History of Transformational Leadership - Selected theories of Leadership

CHAPTER THREE Theoretical frameworks

3.4 Selected theories of Leadership

3.4.2 History of Transformational Leadership

expect when I generating data. During the second session of data generation, the partners recommended these democratic components for the enhancement of school partnerships (see section, 6.7). As I reported earlier, for partners to display and practise participative leadership is not sufficient enough but partners, especially in the education fraternity, have the responsibility of transforming the previously undemocratic school partnerships (Burns, 1978).

This is the reason I have adopted the Transformational Leadership Theory as the main theory for this study.

to a higher level of morale and motivation, empowering others in changing the organisation, and instilling order and strong morals.

Burn’s (1978) vision of engagement and changing the status quo through transformational leadership was what teachers and parents had been fighting for prior to 1994. As I reported earlier, they wanted to be fully engaged in the educational matters pertaining to the education of their students and children. Furthermore, they demanded to fully recognised parents and teachers. Transformational leadership theory is very relevant to this study because it is the only style which is very open about transforming the status quo, and encouraging partnerships.

Therefore, this type of leadership is regarded as the appropriate one for school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher union site stewards who have a responsibility to lead in the transformation of school partnerships. Price (2003) believes that transformational leadership can only be attainable if leaders display certain characteristics such as strong morals. It is vital to state that under the transformational leadership, proponents speak of leaders and followers, but since legislations such as LRA (1995) and SASA (1996) encourage the harmonious working relationship among stakeholders by treating each other with respect, I have preferred to use the word “partners” to emphasise equality and to be in line with the study.

Price (2003) argues that it not only about being chosen to be a transformational leader, but it is about being very well organised and expecting your partners to be creative. This is very true because for leaders to be able to challenge the status quo, they should be creative, and display leadership morals. Otherwise, some partners or their constituencies would not see the necessity of transforming schools (Kanugo, 2001). Secondly, transformational leaders have a responsibility to encourage teamwork with other partners for the purpose of reaching the best possible results. If there is no teamwork, there would be problems and conflicts which would affect schools. Hence, the desired dream to transform the South African schools with all stakeholders would be a futile exercise. Thirdly, leaders have to encourage respect through rapport and personal influence. During data generation process, lack of respect among stakeholders was one of the main reasons for poor relationship among school stakeholders (see section 5.4). Hence school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher - union site stewards have a responsibility to ensure that all members are treated with respect.

Back to the initial historical background of transformational leadership theory, Homrig (2001) reports that TL theory was extended by Bernard M. Bass (who worked closely with Avolio) on his research and writings known as Leadership and Performance. He maintains that the

Transformational Leadership Theory, after four decades, is still regarded as the most popular theory. I share the same sentiment with Homrig (2001), because scholars such as Taylor (2008), Bush (2003) postulates that the Transformational Leadership Theory could be a solution to school partnerships.

Bass and Avolio (1994) add to Price’s (2003) characteristics. They mention four features that are observable. Firstly, they are of the opinion that transformational leadership should stimulate interest among partners to view their work from new perspectives. This shows that school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher - union site stewards and their constituencies have a responsibility to collectively strive for transformation and democratisation of schools. Bass and Avolio (1994) concur with Price (2003) by indicating that transformational leadership generates awareness of the vision of the team and organisation. Another point of consensus is that transformational leaders should support and develop each other so that they would reach higher level of achievement. These scholars posit that this would result in mutual assistance, skills and knowledge being improved. Transformational leadership is also presented as a type of leadership where leaders are selfless, but strive for the benefit of the group. This principle is stressed in the South African Schools Act, (1996) where parents, teachers have to work collaboratively as partners (Republic of South Africa, 1996). Therefore, stakeholders have this responsibility of ensuring that it is not only about self-gratification but to ensure that all group members benefit. It emerged in reviewed literature that one of the reasons which contributed to the negative dynamics is because some partners strove for self- gains. The literature proved to be true because one of this study` findings is that schools` partnership was ineffective because most leaders regarded their presence in the SGB as an opportunity to enrich themselves (see section, 5.4). Bass and Avolio (1994) conclude by reminding us that leaders can be chosen, come and go, but if they do not have the transformative mindsets, schools` partnerships would be under threat and continue to be weak. To assist transformational leaders to be more effective and successful in their transformational leadership` implementation, Bass, Avolio, Jung and Berson (2003) believe that leaders have to be influential and be able to provide others a clear vision and model ahead. It is true that some leaders who are have been trusted by their constituencies to serve in school partnership instead of providing clear direction and vision they themselves seem to be unsure of what to do (Msila, 2012). This uncertainty portrayed by these types of leaders would never change the status quo. Bass et.al., (2003) have identified the core elements of transformational leadership which according to him create the framework

for transformational leadership. These components serve as a yardstick to measure qualities/

behaviour in an environment that requires this type of leadership.

3.4.2.1 First Factor - Idealised Influence

This is the first factor which highlights and consists of being a role model, having high morals / ethics, admired, respected, trusted, and prioritisation to the needs of others over personal needs. This factor serves as premise in terms of the type of behaviour and conduct expected from school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher-union site stewards in their endeavours of transformational leadership in order for the partnership to be effective and successful. As I have stated in the background, these are the leaders who are expected to be agents of change as they lead group members at some schools who have diverse, disunited, aggrieved, distrustful and suspicious backgrounds. Therefore, I fully agree that for these stakeholders to be able to transform these schools, they should act as role models, have high morals, be exemplary and be able to influence each other and to be transformational leaders wherever they assigned to be. Bass and Alvio (2003) point out that, transformational leaders have to be trusted, admired and respected by fellow partners and their constituencies. These values have been emphasised throughout the study. This clearly shows that these values play a major role in the sustainability of partnership, and serve as part of the dynamics that dominate in the partnership. Having discussed the first factor, I shall now discuss the second factor.

