The networked principal. Examining principals’ social relationships and transformational leadership in school and district networks
| Date | 02 February 2015 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2014-0031 |
| Pages | 8-39 |
| Published date | 02 February 2015 |
| Author | Nienke M. Moolenaar,Peter J. C. Sleegers |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy |
The networked principal
Examining principals’social relationships
and transformational leadership in school
and district networks
Nienke M. Moolenaar
Department of Education, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences,
Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands and
Department of Education Studies, University of California,
San Diego, California, USA, and
Peter J.C. Sleegers
Department of Educational Organization and Management,
University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose –While in everyday practice, school leaders are often involved in social relationships with a
variety of stakeholders both within and outside their own schools, studies on school leaders’networks
often focus either on networks within or outside schools. The purpose of this paper is to investigate
the extent to which principals occupy similar positions in their school’s network and the larger district
network. In addition, the authors examined whether principals’centrality in both networks can be
attributed to demographic characteristics and transformational leadership (TL).
Design/methodology/approach –Using social network analysis, correlational and regression
analysis, and an advanced social network technique, namely p2 modeling, the authors analyzed data
collected among 708 educators in 46 Dutch elementary schools. The authors also offer a visualization of
the district social network to explore principals’relationships with other principals in the district.
Findings –Results suggest that principals who occupy a central position in their school’s advice
network are also more likely to occupy a central position in their district’s collaborative leadership
network. Moreover, TL was found to affect the extent to which principals are central in both networks.
Originality/value –The study is unique as it simu ltaneously explores principals’social relationshipsin
schools and the larger district. Moreover, the authors advance the knowledge of TL as a possible
mechanismthat may shape thepattern of these relationships, therebyconnecting twostreams of literature
that were until now largely disconnected. Limitations to the study warrant further qualitative and
longitudinalresearch on principals’social relationships in schools, districts, and thelarger community.
Keywords Principals, Educational administration, Transformational leadership, Teachers,
Networks
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In the past decades, views on leadership have increasingly focussed on the importance
of collaboration and social relationships for successful leadership in a variety of
contexts, such as business, sports, and education (Hargreaves et al., 2014). Nowadays,
leadership is no longer regarded as an individual attribute or an economic exchange
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 53 No. 1, 2015
pp. 8-39
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-02-2014-0031
Received 23 February 2014
Revised 6 August 2014
9 October 2014
Accepted 28 November 2014
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
This work is part of the ICONS research project (an international project Investigating the
Complexity of Networks in Schools), which is ( partly) financed by a Rubicon grant from the
Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and the Marie Curie Cofund Action
(446-10-023). The authors would like to acknowledge Alan Daly, Heather Price and two
anonymous reviewers for their support in preparation of the manuscript.
8
JEA
53,1
between leaders and followers, but rather as a “complex social dynamic”that emerges
in the social relationships between individuals (Avolio, 2007; Avolio et al., 2009;
Hallinger, 2010).
Recently, social network theory has gained traction to understand how leadership
takes place throughsocial relationships (Hoppeand Reinelt, 2010; Scott, 2000). According
to this theory, leadership can be interpreted in terms of occupying a central position
in a social network (Balkundi and Kilduff, 2006; Cross and Parker, 2004). As principals
interact with teachers and other principals in the larger district, they form relationships
that act as conduitsfor the transfer of resources such as work-relatedinformation, advice,
and social support (e.g. Daly et al.,2014a;Moolenaaret al., 2012a). The resulting web
of relationships may offer opportunities, but also constraints, for the extent to which
principals can exert control over their environment(e.g. Burt, 2005; Daly and Moolenaar,
2011; Obstfeld, 2005).
In education, Spillane and colleagues have started an important line of research that
focusses on the role of the principal as a formal leader in the school (e.g. Pitts and
Spillane, 2008; Spillane et al., 2010; Spillane and Kim, 2012). This research undersco res
the role of principals’social relationships with teachers as main conduits through
which principals have access to knowledge and insights into how teachers are workin g
and where they may need support. Another line of network research on educational
leadership, instigated by Daly and colleagues, explores principal leadership in the
context of the larger district network, for instance by examining principals ’social
relationships with other principals and district leaders (e.g. Daly, 2010; Daly and
Finnigan, 2010, 2011; Daly et al., 2014b). Such relationships among principals have
been deemed important as they support instructional coherence across schools within
a district and offer principals with opportunities to share experiences and access to
expertise among peers.
