A Study on the Relationship between

Leadership Styles and Organisational Learning

- In Teachers Perspective





CHEUNG, Suk Yuen Christina





A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment
Of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
In
Education





The Chinese University of Hong Kong

July 2012
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
UMI 3538875
Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
UMI Number: 3538875

I









Thesis / Assessment Committee



















Professor CHUNG, Yue-ping (Supervisor)
Professor TSANG, Wing-kwong (Co-Supervisor)
Professor KWAN, Yu-kwong, Paula (Co-Supervisor)
Professor PONG, Suet-ling (Member)
Professor OU, Dongsu (Member)


II

Acknowledgements
Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other. (John F. Kennedy)
To learn to lead in the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) broadens my horizons on
the headship of school. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude and love to a number of
people for the fruition of this research study.
Respective gratitude is paid to Professor Tsang Wing-kwong, my supervisor, a magnificent
scholar and a role model of a great educator who persevered with patience, understanding and
expertise through my journey of studies. His ongoing support and guidance are highly appreciated.
A debt of gratitude is also owed to the calibre of great scholars : Professor Chung Yue-ping,
Professor Lam Yee-lai, Jack, Professor Kwan Yu-kwong, Paula, Professor Pong Suet-ling,
Professor Ou Dongsu and Professor Allan Walker for their assistance, profound reflections and
constant encouragement.
A special thank you goes to Dr. Mak Hok-kiu, Edward for his coaching on the use of
statistical software, his unconditional support and profound empathy especially in times of hardship
and bereavement. This is a true friendship which I won during my study in the CUHK with other
comrades, Miss Siu Wai-fun and Miss Ivonne Nee.
My deepest appreciation is to Mrs. Julie Desna Smith, Miss. Lo Yee-ki, Eva and Miss. Lau
Yin-yin, Karen for their great effort on proofreading and drawing of statistical figures. They are
always willing to help me with a cheerful attitude.
My gratitude is also extended to those 41 participating schools in this research study.
Without the generous support from the principals and their co-workers, this study would never have
yielded success with a good collection of data.
My sincere thanks are to my colleagues at Tack Ching Girls Secondary School, especially
to Miss. Christine Cheung, Miss. Janice Cheung, Miss. Pat Lau, Miss. Alice Yuen and Mr. Ko
Kwok-ming. They inspired me to come to the realisation that distinguished principals should not
only be with expertise and knowledge, but also be flesh and blood.

III

From the bottom of my heart, I thank God for His gracious blessings, the mercy and
wonders that have been granted to me throughout my course of study and my religious life at the
Congregation of The Sisters of Precious Blood. Thanks are due to my Mother Superioress, Rev. Sr.
Maria Goretti Lau, SPB and all other sisters who share the same spiritual pathway with me. Your
understanding and patience were appreciated more than you will ever know.
This thesis is dedicated to the memory of my sister, Mrs. Huang Cheung Suk-ching,
Christina, who inspired me to embrace life to the fullest without regrets and encouraged me to
persist. She is survived with a legacy of the amazing healing power of love and ultimate family
support in the Cheung-Huang Family.
The LORD bless thee, and keep thee :
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee :
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
(Numbers 6:24-26)



IV

Abstract
This thesis attempts to study the contributions of the designated variables of transactional
leadership and transformational leadership styles to the accomplishment of organisational learning
process and outcome. Numerous studies have focused on the relationship between transformational
leadership and organisational learning, but very few, to the knowledge of the researcher, take
interest in the contributions of transactional leadership to organisational learning. In view of the
integral relationship between transactional leadership and transformational leadership, the unique
role of transactional leadership in times of uncertainties and changes, and the controversy of the
correlation between transactional and transformational leadership, this study first investigates the
respective correlation relationship, and then examines their contributions to organisational learning,
in terms of process and outcome.
1404 teacher respondents from 41 randomly selected Aided or CAPUT secondary schools
participated in the survey on a voluntary basis. Some kinds of relationship between the variables of
transactional leadership and transformational leadership and those of organisational learning are
spotted. Although the findings are not yet up to the level of being conclusive, this study serves as
inspiration for further investigations into leadership styles and organisational learning. Meanwhile,
the analysis of the statistical findings from the perspective of contextual and cultural background
further illuminates leadership behaviours accounting for the consistent statistical outcome.

V

41 1404

VI

Table of Contents
Page
Thesis / Assessment Committee I
Acknowledgements II
Abstract. IV
Table of Contents... VI
List of Tables.. XI
List of Figures XIII
Chapter One Background of the Study 1
1 Education reform in Hong Kong... 1
2 Local context of education reform in recent decades 5
2.1 The change in school governance .. 6
2.2 The change in financial funding model.. 7
2.3 The demographic shift 8
2.4 The cultural transformation 9
3 The relevance of organisational learning and school principals.. 10
3.1 The prominence of school principals.. 10
3.2 The significance of school principals and organisational learning 11
4 Research questions 12
5 Significance of the research questions... 13
Chapter Two Literature Review 15
1 Global context of education reform in recent decades.. 15
1.1 The local context as nested in the global context
...
15
1.2 The education reform as being shaped by the New World Order.... 16
1.3 The beliefs and assumptions of the education reform. 17
1.4 The global wave of the education reform......................................... 17
1.5 The response of schools in the climate of education reform

18
1.6 The role of principals in the midst of tensions and dilemmas.. 19

VII

1.7 Summary..
.
20
2 Leadership in school administration. 21
2.1 The historical development of leadership theories.. 22
2.1.1 The trait approach. 22
2.1.2 The skill approach 23
2.1.3 The style approach 23
2.1.4 The situational approach... 24
2.1.5 The contingency theory 24
2.1.6 The path-goal theory. 25
2.1.7 The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory.. 26
2.1.8 The transactional and transformational approach 26
2.1.8.1 Conceptualisation. 26
2.1.8.2 Impact in the education arena... 28
2.1.8.3 The transactional and transformational leadership models.. 30
2.1.9 The strategic leadership approach 36
2.1.10 Summary... 40
2.2 The leadership revisit... 41
2.2.1 The diverse definition of leadership.. 41
2.2.2 The reasons behind the diverse definitions of leadership. 41
2.2.3 The thematic definition of leadership... 42
2.2.4 Leadership competence as a classification of leadership.. 44
2.3 Summary.. 45
3 Organisational learning in school administration. 46
3.1 The historical development of the concept of organisational learning 48
3.1.1 The understanding of organisational learning chronological approach 48
3.1.2 The understanding of organisational learning thematic approach. 54
3.1.3 Summary.. 68
3.2 The organisational learning revisit.. 68

VIII

3.2.1 The four main intellectual sources in defining organisational learning 68
3.2.2 The summative meaning of organisational learning 70
3.3 Summary.. 71
4 The relationship between principal leadership and organisational learning 72
4.1 Relevant conceptual and empirical findings 72
4.1.1 Prominence of principal leadership to organisational learning 72
4.1.2
Principal leadership as an integral of transactional and transformational
leadership..
73
4.1.3 The influence of principal leadership upon school internal conditions 74
4.1.4 The influence of principal leadership upon OLP and OLO.. 76
4.2 Summary.. 78
5 Focus of the current research. 79
6 Summary 79
Chapter Three Research Design and Methodology 81
1 Aim of the Study 81
2 Definition of key concepts for the study... 81
2.1 Leadership styles.. 81
2.2 Organisational learning 85
3 Conceptual framework.. 89
4 Research question reformulation... 90
5 Nature of study............. 91
5.1 The adoption of Quantitative Approach .. 91
5.2 Construction of research instruments.. 91
5.3 Sampling design 93
5.4 Procedure of data collection. 94
5.5 Data treatment.. 94
5.6 Proposed testing of Validity and Reliability of the Instrument. 95
5.7 Method of analysis ... 95
6 Summary
.
96

IX

Chapter Four Sampling and Data Collection 97
4.1 The Sample Design.......... 97
4.1.1 Population Frame.. 97
4.1.2 Sample Size... 99
4.1.3 Sample Unit... 101
4.1.4 Sampling Design... 101
4.2 Sampling Procedure. 102
4.2.1 Sample List 102
4.2.2 Invitation Procedure.. 102
4.2.3 Prospective and Declined Participant Lists.. 103
4.3 Data Collection Process... 105
4.3.1 Communication Mechanism. 105
4.3.2 Questionnaire Delivery and Collection Procedure 106
4.3.3 Response Rate... 107
4.4 Treatment on Missing Values.. 110
4.5 The Unit of Analysis

112
4.6 Summary.. 113
Chapter Five Descriptive Statistics 115
5.1 Demographic Profile 115
5.2 Analysis of the main study... 120
5.3 Descriptive Analysis. 120
5.3.1 The distribution of the general set of data. 121
5.3.2 The distribution of responses in each category. 122
Chapter Six Measurement of Statistics 127
6.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)... 127
6.1.1 Confirmatory factor analysis of transformational leadership variables 128
6.1.2 Confirmatory factor analysis of transactional leadership variables.. 131
6.1.3 Confirmatory factor analysis of organisational learning processes. 133

X

6.2 Confirmatory factor analysis of organisational learning outcomes.. 138
Chapter Seven Research Question Analysis 140
7.1 The correlation between Transactional and Transformational Leadership. 140
7.2
The Relationship between Organisational Learning Process (OLP) and
Organisational Learning Outcome (OLO)...

