2002).However, some researchers pointedout that this type of leadership does not serve
the best interest of principals and schools. For example, organizations led by transactional
leaders might not be adaptive to changes in demands from their internal or external
environment (Smithand Bell, 2011). As a response to these deficiencies, other styles of school
leadership emerged, each coupled with its own context, advantages and challenges.
The “instructional leadership”gained currency in the midst of the effective schools
movement in the early 1980s. The principal as an instructional leader is expected to be
knowledgeable about curriculum and capable of coordinating directly with teachers in
making instructional decisions (Hallinger, 1992). One of the mostinfluential constructs of this
style is the three dimensions of instructionalmanagement identified by Hallinger and Murphy
(1985): definingthe school mission, managingthe instructional programand promoting school
culture. Although traditional ideas of instructional leadership embraced a strong, directive
188
JEA
58,2
To continue reading
Request your trial