The effects of transformational leadership on teachers’ commitment to change in Hong Kong
| Date | 01 August 2002 |
| Published date | 01 August 2002 |
| Pages | 368-389 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230210433436 |
| Author | Huen Yu,Kenneth Leithwood,Doris Jantzi |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Journal of
Educational
Administration
40,4
368
Journal of Educational
Administration,
Vol. 40 No. 4, 2002, pp. 368-389.
#MCB UP Limited, 0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578230210433436
Received Ocotober 2001
Revised February 2002
Accepted March 2002
The effects of
transformational leadership on
teachers' commitment to
change in Hong Kong
Huen Yu
Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong, and
Kenneth Leithwood and Doris Jantzi
Centre for Leadership Development, OISE/University of Toronto
Keywords Leadership, Teachers, Organizational change, Commitment
Abstract The effects of principals' transformational leadership practices on teachers'
commitment to change are examined in this study in Hong Kong primary schools. Mediating
variables in the study included school culture, strategies for change, school structure, and the
school environment. Results suggest strong significant effects of transformational leadership on
mediating variables and weak but significant effects on teachers' commitment to change. In
comparison with other relevant evidence, it is suggested that the pattern of transformational
leadership effects is similar in both North America and Hong Kong, but the magnitude of these
effects is far less in Hong Kong.
In a recent study of Chinese and American managers, Fu and Yukl (2000) found
substantial differences between Chinese and American managers' perceptions
of the effectiveness of a wide range of influence tactics. For the most part,
Chinese managers favored indirect tactics, such as offering gifts or involving
another person, whereas American managers favored direct tactics such as
rational persuasion. Fu and Yukl (2000) argue that the direct tactics favored by
American managers ``... is consistent with the high level of assertiveness,
pragmatic short-term orientation, and moderately low power distance in the
United States'' (2000, p. 254). In contrast, ``... the strong collective orientation
and uncertainty avoidance values in China encourage Chinese managers to use
indirect forms of influence that involve the assistance of a third party'' (2000,
p. 254).
Results such as these, in non-school contexts, point to a substantial gap in
our understanding of the influence of societal culture and context on
educational leadership (Hallinger and Leithwood, 1996; Walker and Dimmock,
1999). This gap is especially critical for those in non-western countries
struggling to apply new knowledge and technology from the West while, at the
same time, attempting to preserve their own cultural identities (Sapre, 2000).
Our concern in this paper is about the value of transformational leadership,
an increasingly popular approach to both school and non-school leadership in
North America, in meeting the challenges for change in Hong Kong schools.
Bass (1997) recently has claimed that enough evidence has accumulated to
warrant the adoption of this form of leadership in most types of organizations
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
Effects of
transformational
leadership
369
and in most national cultural contexts, a claim supported by an impressive
body of evidence reported by Hartog et al. (1999). But Shamir and Howell (1999,
p. 257) contend that most writings about charismatic and transformational
leadership have paid little attention to contextual considerations, and there is
virtually no empirical evidence to support Bass' claim as applied to school
organizations.
Most school reform initiatives assume significant capacity development on
the part of individuals, as well as whole organizations (e.g. Ball and Rundquist,
1993; Putnam and Borko, 1997). They depend, also, on high levels of motivation
and commitment to solving the often complex problems associated with their
implementation. As a consequence, whether a reform initiative actually
improves the quality of education or simply becomes another ``fatal remedy''
(Sieber, 1981) hinges on the work of implementers. Teacher commitment is ``at
the center of school organizational reform'' (Kushman, 1992, p. 6). So those
providing leadership for reform in schools must be capable of influencing
teachers' commitment to change. Do transformational leadership practices
have such influence?
The study reported in this paper replicates many of the features of studies
carried out in Canada by Leithwood and his colleagues which have found
significant effects of transformational school leadership on teachers'
commitment to change (Leithwood et al., 1993; Leithwood, Menzies and Jantzi,
1994). We ask whether similar effects can be found in the very different Chinese
cultural context of Hong Kong. More specifically, this study asked: To what
extent do Hong Kong elementary school teachers perceive their principals to be
exercising transformational leadership? What is the nature and extent of
teachers' commitment to change? To what extent do teachers' perceptions of
principals' transformational leadership explain variation in teachers'
professional commitments?
Framework
Figure 1 identifies the categories of variables and relationships used to explain
teachers' commitment to change in both studies, with the exception of out-of-
school conditions, included only in the Canadian study. Only alterable
variables are included in this framework and primary interest is in the
relationship between transformational school leadership and commitment.
However, the framework acknowledges that this relationship may be both
direct and indirect; it also acknowledges that alterable variables other than
leadership (school conditions) potentially mediate the effects of leadership and,
as well, have their own direct effects on teacher commitment. This framework
is an adaptation of the framework used by Leithwood et al. (1993). Evidence
from this study indicated: moderately strong relationships between out-of-
school conditions and leadership and between leadership and in-school
conditions (r= 0.52 and 0.53); moderate relationships between leadership and
teacher commitment (r= 0.29) and school conditions and teacher commitment
(r= 0.38).
To continue reading
Request your trial