146
7.3 The Integral Model of leadership style and organisational learning 150
7.4 Summary.. 159
Chapter Eight Conclusions and Implications 162
8.1 A Review of the Study. 162
8.2 Implications.. 165
8.3 Limitations... 168
8.4 Recommendations
.
168
8.5 Summary.. 171
References.. 172
Appendix 1 Research Instruments : Reference Table... 200
Appendix 2 The Sample of the Invitation Letter... 204
Appendix 3 A Note of Thanks with An Itinerary... 205
Appendix 4 Leadership Styles and Organisational Leaning questionnaire 206
Appendix 5 The Reply Slip. 210


XI

List of Tables
Page

4.1 The frequency and percentage of territory-wide secondary school categories. 99
4.2 The comparison of descriptive statistics of Aided and CAPUT Schools on both the
sample and the population

100
4.3 Geographic Distribution of Sampled Aided and CAPUT School. 101
4.4 Prospective and Declined Participant Lists.. 104-5
4.5 Survey Itinerary. 106
4.6 Response rate for participating schools. 108-9
4.7 The distribution statistics of missing cases in the sample with at least 20
respondents in each sample unit
110-
111
4.8 Variance Components of Items Measuring Leadership Style of School
Principals

113
5.1 Descriptive Statistics of Demographic Factors..... 115
5.2 Size of all participating schools (A1). 116
5.3 History of participating school (A2)...... 116
5.4 Banding of participating schools (A3)... 117
5.5 Ranking of valid respondents in participating schools (A4)...... 118
5.6 Teaching experience of respondents in participating schools (A5)... 119
5.7 Teaching experience of respondents in serving schools (A6)... 120
5.8a Distribution of items on Leadership Styles... 122
5.8b Distribution of items on Organisational Learning. 122
5.9a The Distribution of Responses on Transformational Leadership...... 123
5.9b The Distribution of Responses on Transactional Leadership.... 124
5.9c The Distribution of Responses on Organisational Learning Processes. 125
5.9d The Distribution of Responses on Organisational Learning Outcomes.... 126
6.1a The Path Coefficients (LAMDA) between Transformational Leadership and its
Respective items

130
6.1b The Correlation between the variables of Transformational Leadership.. 131
6.1c Goodness of Fit Indices of the CFA for Transformational Leadership variables..... 131

XII

6.2a The Path Coefficients (LAMDA) between Transactional Leadership and its
Respective Items....

133
6.2b The Correlation between the variables of Transactional Leadership 133
6.2c Goodness of Fit Indices of the CFA for Transactional Leadership variables... 133
6.3a The Path Coefficients (LAMDA) between Organisational Learning Processes and
its Respective Items...

137
6.3b The Correlation between the variables of Organisational Learning Processes 137
6.3c Goodness of Fit Indices of the CFA for Organisational Learning Processes
variables..

138
6.4a The Path Coefficients (LAMDA) between Organisational Learning Outcomes and
its Respective Items

139
6.4b The Correlation between the variables of Organisational Learning Outcomes..... 139
6.4c Goodness of Fit Indices of the CFA for Organisational Learning Outcomes
variables..

139
7.1 The Summary of the Correlation Between Variables of Transactional and
Transformational Leadership

145
7.2 The Summary of the Goodness of Fit Indices of the CFA for Transactional and
Transformational Leadership variables.

146
7.3 The Summary of the Path Coefficients (LAMDA) between Organisational
Learning Processes and Organisational Learning Outcomes.

149
7.4 The Summary of the Goodness of Fit Indices of the effect/influence of
Organisational Learning Processes on Organisational Learning Outcomes..

149
7.5 The Summary of the Effects of Leadership Styles and Organisational Learning
Variables

158
7.6 The Summary of the Goodness of Fit Indices of the Integral Model of leadership
styles and Organisational Learning : the correlation between Transactional
Leadership Style and Transformational Leadership Style to Organisational
Learning Processes, then to Organisational Learning Outcomes, and to
Organisational Learning Outcomes directly..


159

XIII

List of Figures
Page

3.1 The Conceptual Framework... 90
6.1a The Hypothesised Model of CFA for Transformational Leadership Variables 129
6.1b The Modified Model of CFA for Transformational Leadership Variables.... 130
6.2a The Hypothesised Model of CFA for Transactional Leadership Variables... 132
6.2b The Modified Model of CFA for Transactional Leadership Variables . 132
6.3a The Hypothesised Model of CFA for Organisational Learning Processes
Variables.

135
6.3b The Modified Model of CFA for Organisational Learning Processes Variables.. 136
6.4a The Hypothesised Model of CFA for Organisational Learning Outcomes
Variables.

138
6.4b The Modified Model of CFA for Organisational Learning Outcomes Variables 139
7.1 The Correlation Between Latent Variables of Transactional Leadership and
Transformational Leadership.

145
7.2 The Direct Effects of Latent Variables of Organisational Learning Processes on
those of Organisational Learning Outcome

149
7.3 The Integral Model of Leadership Styles and Organisational Learning 157

1

Chapter One: Background of the Study
The aim of this chapter is to portray the relevant background information in ways that the
research questions to be delineated in the latter portion of the chapter will be highlighted. The first
section, the education reform in Hong Kong, serves to depict the contextual background of the
present undertaking. The second section is comprised of the local societal conditions in which the
reform sets itself. It is against the specific background that the domains of leadership and
organisational learning find their relevance in the third section, which is followed by the portrayal
of the research questions, and their significance, both in terms of theoretical and practical
perspectives. In the concluding section, the important lines of thought are underscored, particularly
those relevant to the development of literature review to be presented in the next chapter.
1. Education reform in Hong Kong
At the turn of the second millennium, the wave of Education Reform swept through Hong
Kong, synchronising changes all over the developed countries. In terms of scope and intensity,
the accumulative influences were overwhelming. Underlying the aims of the Reform Proposal
in 2000 were the ambitious notions that every student would attain all-round development in
the domains of ethics, intellect, physique, social skills and aesthetics according to his/ her own
attributes so he/she is capable of life-long learning, critical and exploratory thinking,
innovating and adapting to change. With self-confidence and acquired team spirit, they will
work towards prosperity, progress, freedom and democracy, and contribute to the future well-
being of the nation and the world at large (Education Commission, 2000:5).
Based on the blueprint for Education Reform (Education Commission, 1999), the
Education Commission consolidated the reform efforts into seven wide-ranging major
initiatives. These seven key areas consisting of curriculum reform, assessment mechanisms,
language education, support for schools, professional development, student admissions
mechanism and increasing senior secondary and post-secondary education opportunities were
interrelated in ways that produced accumulating effects to different stakeholders. Among all

2

these changes, the curriculum reform was one of those imposed immense changes to school
administrators and front-line teachers. Initiated in the academic year of 2001-2002, the
curriculum reform enforced four key tasks, including project learning, reading to learn, moral
and civic education and information technology for interactive learning, and bestowed the five
core experiences of moral and civic education, aesthetic development, physical development,
community service and career-related experiences (Education and Manpower Bureau, 2000).
No sooner were these new initiatives introduced in its experimental stage, than the New Senior
Secondary (NSS) Curriculum commenced working on four core subjects, electives and five
other learning experiences. This implied that schools would undergo a fundamental change in
administration, resource allocation and structural adaptation before 2009, the year of the
commencement of the NSS.
Coupled with the curriculum changes was the inclusion of information technology (IT) in
the instructional process. The impact of this change could be revealed by the determination of
the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) to ensure that
traditional subject matters were delivered in the up-to-date fashion. On top of the sum of
$2,880 million capital cost and $260 million annual recurrent cost delivered in 1997, and an
additional capital cost of $334 million and an annual recurrent cost of $294.5 million offered in
1998, the HKSAR announced a Five-year Strategy from 1998/99 to 2002/03, with the aims to
turn schools into dynamic and innovative learning institutions. However, well before the
establishment of this strategy, the Curriculum Development Council (CDC) issued another
strategy, Information Technology Learning Targets, to pave the way for the integration of IT
into the curriculum in 2000. As a consequence, the review of the Projects 1998/2003 showed
that 76.8% to 87.3% of teachers reported had experienced restrictions imposed by insufficient
time and excessive workload (EDB, 2005:iii). However, without addressing the issues raised
by teachers from the previous project, the Government announced another three-year strategy
'Empowering Learning and Teaching with Information Technology' in 2004 on top of the