Until now, a comprehensive understanding and systematic exploration of princip als’
simultaneous role in multiple networks (e.g. in schools and districts) is missing.
Therefore, in this study we explore principals’leadership by comparing and
contrasting principals’social network position in two different contexts, namely in
their school’s network and the larger network of district principals. Such an exploration
might increase our insights into the extent to which there is universality in principals’
network positions, meaning, the extent to which principals’network positions may
be similar across different contexts (cf. Bass, 1997).
Although examining leadership from a social network perspective may yield
insights into principals’opportunities to access and influence the resource flow in
schools and the larger district, limited knowledge exists on how principals come to
occupy such a central position. One explanation may come from transformational
leadership (TL), a view on leadership that has attracted much interest in educational
research over the past decades (e.g. Avolio and Bass, 1995; Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio,
1994; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al., 2008; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006; Walumbwa
et al., 2007, 2008; Yukl, 2013). Transformational leaders are characterized by the ability
to increase their followers’commitment and engagement and stimulate them to do more
than they expected (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006) in achieving
individual and organizational goals. By placing a strong emphasis on behaviors that
stimulate social identification, intrinsic motivation and augmentation of individual
and collective efficacy, transformational leaders may mobilize their interpersonal
relationships for the enactment of leadership (Hallinger and Heck, 1998;
Hallinger, 2010).
9
The
networked
principal
Given that both the theory of TL and social network theory foreground the
importance of social relationships in schools aimed at fostering educational reforms
and innovation, scholars have recently started to examine the relationship between TL
practices and school leaders network position (Bass et al., 2003; Moolenaar et al., 2010).
Although the few available studies provide some evidence for a relationship between
TL and network position, more research is needed to provide valuable knowledge
on how leadership behavior and principals’network position in different contexts
are related.
This study will contribute to the literature on leadership behavior and leaders’social
network position by investigating the extent to which TL behavior affects princip als’
centrality in the school and district network. In this paper, the main premise is that
principals may occupy similar network positions in their school and district social
networks. In addition, we argue that TL behaviors may explain why some princip als
occupy more central positions in their networks than others.
In this paper, we explore the pattern of principals’social relationships within their
school with teachers, and across schools with other principals in a large Dutch school
district. The following research questions guided our study:
RQ1. To what extent is principals’social network position (measured by degree
centrality, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality) in the district’s
collaborative network related to their social network position within their
school’s advice network?
RQ2. To what extent is TL behavior associated with principals’social network
position both within and across schools?
Theoretical framework
A social network perspective on leadership
One way to better understand principals’social relationships is by applying a social
network perspective to leadership (e.g. Daly and Moolenaar, 2011; Moolenaar, 2012).
Complementary to traditional views on leadership, organizational scholars are
increasingly exploring leadership as a relational process, and conceptualizin g
leadership by examining a leader’s position in a social network (Balkundi and
Harrison, 2006; Balkundi and Kilduff, 2006; Brass et al., 2004; Uhl-Bien, 2006). This
work suggest that leaders’social network position may offer opportunities for
exchanging resources, leveraging social capital, and brokering between others in the
organization. To empirically examine leadership in networks, researchers often focus
on the concept of network centrality (Sparrowe et al., 2001).
Network centrality reflects the notion that when an individual holds a central
position in a social network, s/he is “in the middle”of the flow of resources (such as
information, materials) and therefore has greater access to these resources, greater
opportunities to hoard and distort these resources, and disproportionately influence
which resources are distributed where, how fast, and with how much ease (Brass and
Krackhardt, 1999; Mumford et al., 2002). Being “central”in a network is often equaled
with being in a position of power and control (Brass, 1995; Brass and Burkhardt, 1993;
Burt, 1992, 2005; Cross and Parker, 2004; Ibarra and Andrews, 1993). Leaders’network
centrality has also been related to group performance, leader effectiveness, and
reputation (Balkundi and Harrison, 2006; Mehra et al., 2006; Sparrowe et al., 2001).
However, a central position can also come at a cost; a highly centralized network places
10
JEA
53,1
To continue reading
Request your trial