3.4.2.2 Inspirational motivation

There is that agreement among most proponents of the transformational leadership that this factor deals with the instilling of meaning in work, clear expectations and teamwork among members. This is true considering that in the preliminary literature review, pilot study and literature review, it emanated that in most countries internationally, more often than not, stakeholders did not understand the meaning of their work, what is expected of them, roles and responsibilities in the partnership. Kanugo (2001) affirms that it is important for partners to understand the meaning of partnership existence and their role in transforming and democratising schools in South Africa. This is true considering that in the preliminary literature review, pilot study and core literature review, it emerged from various scholars` findings that in most countries globally, more often than not, stakeholders did not understand the meaning of their work in the partnership. As Riach (2009) puts it, “it`s really the meaning behind why you are doing the job you are doing, that`s so important to communicate to people”, Furthermore, in some findings it emerged that some of these stakeholders did not even know

their roles, (as reported earlier) lacked motivation and as a result there was poor attendance of SGB meetings. I concur with Kanugo (2001) and believe that stakeholders at school level are duty-bound to ensure partners and constituencies are all motivated in working as a team without having hidden agendas so that there would be true and holistically transformational leadership among partners and the roles they play. Riach (2009) points out that such individuals`

involvement encourages them because they feel as being part of the transformational initiative.

The third factor is discussed below.

3.4.2.3 Intellectual stimulation

Intellectual stimulation is defined as a leader who encourages innovation and creativity, as well as critical thinking and problem-solving. Daft (2014) states that people who encourage openness, inspiring ideas, arouse curiosity, challenge them to think, are appreciated and praised by their team mates. This is because their contributions, presence, and ideas are being valued.

Therefore, it of cardinal importance for partners to encourage innovation from fellow partners and their constituencies, so that everyone feels they are part of the decision-making process.

Therefore, the onus is on the leaders such as school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher- union site stewards to make sure everything is done transparently and all stakeholders are treated equally with respect and dignity. This can avoid a situation whereby some partners feel that they are being undermined. Msila (2014) in his study involving school principals and teacher-unions, and Van Wyk (2007) involving principals and school governing body members, pointed out that, partners accused each other of all powers being centred on one partner. My experience is that all partners can have an effective partnerships provided that they apply a transformational leadership approach. This would encourage partners to be creative, innovative and contribute meaningfully to the problem-solving process. This would show that their intelligence is being valued and recognised, and they are appreciated as important stakeholders. Furthermore, such partners` involvement can avoid or reduce tensions and conflict among stakeholders (Mncube, 2011). The next and last stage to be discussed is an individualised consideration.

3.4.2.4 Individualized consideration

According to Bass (1985), this is the stage when the transformational leader understands that as much as people work as a team they also make individual contributions which may also benefit the organisations. In this instance, leaders act as a coach or mentor to individuals, respect individuals` differences, personally interact with followers, delegates and encouraging

development. This component is also pertinent to the school partnership where school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher-union site stewards should understand each other at individual levels. If one needs help it may definitely enhance partnership if they offer assistance to that particular partner rather than rejecting him or her. In Chapter Five, it emerged that school partnerships had various negative dynamics because most partners deliberately rejected other partners (see section, 5.4). The support of this nature would be in line with the requirement of the South African Schools Act (1996) where it is stipulated that the school principal has to provide training and assistance to the school governing body members regarding SGB matters.

In the same vein, it is stated unequivocally that the SGB chairpersons and teacher-union site stewards are there to deal with matters affecting their members and also to support the principals. Most scholars who wrote about the Participative Theory, Transformational leadership Theory as well as Collegiality Model postulate that support is one of the features which enhance partnerships. Even partners themselves pointed out that supporting each other as partners was one of the essentials that would enhance partnerships (see section 7.1).

In all these transformational factors discussed above, it is evident that they all emphasize change in the way things have been done in the past. In this new system there is that insistence on sharing of power among stakeholders. These are the same democratic components as I reported in Chapter One and Chapter Two. The proponents of partnership, scholars and theorists all attest that in proper partnership where members have a vision to take their institutions forward, there should be swing away from the old system. But such change can only be possible if leaders are unequivocally and earnestly prepared to transform the existing status quo. Bennis and Nanus (1985) confirm that in the organisation where transformational leadership is in place: trust, teamwork, openness, commitment, power-sharing, confidence and transparency are developed, and this change can motivate staff. Tichy and DeVanna (1986) conclude in their findings that transformational leaders have a responsibility to manage by instilling values in the individuals within the organisation. Secondly, transformational leaders institutionalise change together with individuals within the organisation. Lastly, change creates a vision with the inputs of individuals within the organisation. Kouzes and Pasner (2012) strongly believe that transformational leaders change the whole undemocratic institutions by inspiring a shared vision. These are some of the changes that are expected to be instilled by school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher-union site stewards as chosen leaders to champion this responsibility. Brundrett (1998) posits that it is possible for these stakeholders to work collaboratively and co-operatively where authentic consensus would be the order of

the day. Brundrett’s views are found in the Collegiality Model of Leadership which I had chosen because of its pertinent features which are akin to those of the Transformation Leadership Theory. During data generation, it emerged that the participants also highlighted that the absence of these democratic components. The next section discusses the Collegiality Leadership Model and its relevance to education

Dalam dokumen The dynamics of partnership in South African schools: learning from school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher-union site stewards. (Halaman 64-70)