3

strategy issued by the CDC. Teachers hardship was only responded to by a Consultation
Document, Right Technology at the Right Time for the Right Task, which was to prepare for
the implementation of the Third Strategy on Information Technology in Education in 2007.
Medium of Instruction (MOI), under the initiative of language education, was another
area that symbolised leaping changes. Back in 1982, an International Visiting Panel
suggested that students should be allowed to use the language of the heart to complete their
nine years of universal basic education in its report A Perspective on Education in Hong Kong.
Both in 1990 (ECR4), 1996 (ECR6), and in 1997 (ECR7), the HKSAR reasserted the
appropriateness of using students first language as MOI. It was decided that, starting from
1998/99 Secondary One, the majority of secondary schools in Hong Kong had to adopt
Chinese as MOI for all academic subjects. Only a small proportion of schools were permitted
to use English for instructional purposes. Such a measure polarised the educational community,
given that there was a strong disparity in social prestige between the designated two streams of
schools. The creation of a minority of privileged English-speaking schools violated the
principle of equality of educational opportunity and directly challenged the noble spirit that
underlined the whole purpose of reform. The pragmatic consequences of this policy were
heightened by the Secondary School Places Allocation (SSPA) mechanism in 2000, which
empowered parents freedom of school choices unhindered by traditional residential
boundaries.
The introduction of the market force further intensified the controversy of MOI policy.
The review of the SSPA mechanism and the MOI policy stated that it was a principle for all
secondary schools to adopt mother-tongue as the medium of learning and teaching, as well as
to enhance the English proficiency of all students. Nevertheless, there was no objection for
schools to choose English as MOI but only if they could satisfy the prescribed criteria of
student ability, teacher capability and support measures, and that the assessment standards
should be objective and clearly spelt out (Education Commission, 2005). Upon the publishing

4

of the report, the government had already announced that the revision of MOI would not be
carried out until 2010. However, it was revisited again in 2008, and the so-called fine-tuned
policy, which was in fact a fundamentally up-rooted policy, was announced in January 2009,
and scheduled to be effective in 2010. In this way, not only would the MOI policy stated in
2005 be exempted from evaluation, but also bring violation to the basic principle of the
appropriateness of using mother-tongue as the teaching medium that has been stated repeatedly
over the last twenty-six years.
Whole School Approach to Integrated Education was another policy that brought
tremendous challenges to the school scenario. Being introduced in 1997 by the HKSAR
government, strictly speaking, it was not a reform initiative. But its impact associated with the
reform was so prominent that its influence should not be overlooked. Since the implementation
of the policy, students with special educational needs (SEN) have been integrated into
mainstream schools. However, not until the 2008-2009 academic year, did the government
widen the scope of financial support grants in secondary schools to cater for the special needs
of some of those students. Even though subsidies were released, the amount of the grant was
too limited to cover the actual needs of unforeseeable numbers and types of SEN students, not
to mention the expected quality outcome. To make the scenario even worse, upon the
commencement of the NSS, all students, irrespective of their cognitive ability and willingness
to study in mainstream schools, were to stay in school until Secondary Six. Nobody would be
screened out of the system as what was the case with the HKCEE. Teachers had students with
widening discrepancy in terms of cognitive intelligence, learning motivation and behavioural
performance even among ordinary students.
Explicit and implicit in all reform initiatives was the need to overhaul and elevate the
entire teaching profession. Target dates were set to ensure that teachers became competent in
informational technology, proficient in the language of instruction and knowledgeable in
special education. To place the performance of teachers and schools under constant scrutiny,

5

the Government implemented a pilot project in September 2002, known as school self-
evaluation (SSE) to supplement external review within a four-year cycle starting in the 2003-
2004 academic year. Schools were requested to cater to the increasing demands for public
accountability through the publication of a School Report with mandatory Key Performance
Measures (KPM), School Plan and External School Review (ESR) Report in their school
homepage. Despite teachers continuous complaints regarding the ever-increasing workload,
only some adjustments had been made. The wheel of the ESR is still in progress. The second
phase of the ESR began in 2008-2009 and will continue until the 2013-2014 academic year to
cover all schools in the public sector. Needless to say, all these new demands greatly increased
the workload, causing much stress and distress to administrators and the teaching force.
Overall, the education reform was not devoid of far-reaching vision and well-intended
planning, the intention and implementation of many policies fell short of coherence. The most
recent fine-turned MOI policy even ignored the long-held professional findings in the adoption
of mother-tongue, and violated the principle of equality of educational opportunity. To make it
worse, coupled with this turbulence was not the reconsideration of the pace of changes, the
alignment of diverse measures, and the enforcement of appropriate supportive measures, but
the policy of public accountability and the introduction of market force. Subsequently, the
whole school system encountered unprecedented challenges.
2. Local context of education reform in recent decades
Every challenge could be an opportunity to success. To make possible the transformation
of the seemingly confused and problematic consequences of education reform policies into an
opportunity to meeting the authentic aims of the reform, contextual assessment and
interpretation are of utmost importance. Given that the local reform is an integral part of the
political and social changes in the local society as well as an echo of the global wave of
education reform, and it was well stated in the consultation document of Learning to Learn
that while keeping abreast of global trends, we will adapt and situate things best for the local

6

context (Curriculum Development Council, 2000), it is most relevant to study the immediate
local context for the development of the research question of the present undertaking. Upon the
delineation of research question at the end of this chapter, the investigation of the global
context will follow as the beginning of the chapter of literature review to gain an in-depth and
comprehensive understanding of education reform at large before proceeding to the key
concepts of the research question.
Changes to the local context are four-fold. They are, namely, the sovereign and school
governance change, the change in financial funding model, the demographic shift, and the
cultural transformation in the Special Administrative Region respectively. Whilst it is not the
purpose of this section to go into detail about each of the local contextual categories to
highlight its intricate relationship with education reform and its impact upon schools, only a
brief introduction is given in the following:
2.1 The change in school governance
The policy of school governance in Hong Kong since the British colonial era has
been changing from decentralisation, centralisation, to the current practice of centralised
decentralisation in the name of decentralisation.
Back to the earlier days of colonial rule, the government was reluctant to play a
major role in education. Education was entrusted to the church and charity organisations
so as to reduce colonial expenditure (Tam, 1995:91). The 1873 Grant-in-Aid for schools,
the 1913 Education Ordinance, the 1948 Education Ordinance, the 1984 Code of Aid, the
1986 Education Regulations, and the unification and systematization of the centralised
system from the early 1970s to the early 1990s, were taken by the government to
counteract the influences from Mainland China (Bray & Tang, 2006).
Since 1997, Hong Kong has been governed under the formula of One Country, Two
Systems, which permits Hong Kong to have a high degree of autonomy (Peoples
Republic of China, 1990, Article 146). However, what the education sector has been

7

experiencing in the subsequent years was the enforcement of centralised decentralisation.
The passing of the Education (Amendment) Bill 2002 with a majority of 29 consents and
21 vetoes on 8
th
July 2004 in the Legislative Council was a landmark of centralised control
with the seemingly decentralising policy (Legislative Council, 2004a). The determination
for the HKSAR Government to exercise a firm grip on education governance structure was
not to be questioned.
2.2 The change in financial funding model
Accompanying the political change, the rationale of education as investment and
competition for excellence was highlighted. It was the recognition that Hong Kong, as a
cosmopolitan and an international financial centre, should continue to develop, not only
for her own good, to build a competent work force to promote social, economic and
cultural development and to increase our competitiveness in the international market
(Education Commission,1997:1.5), but also for spearheading the development of the
Delta Region of Southern China at large.
In order to ensure the quality of education (ECR7), a whole array of diversified
recurrent grants was replaced by a system of block grant funding model in the school year
2000-01 (Legco b, FCR(2000-01)43) to provide schools with increased fund utilisation
flexibility (Education Commission, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006). The usual practice of even
distribution of government grant among schools was changed in the commencement of
education reform. Schools can take advantage of the Quality Education Fund (QEF)
(Education Commission, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006) to usher innovations in accordance
with the emergent societal expectations from schools. By means of approving and
evaluating the effectiveness of the QEF, the government could safeguard the effective use
of existing resources (Mok, 2006).
Therefore, not only do principals have to make sure the effective utilisation of
existing resources, but also to prove the school competitiveness to be eligible for the

8

application of extra funding.
The usual practice of even distribution of government grant had become historical
facts in the commencement of education reform. Schools, which failed to take advantage
of the Quality Education Fund (QEF) and the initiative to usher in innovation for the
schools, were to be marginalised losing their competitiveness. Schools had to prove
themselves competent in accordance with the emergent societal expectations to receive
additional funding (Education Commission, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006), while the
government had to make certain the effective use of existing resources (Mok, 2006).
2.3 The demographic shift
Associated with the political turnover and economic redefinition of Hong Kongs
status was the dramatic decline in the number of school-attendance aged group. The
Education Affairs Committee of the Legislative Council, estimated that the number of
classes to be admitted to the first grade of secondary school will be decreased by 18.75 %,
which is equivalent to 363 classes, in 2011-2012 in comparison with those in 2007-2008.
The impending impact to secondary schools in the future can be projected from the
turbulence that primary schools had been experiencing the tension over closure of
schools. According to the statistical figures given by the Education Bureau (EDB) in 2009,
the number of local primary schools was reduced from 739 in 2003-2004 to 557 in 2008-
2009, which accounts for a 32.7% of reduction. In fact, more than a hundred primary
schools have closed since the commencement of the Education Reform in 2000.
The drastic decline in enrolment had severe but differential impacts on different
districts in Hong Kong. Within the threat of enrolment shrinkage, those secondary schools
using Chinese as the medium of instruction (CMI) will suffer the most. To cushion such
an impact, many CMI schools may resort to recruiting students with lower academic
ability. Unfortunately, such a strategy, according to a recent research (Tsang, 2008), will
result in the number of CMI students being admitted to local universities far fewer than

