Vision, relationships and teacher motivation: a case study
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230310457439 |
| Published date | 01 February 2003 |
| Date | 01 February 2003 |
| Pages | 55-73 |
| Author | Kerry Barnett,John McCormick |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Vision, relationships and
teacher motivation:
a case study
Kerry Barnett and John McCormick
School of Education, The University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia
Keywords Teachers, Motivation, Leadership, Vision, Behaviour
Abstract School leaders continue to be urged to have vision. Some argue that effective schools
have principals who create and communicate a vision for the school. However, although there is
literature on visionary leadership, relatively little is empirical. The purpose of the study was to
investigate transformational leadership behaviour and vision in schools. Four schools, in which the
transformational leadership practices of principals were perceived by teachers to be characterised
by individual concern and vision, were identified. A qualitative approach using semi-structured
interviews was used to collect data. Content analysis identified patterns and themes in the data
from which propositions and conclusions were drawn. Within the context of the study, the results
suggest that the influence of vision may be overestimated and the most critical leadership
transformational behaviour is individual concern. The main conclusion of the study is that
leadership in schools is mainly characterised by relationships with individuals, and it is through
these relationships a leader is able to establish her/his leadership and encourage teachers to apply
their expertise, abilities, and efforts towards shared purposes.
Introduction
Schools today want leaders who have vision. Increasingly, vision is seen as a
core leadership task that must be mastered by all leaders (Lashway, 2000).
Generally, the literature on charismatic and transformational leadership (Bass,
1985; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Leithwood et al.,
1999) has argued that vision is important for building commitment and
motivating followers, groups or organisations. Further, research in the school
setting (Blumberg and Greenfield, 1986; Leithwood and Jantzi, 1997, 2000;
Leithwood et al., 1999; Sashkin and Walberg, 1993; Vandenberghe and
Staessens, 1991) has consistently supported the notion that effective schools
must have leaders who create and articulate a vision for the school. In addition,
more recently, they have argued that vision is a component of transformational
leadership that encourages high levels of commitment and motivation by
individuals and organisations to solving the problems associated with the
challenges of restructuring.
Theoretical background
“Vision refers to an idealised goal that the leader wants the organisation to
achieve in the future” (Conger and Kanungo, 1987, p. 640). Vision is perceived
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
Teacher
motivation
55
Received August 2002
Accepted October 2002
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 41 No. 1, 2003
pp. 55-73
qMCB UP Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578230310457439
to be a primary source of charisma, a central concept in most transformational
leadership models (Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio, 1997; Leithwood and Jantzi,
2000). Indeed, an idealised vision is considered to be a prerequisite to become
transformational. Once created, this vision must be articulated to mobilise
individuals to pursue it (Awamleh and Gardiner, 1999).
Transformational leadership theory
James McGregor Burns (1978) first conceptualised two forms of leadership,
transformational and transactional. Transformational leaders raise followers’
consciousness levels about the importance and value of designated outcomes
and ways of achieving them. They also motivate followers to transcend their
own immediate self interest for the sake of the mission or vision of the
organisation. Transactional leadership is based on an exchange relationship in
which follower compliance (effort, productivity, loyalty) is exchanged for
expected rewards (Burns, 1978).
Bass (1985) built on the ideas of Burns (1978) and developed a model and
measuring instrument, which places transformational, transactional and
laissez-faire leadership on a continuum. Bass’s most recent model (Bass and
Avolio, 1997) proposed that four distinct behavioural constructs identified
transformational leadership. The most important transformational constructs
are idealised influence and inspirational motivation, which according to Bass
and Avolio (1997) are the behavioural components of charisma, the key quality
of a transformational leader. Idealised influence – charisma – occurs when
leaders are role models and are respected and admired by followers. This
includes behaviours such as expressing values and beliefs, emphasising
mission, embracing high morality and avoiding use of power for personal gain
(Awamleh and Gardiner, 1999).
Inspirational motivation occurs when leaders motivate and inspire followers
by providing meaning and challenge to their work; for example, giving
inspirational talks, communicating vision and acting in ways that encourage
enthusiasm (Awamleh and Gardiner, 1999). The third transformational
construct is intellectual stimulation, where leaders encourage followers to think
creatively and approach situations in different ways. The fourth construct is
individualised consideration, where leaders consider each individual’s needs
and assist her or his development.
Three behavioural constructs identified transactional leadership. The first is
contingent reward, where interaction between leaders and followers involves
an exchange. The second is management by exception (active), where leaders
monitor to make sure mistakes are not made. The third is management by
exception (passive), where leaders only intervene when “things go wrong”. A
non-leadership construct, laissez-faire leadership, which reflects the absence of
leadership and intervention, is also included in the model.
JEA
41,1
56
To continue reading
Request your trial