9

that from EMI schools. This vicious cycle with lower university success rate will spell
doom for a large proportion of CMI schools. School principals are exactly in the midst of
such turbulence.
2.4 The cultural transformation
Changing patterns of family structure are becoming a heavier burden than ever.
Schools can no longer rely on stable and harmonious family relationships to teach
students fundamental values like trustworthiness and love. Divorce and single parenting
are common. According to the statistical data of Population Census 2001, the percentage
of the total of divorced or separated parents increased from 1.2% in 1991 to 2.7% in 2001.
This is approximately a three-fold increase in the number of cases from 53,845 to 152,349.
Even children raised in traditional families are not entitled to receive parental care, for
more and more mothers have to work from dawn till dusk or hold down more than one
job to keep finances afloat. Along with the changes of traditional family structure, there is
a rise in the prevailing culture of consumerism and hedonism, and the decline in the
influence of traditional Chinese values such as patriotism, love, respect for the elders,
compliance with the school and social order. Individual desires seem to outweigh
collective good (Wong & Cheng, 1992:4).
On top of imparting knowledge, helping students develop a global outlook,
[equipping] them with a repertoire of skills and positive attitudes to respect knowledge
and [learning] how to learn (Curriculum Development Council, 2000:1), schools are also
asked to offset the negative influences of uncaring families and the utilitarian society by
tackling specific problems like the increasing number of migrant children, compensated
dating, drug abuse, and even alleged psychosis, attempted and committed suicide. To this
date, the diversity and complexity of student problems have been increasing at a pace that
we have never experienced. Managing student problems remains the most stressful task
for most schools (Lam & Pang, 2003).

10

3. The relevance of school principals and organisational learning
3.1 The prominence of school principals
The prominence of Hong Kong school principals is best recognised in terms of their
roles in the education reform 2000 and its local context described in the previous two
sections: they are the ones, who find themselves in the current of accentuated public
accountability and market force, up-holding the perennial education principles,
shouldering the responsibility to educate the young generations to enhance the local
economic competitiveness, facing the challenges of dramatic enrolment shrinkage that
might lead to school closure, and, educating students with decreasing family support.
Whilst principals are in the midst of tensions and dilemmas originating from the
conflicting interests of diverse stakeholders, and in an environment characterised with
uncertainty and changes (Day and Leithwood, 2007), they are also in the best position to
exert positive influence.
The recognition of prominent principals roles in school development was aligned
with those documented in the Final Report of the Review of Education Department (EMB,
1998), the School-based Management Consultation Document devised by the Advisory
Committee on School-based Management (ACSBM) (ACSBM, 2000), and the Progress
Report on Education Reform (Education Commission, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006).
It was stated in the Review (1998) that the quality of leadership and management in
individual schools is one of the most important factors in determining the quality of
school education (Education and Manpower Bureau, 1998:12). The significance of
principals was further made vivid in terms of their roles as professional leader and chief
administrator of the school under the policy of School-based Management (ACSBM,
2000:17); they were the ones who shoulder the responsibility of managing the affairs of
the school by building up its capacity within a framework of policies, standards and
accountability (ibid. 2000:2).

11

The crucial role of principals as the most critical individuals in managing and
affecting the quality of the operation of the school is well recorded in a whole array of
literature. (see for example in Great Britain: Reynolds, 1976; Rutter et al., 1979; Mortimore
et al., 1988; Sammons et al.,1995; in the USA: Brookover et al., 1979; Edmonds, 1979;
Levine & Lezotte, 1990; Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993; in the Netherlands: Creemers, 1994;
Scheerens & Bosker, 1997 offer a critical overview). However, in the context of school
reform which is in full force, one would anticipate that it is a game of survival of the fittest.
What will schools do, particularly the principals, to ensure their future existence?
3.2 The significance of school principals and organisational learning
The expectations of our future students stated in the consultation document of
Learning to Learn (Curriculum Development Council, 2000) to shed light on strategies
employed in the facilitation of school survival:
By Learning to Learn, we mean that students not only learn what they
are expected to learn well but that they become better at learning new
things in the future. We should help students to build up their
capabilities to learn independently (e.g. creative and critical thinking,
mastering of information technology, communication), to become self-
reflective on how they learn, and to be able to use different ways of
learning.
(Curriculum Development Council, 2000:3)

The vision put forward by the Curriculum Development Council (2000) was
conceptually in parallel with the strategy devised by Peter Senge (1990) that promised to
increase the odds of survival. Five disciplines embodied in his model of learning
organisation include personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, team
learning, and system thinking (Senge, 1990). The strategies call for the transfer of
individual learning to system-wide learning. In facing difficult issues, people are
encouraged to break away from the traditional frame of reference and boldly explore new
avenues. They are to cultivate collective decision-making and problem solving so that the
organisations have the capabilities to search for a new direction (Senge, 2000). In his
version of learning organisation, in essence, he believes that school survival can only

12

come from the on-going addition of institutional values and the enhancement of learning
capacity through organisational learning (Senge, 1990, 2000). His postulation was
supported by many current researchers in their desperate search for new developmental
directions in an environment of turbulent changes. Some researchers also viewed
organisational learning as a promising path for the development of school systems (for
example, Leithwood, Aitken, and Jantzi, 2001; Collision & Cook, 2007).
Only those schools that have equipped themselves with ever-lasting learning
capability through the process of organisational learning could enhance students with the
same learning outcomes, and survive in times of changes. The findings such as, School
leadership has emerged as an important explanation for variation in organization
learning, (Leithwood & Louis, 1998: 68) together with other preliminary studies have
illuminated the divergent effects of a certain leadership style has impact upon collective
learning and subsequent improvement of school performance (Lam, 2002, 2004, 2005).
The relationship between these two domains of leadership and organisational learning
seem to create a promising domain for further research.
4. Research questions
In view of the vital roles of leadership to the development of organisational learning both
in the oriental and western contexts which are to be explicated in the next chapter; and the
expectations of employing different kinds of leadership, for instance, the transformational
leadership, in the local education reform, the aim of the study is to investigate the relationship
between leadership styles and organisational learning in Hong Kong secondary schools in the
context of education reform at the turn of the second millennium.
The general research question is:
How do organisational learning processes and outcomes differ under various leadership
styles, namely, transactional and transformational?
Subsumed under the general research question are three specific inquiries:

13

4.1. Recognising the various kinds of possible relationships between these two leadership
styles postulated by different researchers, is there any relationship between transactional
and transformational leadership in the context of Hong Kong Education Reform?
Should there be any kind(s) of relationship : what is it/are they?
4.2. What are the general conditions of organisational learning in Hong Kong schools?
4.3. To what extent does each type of leadership have a direct and indirect effect on
organisational learning processes and outcomes?
5. Significance of the research questions
Answers to these questions will fill in some of the missing gaps which are quite
conspicuous in the current literature in the local school context. As many schools are wrestling
with the problems of reorientation, many schools are desperately looking for ways of
strengthening school capacities. Understanding key factors in the school will yield invaluable
practical reference to school authorities. Elaborations on these postulations are in order.
Theoretical significance:
From a quick scanning of the current literature, many researchers have focused on finding
the contributions of leadership, and certain leadership styles to organisational development. Yet,
most studies confine their attention only to transformational leadership. Transactional
leadership, which is also found to be positively correlated with transformational leadership in a
recent study and recognised as a prominent leadership style at times of change, remains a
mystery. Unless these two leadership styles are both placed under close scrutiny, their possible
relationship in local current context as well as their contributions to the development to
organisational learning cannot be revealed.
Practical significance:
Once we establish that some leadership styles have a positive relationship with
organisational learning, we should be ready to embark on appropriate strategies in the pre-
service training, recruitment, and in-service professional development. In the event that

14

schools are not engaging in self-renewal, our knowledge related to intra-school dynamics
should prepare us well in diagnosing and prescribing effective intervention strategies. At a time
when so many schools are facing the peril of closure, such information will be important in
empowering the role of school headship in an era marked with change.

15

Chapter Two : Literature Review
This chapter aims at reviewing the relevant literature directly related to this study. It begins with
the global context of education reform in recent decades. The second section is an in-depth
chronological examination of prevailing disciplines of leadership on educational administration,
which is followed by the studies of the prolific research efforts of clarifying the concept of
Organisational Learning as the panacea for organisational survival. Lastly, this review is concluded
with the scrutiny of the role of school principals in leadership and organisational learning and
relevant empirical studies that constitutes the establishment of the conceptual framework to be
developed in the next chapter.
1. Global context of education reform in recent decades
The World has Changed, So Must the Education System - this headline of the background
to the education reform spotlights the causal relationship between the global context and the
localised education reform (Education Commission, 2000:5). According to the Reform Proposal
for the Education System in Hong Kong, the education reform is basically a response to the
fundamental economic, technological, social and cultural changes [around the world] (3.2,
Education Commission, 2000). Hong Kongs localised education reform, to a certain degree,
swifts along with the international fashion as Hong Kong is an international cosmopolitan city
embracing the cultural essence of the East and the West, and is experiencing the same [rapid
and drastic] changes (3.6, 3.10, Education Commission, 2000). Therefore, to place ourselves in
a better position to shed light to the understanding of the local education reform, not only should
we have a thorough understanding of the local phenomenon as those mentioned in Chapter one,
but also have a birds-eye view to scrutinise the essence and the underlying principles of the
global context, particularly in the domain of education reform since there is an unequivocal
connectedness between the global and the local.
1.1 The local context as nested in the global context
The World has Changed, So Must the Education System - this headline of the

16

background to the education reform spotlights the causal relationship between the global
context and the localised education reform (Education Commission, 2000:5). According to
the Reform Proposal for the Education System in Hong Kong, the education reform is
basically a response to the fundamental economic, technological, social and cultural
changes [around the world] (3.2, Education Commission, 2000). Hong Kongs localised
education reform, to a certain degree, swifts along with the international fashion as Hong
Kong is an international cosmopolitan city embracing the cultural essence of the East and
the West, and is experiencing the same [rapid and drastic] changes (3.6, 3.10, Education
Commission, 2000).
In view of the unequivocal connectedness between the global and the local, in order to
place ourselves in a better position to the understanding of the local education reform and of
the challenges that principals are embracing, not only should we have a thorough
understanding of the local phenomenon as those mentioned in Chapter One, but also have a
birds-eye view to scrutinise the essence and the underlying principles of education reform
in the global context.
1.2 The education reform as being shaped by the New World Order
New World Order (Jones, 1998:1), a distinctive notion emanated from globalisation
with the rhetoric of economic rationalism (Mok and Welch, 2002:29), shaped the recent
education reform which has become an international trend (The World Bank, 1998;
Hanson, 2007). Aligned with the ideology of economic rationalism, a modern state has
transformed to be either a competitive state aiming at promoting national
competitiveness or an evaluative state holding the three Es of economy , efficiency and
effectiveness in leash (Foskett, 1999:33; Mok and Currie, 2002:263), instead of upholding
social good in the fulfilment of optimal productivity and economic growth, utmost
efficiency and the development of a culture favourable to competition and productivity
(Friedman, 1982). It is a call for a shift of emphasis from process to product, from input

17

to output (Neave 1988:7-8).
In this global trend of economic rationalism, it was the political parties in power,
not the bureaucrats nor educators that engineered recent educational changes (Lam,
2000); but also the business groups who took the lead in shaping the school reform (e.g.
Mazzoni, 1991; Berube, 1994; Lam, 2000). Marginson (1993) amplified economic
rationalism in education as the concern of economic objectives, market value, and the
direct control of central government. Educational development and policies had been
influenced by the values and practices of marketization, corporatization and
privatization (Mok and Currie, 2002:263). Its emphasis on economic effectiveness has in
fact taken the precedence of the prior predominant concern of equity of access and
opportunity of education (Whitty, Power, and Halpin, 1998).
1.3 The beliefs and assumptions of the education reform
The beliefs of education reform were three-fold (Cuban, 2004). First, constant testing
and coercive accountability would facilitate the acquirement of cognitive skills that was
marketable in a knowledge-based economy. Second, the ineffectiveness of schools
examined against the standard of business sector could be remedied by the deployment of
successful business practices. Third, systemic reform, choice and competition, coupling
with clear incentive and sanction, guaranteed a perpetual drive for the improvement in
education. Despite the controversy of incorporating the rationale of economic rationalism
in education, supporters upheld the advantages of choice and flexibility and the
generated efficiency gains, while opponents attacked them by the resulting inequalities
and narrowing of educational outcomes (Adnett and Davies, 2002:1), the opposing views
of the debate never upset the prevalence of the education reform worldwide.
1.4 The global wave of the education reform
Since the 1990s, the public schooling of many western countries, has moved from a
domesticated environment to a wild environment (Carlson, 1975, cited in Foskett and

18

Lumby, 1999:33), where common reform features among America, Canada, England and
Australia have been found to be associated with efficiency, productivity and
accountability (Lam, 2000). In the same decade, the wave of education reform also took
root in nearly all countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including Hong Kong (Townsend &
Cheng, 2000). The main trends of the Asia-Pacific reform at the macro-level, as identified
by Cheng (2002:2), were towards re-establishing new national vision and education
aims, towards restructuring education systems at different levels, and towards market-
driving, privatizing and diversifying education respectively, in which the reform
emphasis was very similar to that of western countries.
Countries from all over the world, for instance, Sweden, England and Wales, New
Zealand, many states in America, Australia as well as Hong Kong had embraced such an
ideology and thus employed a new array of terms such as excellence, increasing
competitiveness, efficiency, accountability, and devolution (Welch, 1996), which
were then renamed and evolved into different strategies like Quality Assurance Inspection,
Benchmarking, Parental Choice and Voucher System in Hong Kong. With the conviction
that competitions among schools could lead to productivity advancement (Chubb and
Moe, 1991), improving schools through market reforms has laid the philosophy of
education reforms (Adnett and Davies, 2002).
1.5 The response of schools in the climate of education reform
Schools have been found to employ diverse strategies to enhance market value, in
some cases, even at the detriment of students. Early evidence of reforms in New Zealand
(Wylie, 1995) suggested that schools were found to focus their resources to the physical
attractiveness of their facilities and to promote the image of their school rather than to
improving students learning. Also, recognising that parental choice was positively
correlated with schools absolute examination results, some schools have been responded
rationally by employing favourable strategies to boost academic outcomes. All these

19

measures might have a negative effect on students, particularly those who perform poorly.
A rational response of schools to marketisation was to shift their priorities towards
academic attainment (Woods, Bagley and Glatter., 1998; Lipman, 2004). Schools were
motivated to recruit more able students (Gewirtz, Ball and Bowe, 1995), and inclined to
select students with more educated parents (West and Pennell, 2000), for students with
higher capabilities were not in need of much resources to attain desirable levels of
learning outcomes and were more likely to have a positive influence on future enrolment,
and parents with higher educational and occupational status were more promising in
having a positive influence on the next generation (Blau and Duncan, 1967; Carter, 1999;
St. John, Hu, Simmons, Carter, and Weber, 2001).
By the same token, rational schools would also seek to avoid admitting disruptive
students, and to exclude students developing disruptive behaviours: the former required
more resources such as human attention and special learning and teaching strategies ,
while the latter would only reduce school income by imposing a negative impact on
parental choice and academic progress of other students. Hence, a consequence of
marketisation was the encouragement of concentrating only on a narrow range of school
outcomes predominantly pertaining to academic achievement of those with at least
average learning ability. Meanwhile, the needs of students with low performance would
probably be overlooked (Adnett and Davies, 2002, Lipman, 2004).
1.6 The role of principals in the midst of tensions and dilemmas
On top of the challenges stem from the incompatibility of ideologies, rationales,
expectations and methodologies of different stakeholders (Kakabadse and Kakabadse,
1999), the swift-changing government educational policies, the local specific bottle neck
crisis, which were generated by teachers original tremendous workload, the many
uncoordinated or even contradictory mandates, the rapid and drastic structural changes in
the streaming of students and the introduction of inclusive education, as well as the

20

imperative burden of continuing education (Cheng, Chow and Mo 2004:3-4) mentioned
in Chapter One. Here in this chapter, we find the incongruence of the economic analysis
assumptions and the implementation of them in education (Adnett and Davies, 2002),
such as the assumptions of parents being rational in making parental choice, competition
would generate desirable changes, and the existence of positive correlation between
competition and effectiveness.
Tensions and dilemmas have been identified as universal phenomena that schools
have to face in times of change (Leithwood and Day, 2007a). The tensions and dilemmas
reached a climax when the educational ideologies, purposes and practices were found to
clash with the results driven policy agenda, particularly when the schools improvement
pace was perceived to be too slow in comparison with others (Leithwood and Day,
2007a:173).
In this perspective, the role of school principals is particularly signgficant. They are
expected not only to embrace all these tensions and dilemma and to survive through the
turbulence, but also to transform these challenges into springboards for organisational
development. Leaders in this regard are multifaceted. They are to be accountable to the
public on the one hand, and educational values driven as opposing to marketing values
driven on the other hand. The leadership styles are in essence transactional and
transformational, which are the foci of this study. The writer postulated that only in this
way could the leaders be able to facilitate a sustainable developing organisation in the
turmoil marked with continuous changes.
1.7 Summary
The unequivocal connectedness between the global and the local contexts lie in the
beliefs, the assumptions, the influence, the controversies, the tensions and dilemmas, and
the role of principals have been shown with clarity. While the education reforms in many
other places were well ahead of that in Hong Kong, it is sensible for us to learn from their

21

good practice, documented and non-documented, in the hope that these thought-
provoking inspirations lead us to set the framework and the guidelines while formulating
Hong Kongs education reform for the good of our next generations. With reference to
numerous international research papers, principals abilities to manage the phenomena of
tensions and dilemmas were of utmost significance. Its prominence has been well-
documented and has confirmed to have cross-cultural significance in the International
Successful School Principal Project (ISSPP) initiated in 2001 (Leithwood and Day,
2007b). In all, the intricate phenomena of tensions and dilemmas have brought to
attention the nature of cardinal challenges we have to face; it also bestowed inspirations
on the styles and capabilities of school principals that we should look for, as well as the
characteristics of an organisation that can surf skilfully on the tides of continual
educational change.
2. Leadership in school administration
Facing the unprecedented rapidity, intensity and complexity of changes in school reform,
and lacking sufficient experience or a reliable roadmap to guide their responses, educators
found the study of educational leadership of paramount importance. Researchers scrambled
across diverse disciplines, desperately looking for some kinds of theories and empirical
findings to guide their reform. The study of leadership has spanned across cultures, ., and
theoretical beliefs (Horner, 2003:27). Leadership is an extremely complex and elusive
concept (Hoy and Miskel, 2005:407). Some leadership theories regarded leadership as a
process in which leaders were not perceived as the individuals-in-charge of followers, but as
members of a practising team (Drath and Palus, 1994), but most theories emphasised the
importance of the individual taking the leading position (e.g., Bernard, 1926; Blake, Shepard
and Mouton, 1964; Fiedler, 1967 and Drath and Palus, 1994).
Varied in perspectives, the locus was in the conceptual evolutionary trail of leadership.
The first part of this section explored the leadership theories prevalent since the 1940s, in

22

which the classification from the Trait Approach to the Leader-member Exchange (LMX)
Theory was mainly extracted from Rost (1991) and Northouse (2007), and the classifications
of transactional, transformational and strategic leadership theories were from diverse sources.
The second part focused on the scrutiny of the meanings of leadership, which had been given
by numerous scholars in the developmental process in recent decades.
2.1 The historical development of leadership theories
Traits, personality, characteristics, born or made issues, greatness, group facilitation,
goal attainment, effectiveness, contingencies, situations, goodness, style, and, above all,
the management of organization constituted the major areas of leadership studies by
traditional scholars between the 1940s and the 1990s (Rost, 1991:3). This management
perspective, though had been influential for several decades, was complemented by the
leadership perspective in recent decades. These approaches of leadership theories were
depicted as the following:
2.1.1 The trait approach
The trait approach in the 1940s and 1950s, originating from the psychological
school, was usually the first approach to start with leadership studies among other
approaches (Stogdill, 1974, Rost, 1991; Northouse, 2007). Assuming leaders were
born, but not made, theorists attempted to look for attributes that differentiated
leaders from followers (Bass, 1990; Jago, 1982; Northouse, 2007). There existed a
benchmark of leadership traits that were supported by ample research findings
running through the entire 20
th
century (Dimmock and ODonoghue, 1997:14;
Northouse, 2007; Day and Leithwood, 2007). Personalities such as openness,
[flexibility], and frankness that had been confirmed to be determining factors to
successful leadership in the recent cross-cultural research (Leithwood and Day,
2007:195) were found to agree with the research findings of Stogdills in the 1970s.
However, these studies failed to identify any set of traits that could be consistently

23

associated with successful leadership (McCleary and Hencley, 1965).
2.1.2 The skill approach
To locate the seeds of successful leadership, the emergence of the Skill
Approach focuses on the capabilities of leaders. Without denying the integral role of
personalities, the skill approach emphasised the importance of knowledge and the
abilities to leadership. The former element referred to who leaders were, whereas the
later indicated what leaders could accomplish. The skill approach contributed not
only to the scrutiny of the prominence of leadership capabilities, but also on the
relation of capabilities to effective leadership performance (Katz, 1955; Mumford et.
al 2000; Northouse, 2007). Thus, the golden keys of this leadership approach were
the skills of problem-solving, social judgement and knowledge, and to a lesser extent
recognising the roles of individual attributes, career experiences, and environmental
influences. The inclusion of the environmental factor was indeed a contribution, its
influences spanned across the components of competencies, individual attributes,
and leadership outcomes which were of central concern to this model (Northouse,
2007).
2.1.3 The style approach
Not only skills, particular styles of leadership practice also stir up reforms
effectively. The style approach, focusing exclusively on the behavioural styles of
leaders, marked another major shift in the general focus of leadership studies.
Theorists of this school tried to look for what successful leaders did, instead of how
they presented themselves to others (Halpin and Winer, 1952; Hemphill and Coons,
1957). Desirable leadership behaviours were identified by several representative
studies since the late 1940s, for instance, the leaders initiating structure behaviours
and consideration behaviours concluded in Ohio State studies, and employee
orientation and production orientation behaviours conceptualised in the Michigan

24

studies (Blake and Mouton, 1964, 1978 and 1985, and Blake and McCanse, 1991).
The impact of this school on the discovery of the possibility of effective leadership
behaviours instillation (Saal and Knight, 1988), which was substantially being
supported by research findings (Northouse, 2007; Dimmock and ODonoghue, 1997),
was monumental to the understanding of leadership.
2.1.4 The situational approach
Employing skills and styles without an astute examination of its own
idiosyncratic environment destinies the reforms to be doomed. The situational
approach, one of the more widely recognised approaches to leadership (Blanchard,
Zigarmi, and Nelson, 1993; Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Zigarmi, 1985; Hersey and
Blanchard, 1977, 1988), stipulated that the best type of leadership was totally
contingent on the situation. Effective leaders from this approach were those who
recognised the needs of their subordinates and demonstrated a high degree of
flexibility by adapting their leadership styles accordingly (Northouse, 2007;
Dimmock and ODonoghue, 1997). The popularity of situational leadership was
attributed to its intuitive sensibility, its easy-to-acquire principle ideas, its
comparative straightforward application, and its emphasis on the leadership
flexibility and subordinates performance differences (Graeff, 1983; Yukl, 1998,
Northouse, 2007). This approach had extensive application despite its lack of
substantial research in the justification of its theoretical basis (Fernandez and
Vecchio, 1997; Vecchio and Boatwright, 2002).
2.1.5 The contingency theory
Contingency theory, with its root on situational approach, was to perfect the
conceptual framework of leadership approach (Fiedler, 1967; Fiedler and Garcia,
1987). The cardinal concept was the effective matching between leadership styles
and situations. Leadership styles were described either as task motivated or

25

relationship motivated, and were analysed in situations characterised with different
degrees of leader-member relations, task structure, and position power (Northouse,
2007). One of the major strengths of the Contingency Theory lay at its plentiful
empirical research (Peters, Hartke, and Pohlman, 1985; Strube and Garcia, 1981).
Although the theory had been challenged in many ways, for instance, it failed to
explain why the effectiveness of a leadership style was specific to certain situations,
many researchers confirmed it to be a valid and reliable approach in explaining the
attainment of effective leadership. In addition, the predictive power of this theory,
which was unique among leadership theories (Northouse, 2007), was useful for
organisations to develop a leadership profile.
2.1.6 The path-goal theory
Another strand of situational contingency of leadership, path-goal theory is
interwoven with the concept of Motivational Theory, emphasised the relationship
among three parties: the leaders style, the characteristics of the subordinates as well
as the contextual setting, aiming at explaining how leaders motivated subordinates to
accomplish designated goals. According to this theory, subordinates determination
to attain the goal could be strengthened under the supervision of leaders whose
specific leadership styles best fulfilled their motivational needs. The strengths of the
path-goal theory were multi-faceted. The most prominent one was its breakthrough
in both theoretical and practical dimensions. Theoretically, it introduced how four
conceptually distinctive leadership styles, with their intricate intertwining with the
characteristics of subordinates, the situational variables, and motivating subordinates.
In practice, it provided directions for leaders to clarify the path of subordinates to
reach the goals. This theory successfully shed light on the concept of inter-
disciplinary integration and subordinates contributions serving as an intellectual
challenge for the leadership studies to come. However, the theory was too complex

26

and was only partially empirically supported (Schriesheim, 1980; Wofford and Liska,
1993).
2.1.7 The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory
Bestowing the rising significant effects of subordinates on reforms, the leader-
member exchange (LMX) theory first appeared in literature in the 1970s. This theory
demarcated the approach of conceptualising leadership by shifting the locus from the
leader, the subordinates and the context to the dyadic relationship between leaders
and subordinates. In the early studies of the LMX theory, emphasis was placed on
the nature of vertical dyads between leaders and individual subordinates. In the later
developmental stage of the LMX theory, the emphasis was shifted from the
individualised relationship model to the impact of leader-member exchange to
organisational performance (Northouse, 2007). Among all the positive features of the
LMX theory, there were two points worth noting in the present study: the importance
of effective communication in leader-member relationship, and the positive
correlation between the leader-member relationship and organisational outcome. It
also invited the further investigation of the intricacies of the ways to create high-
quality leader-member relationship, and the measurement procedure that capture the
complexities of leader-member exchange.
2.1.8 The transactional and transformational leadership approach
2.1.8.1 Conceptualisation
The conceptualisation of transactional and transformational leadership has
been consistent since its development in the late 70s (Burns, 1978). Since the
work of Burns, the distinction between these two leadership styles has become
of considerable importance to the study of leadership (Bass, 1985a; Bennis and
Nanus, 1985; Tichy and Devanna, 1986; Bryman, 1992; Curphy, 1992; cited in
Bass and Bass, 2008:41).

27

Transactional leadership requires a shrewd eye for opportunity, a good
hand at bargaining, persuading, reciprocating (Burns, 1978:169). They pursue
a cost benefit, economic exchange to meet subordinates; current material and
psychological needs in return for contracted services rendered by the
subordinate (Bass, 1985:14). On the contrary, transformational leadership
recognizes and exploits an existing need or demand of a potential follower...
[and] looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and
engages the full person of the follower (Burns, 1978:169). They tend to go
further [beyond transactional needs], seeking to arouse and satisfy higher needs,
to engage the full person of the followerand [elevate] those influenced
from a lower to a higher level of need according to Maslow's (1954) hierarchy
of needs (Bass, 1985:14). Transactional leaders accepts and uses the rituals,
stories, and role models belonging to the organisational culture to communicate
its values; the transformational leaders invents, introduces, and advances the
cultural forms. [They simply] changes the social warp and woof of reality
(Bass, 1985:24).
The interpretations of these two leadership styles remained very much the
same even until recent researches. Resembling the hierarchy of Maslow,
transactional leaders focus was on the satisfaction of lower-level physiological,
safety, and belonging needs of their subordinates. To meet the needs of both
subordinates and themselves as leaders, their strategies employed were to
exchange rewards or privileges for desirable outcomes. With respect to
organisational development, leaders with transactional leadership styles were
characterised by their conscientious efforts in retaining good traditions and
preserving features that are deemed effective in promoting school performance
(e.g. Kuhnert and Lewis, 1987; Huber, 2004; Hoy and Miskel, 2005).

28

With the source of transformational leadership in the personal values and
beliefs of leaders (Hoy and Miskel, 2005:399), this leadership style was
defined as a method of managing activities based on leaders ability to change
and internalize organisational direction and work methods by enhancing co-
workers confidence and changing organisational culture (Hoog et al., 2007:89-
90). Thus, the endeavour of transformational leaders was well beyond the
satisfaction of basic needs. Not only did they attempt to engage subordinates,
but also empower and inspire them to the gratification of their higher-level
needs of self-esteem and self-actualisation (Hackman and Johnson, 2009).
Influential though these leaders were, the subordinates also had their share in
exerting influence. It was in the course of interaction between leaders and
subordinates that their scope of values and collective good will be broadened
(Bass and Avolio, 1990a; Kuhnert, 1994; Avolio, 1999; Hoy and Miskel, 2005),
and their motivation and morality be raised (Northouse, 2007).
2.1.8.2 Impact in the education arena
With the emergence of the school effective movement in 1980s, (e.g.
Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; Kuhnert and Lewis, 1987; Leithwood, 1992 and 2003;
Hoy and Miskel, 2005) the educational professionals have become familiar with
transactional leadership. The significance of this practice is prominent even in
times of change. Wheatley noted that ..in the past few years, ever since
uncertainty became our insistent twenty-first century companion, leadership
strategies have taken a great leap backwards to the familiar territory of
command and control (Wheatley, 2005:4). Aiming at [increasing] employees
certainty about their work, and [increasing] the schools level of accountability
to government and the public, the practice of transactional leadership had
become more prevalent (Leithwood and Day, 2007: 200). The similar argument

29

also shared by Avolio and Bass, they noted the necessity of employing
management-by-exception, a form of transactional leadership style, in
situations where risk is prevalent to ensure successful outcomes (Antonakis
and House, 2002:11).
Meanwhile, transformational leadership, upon the emergence of new
waves of school reform in the same decade of the 1980s, has become the centre
of conceptual and empirical investigation (Leithwood, 1992, 2003; Avolio, 1994;
Bass and Avolio, 1994; Avolio, 1999; Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach, 2003;
Hoy and Miskel, 2005; Hackman and Johnson, 2009). This leadership, had its
source in the personal values and beliefs of leaders (Hoy and Miskel,
2005:399), was defined a method of managing activities based on leaders
ability to change and internalize organizational direction and work methods by
enhancing co-workers confidence and changing organisational culture (Hoog et
al., 2007:89-90), was advocated as the means of school principals to enhance
the quality of teaching and learning (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1990; Fullan,1992).
In an international survey investigating the leadership of school principals
in times of change, it was further confirmed that transformational leadership
accounted for organisational success in many different organisational contexts
(Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Leithwood and Day, 2007).
This confirmation was supported and confirmed by the amazing intellectual
commitment and findings in transformational leadership. Lowe and Gardner
(2001) concluded that 34% of articles published in Leadership Quarterly in the
1990s were basically focused on transformational leadership. The concerted
effort paid by the academics was fruitful. The report of the Global Leadership
and Organisational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project (2000), a research
surveyed over 15,000 middle managers from 60 different cultures conducted by

30

Robert House and 170 research associates from around the world, verified the
cross-levels and cross-cultural universality of transformational leadership.
2.1.8.3 The transactional and transformational leadership models
The Full Range Leadership Development (FRLD) model
The transactional and transformational approaches are not mutually
exclusive. These two leadership styles have been delineated as a single
continuum by Bass (1985) in his Full Range Leadership Development (FRLD)
model instead of two mutually independent continua by Burns in 1978
(Yammarino, 1993; cited in Northouse, 2001). In Bass FRLD model,
transformational and transactional factors were in the same continuum in terms
of leadership activity and effectiveness, with laissez-faire or non-leadership at
the bottom of it (Avolio and Bass, 1991). By definition, transformational
leadership was more active than transactional leadership, which itself was
more active than laissez-faire leadership. Empirically, the degree of
effective[ness] in descending order was transformational, transactional and
laissez-faire leadership (Bass and Bass, 2008:624).
The FRLD model to a great extent can be seen as the synthesis of many
theories that have been evolving since the 1960s: Its theory and research was
connected to and built upon a variety of leadership theories in the history of
leadership thought, including the core concepts of leadership theories such as
the skills theory, style theory, situational theory, contingency theory, path-goal
theory and LMX theory (Sosik and Jung, 2010:19-21). Direct examination by
Antonakis (2001) and Antonakis and House (2002) also confirmed the validity
of the model of the full range of leadership. (Bass and Bass, 2008:624). Sosik
and Jung (2010) even claimed that the FRLD model has become the premier
leadership research paradigm (Sosik and Jung, 2010:xiv).

31

Plenty of research had been done to refine and verify the initial FRLD
model since 1985. The most recent version of the model incorporated eight
factors; four for transformational, three for transactional, and one for laissez-
faire (Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam, 2003). The four factors
comprising transformational leadership were idealised influence (behaviours
and attitude), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and
individualised consideration (the four Is); the three factors of transactional
leadership were contingent reward leadership, management-by-exception-active
and management-by-exception-passive; and the factor representing laissez-faire
leadership was non-leadership (Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam, 2003,
Hoy and Miskel, 2005).
The evolvement of the FRLD Model has demonstrated a conceptual shift
from solely concentrating on a certain particular individual attribute and
behaviour or skill, to a synthesised and augmented model. This model has been
well recognised and supported by prolific research papers and numerous
applications in corporate, military, religious, educational, and nonprofit training
settings worldwide (Antonakis and House, 2002; Sosik and Jung, 2010).
The Process Model
This systemic synthesis Model, namely, the Process Model, was formed by
the integration of the leadership styles of the FRLD Model and various other
interdependent variables. The fundamental conceptual shift involved was the
shift from a context-free leadership concept to a context-based system model.
The inclusion of the components of leaders, followers, situation, as well as
organisational process and outcome not only represented a comprehensive
picture, but also indicates the paramount importance of organisational process
and outcome as constituents of a system model, and the attainment of

32

organisational outcomes as the ultimate target of leadership (Sosik and Jung,
2010:61). It indeed provided an important reference to the conceptual
framework to be developed in the next chapter.
The view of leadership to be interpreted in a system in which leadership is
a dynamic and complex whole based on our relationships with others was a
monumental conceptual development (Sosik and Jung, 2010:49). This kind of
systematic interpretation was coined as system thinking: the renowned fifth
discipline stated in the classic work of Peter Senge (1990) in the explication of
organisational learning. In this process model, the same concept of system
thinking (Sosik and Jung, 2010:61) was used as the guiding principle holding
those interdependent components including the characteristics of follower,
situation, and outcomes, and the processes by which the leader, follower, and
situation interact to produce leadership outcomes at multiple levels together
(Sosik and Jung, 2010:60). Whilst the choice of components of the process
model was the result of 25 years of research, it was argued that in the attempt to
enhance leaders perspective and optimise leadership outcomes in the
framework of the FRLD Model, it was only appropriate to consider it by using
the Process Model (Sosik and Jung, 2010).
Models with the Combined Approach
Some scholars attempted to adopt a holistic approach by combining
elements of transactional and transformational leadership (For example, Bass,
1985, 2002; Kakabades and Kakabades, 1999; Davies and Davies, 2004; Davies,
2004aHuber, 2004). Some scholars combine constituents of these two
leadership styles into strategic or integral leadership (e.g. Davies and Davies,
2004; Davies, 2004; Huber, 2004) as delineated in the previous section.
Noting the dichotomous relationship between transactional and

33

transformational leadership, Kakabades and Kakabades (1999) argued that
transactional and transformational leadership styles correlate negatively with
one another. They insisted the impossibility of leaders exhibiting the two
leadership styles both with high intensity. Also, they illustrated the interplay of
these two leadership styles with respect to their relative intensity in the paradox
of strategy. Two specific combinations of low in transactional and high in
transformational, and vice versa were identified and categorised as vertical
and horizontal synergies (Kakabades and Kakabades, 1999:339). The
determination of how the combinations of transactional and transformational
leadership were brought together was in fact leaders response to pave their path
through the paradox of leadership, which in turn was an effective means to
differentiate the outstanding leader from the mediocre (Kakabades and
Kakabades, 1999).
Meanwhile, another empirical research showed otherwise. This is a
research, in which 1,474 teachers at 104 primary public schools in Israel were
involved, and the same MLQ questionnaire developed by Bass was employed
as the research instrument, and showed that all possible inter-relations within
the leadership styles were statistically significant and in the right direction,
meaning that transformational and transactional styles correlated positively with
each other (Kurland, Peretz and Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2010:17-18).
This integrated conceptual framework was also shared by other researchers
across diverse disciplines. Bass (2008) explicated leadership pattern in terms of
their relative activeness in being transactional and transformational (Bass and
Bass, 2008). He postulated that leaders have a profile of how frequently they
are transformational and how frequently they are transactional. Many active
leaders may be high in both. Others may be high in one and low in the other.

34

Less active leaders may be low in both [leadership styles] (Bass and Bass,
2008:647).
Among the many different possible combinations, many MLQ survey
results revealed a picture that emphasised effectiveness rather than activeness:
that the best leaders frequently employ some of the [transactional components]
but more of the [transformational components] (Avolio and Bass, 2002:5). This
combined approach indeed has strong implications. It has been widely used in
leadership studies in many sectors like health care, the military, business, sport
coaching, politics, government service, and nonprofit agencies (Bass and Riggio,
2006).
The Applications of the Combined Approach in the Education Arena
In the education setting, school principals were perceived to be both
transactional and transformational: on one hand, they were to ensure that
systems were maintained and developed, goals were formulated, followed-
through and met, and on the other hand, they were called to build on esteem, to
foster professional competence, to celebrate success, and to uplift the
behavioural conduct and the ethical aspiration of all leaders and the led
(Sergiovanni, 1992). This observation was resonated by the argument of these
two leadership styles to be complementary to one another (Leithwood, 1992),
and the result of the coupling of these two leadership approaches throughout
schools in an empirical research that aimed at examining the effects of them on
the quality of pedagogy and student achievement (Marks and Printy, 2003).
However, regardless of whatever combinations, it was most important to place
purposes, values and commitments at the apex of the school hierarchy to make
the appropriate coupling of leadership styles a success (Sergiovanni, 1992:27).
A Summary on transactional and transformational leadership

35

To summarise the literature review on transactional and transformational
leadership, we noted the trend of conceptualising these two leadership styles as
parts of an integral model (e.g. Bass, 1985a; Sergiovanni, 1992, Kakabades and
Kakabades, 1999; Davies and Davies, 2004; Davies, 2004; Huber, 2004); and
the recognition of them as implicit elements of successful leading strategies
(Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Marks and Printy, 2003). Their unique roles to play
in times of change were more thought-provoking than ever that transactional
leadership safeguarded organisational accountability (Wheatley, 2005)
specifically in prevalent risky situations (Antonakis and House, 2002), and
transformational leadership contributed to the continuing success of
organisation (Leithwood and Day, 2007) particularly when the organisation was
experiencing doubt or uncertainty (Bennis, 1983). Transactional leadership was
the foundation for the advancement of transformational leadership (Bass and
Bass, 2008; Hackman and Johnson, 2009). As regard to their mutual
relationship, they were complementary to one another (Leithwood, 1992;
Sergiovanni, 1992; Bass and Bass, 2008); they have different combinations in
terms of relative intensity (Bass and Bass, 2008), and in which have different
relevance for leaders to find their ways through the paradox of leadership
(Kakabades and Kakabades, 1999).
The conceptual evolving of transactional and transformational leadership
styles into the FRLD Model, and then into the systemic Process Model was
indeed a paradigm shift (Sosik and Jung, 2010). Not only did the Process Model
represent a more comprehensive picture, but also indicates the attainment of
organisational outcomes as the ultimate target of leadership (Sosik and Jung,
2010:61), which is the focus of the conceptual framework to be developed in
the following chapter.

36

2.1.9 The strategic leadership approach
Strategic leadership can be perceived as an integral of transactional and
transformational leadership at school level, at individual level, as well as in the
process of strategic implementation (Davies and Davies, 2004; Davies, 2004). The
details of this integrative style of leadership are described as follows:
First, strategic leadership as the integration of transactional and
transformational leadership was exemplified in the linkage of the present and the
future at school level. Davies and Davies (2004:34) related the strategic leaders
sense of dissatisfaction or restlessness with the present with the long-range vision.
The view of strategic leaders having the capabilities to envisage the future that has
been shared by many scholars (for example, Davies and Davies, 2004; Caldwell,
2003). This type of leaders was postulated as having the capability of keeping
abreast of trends and issues, threats and opportunities in the educational
environment and in society at large, and having the ability to discern the impact of
the megatrends on the school system, as well as on their own schools (Caldwell,
2003:26). They are to reconcile the paradox of maintaining short-term flexibility
while simultaneously ensuring longer-term connectivity (Dimmock and Walker,
2004).
These long-range visions and daily management were connected in causal
fashion: the vision could only be actualised by strengthening the current
organisational capacity which had to be realised by enhancing the capability of
organisational members in terms of fostering the necessary skills and abilities, and
by improving the alignment of the perspectives of both the organisation and
individuals to the accomplishment of agreed organisational objectives (Davies;
2004:14). This mutually reinforcing relationship called for a balance between the
roles of management and leadership. The balance could not be achieved without

37

developing a form of leadership that was value-led, principled-contingent and
partially transactional and partially transformational leadership (Day et al.,
2000:137), that exactly fulfilled the prime concern of strategic leadership.
Second, strategic leadership as the merging of transactional and
transformational leadership was further explicated in the linkage of the present and
the future at individual level in the practices of twin-track approach (Davies,
2004a:14) and strategic timing (Davies, 2004a:15). Strategic leaders attempted to
extend the effectiveness of the current practice by maximising the optimal end of the
existing performance s-curve while at the same time building up the organisational
capability and capacity by introducing an alternative practice to make possible a
strategic leap in performance outcome, which could be visualised as introducing
another s-curve (Davies, 2004a:14). These two strategic leadership steps combined
the transactional management task of doing things better and the transformational
leadership task of doing things differently (Barker, 2003; Davies, 2003; Davies and
Davies, 2003; Wise, 2003).
The practice of the twin-track approach was to be matched with the other
transformational elements of leadership, intuition and judgement, which were crucial
to the determination of the right time to introduce the right practices and to abandon
some plans or activities in the optimism of changing for the better (Davies, 2004a),
and this optimistic attitude was another characteristic of strategic leadership that
mirrored with those of transformational leadership (Bennis and Nanus, 1985).
Third, the strategic process itself was an integral of the transactional and
transformational leadership styles. The combination of the operational processes
exhibited by transactional and transformational leadership was coined as strategic
processes. The strategic processes were streamlined into four categories:
conceptualisation processes, people interaction and development processes,

38

articulation processes, and implementation processes by B. Davies in the National
College for School Leadership (NCSL) research project (Davies, 2004a:15a).
Conceptualisation process, the first category of strategic processes, was of
fundamental importance. This leader-initiated process started with organisational
reflection, which enabled leaders to develop strategic thinking, and in doing so, to
formulate new operational mental models in an attempt to represent the complex
reality with a simple framework. It could enhance the communal understanding of
current organisational situation and the derivation of optimal approach to gain
maximum outcome (Davies, 2004a). The process helped facilitate thinking
differently, holistically and strategically (Garratt, 1995).
The second category of strategic processes was people interaction and
development, which were represented as strategic conversations, participation,
motivation and capability. Acknowledging that human resource was crucial in the
development of strategic capability (Grundy, 1998; Gratton, 2000), strategic
conversations were regarded as the basis to advance the capabilities of organisational
members (Davies, 2004a). Conversation tactics were employed aiming at extending
the scope of organisational members from daily managerial transactional practices to
short-term operational issues, and then to holistic whole-school issues, and further to
schools developmental trends over the next few years (Van Der Heijden, 1996;
Hirschhorn, 1997; Davies, 2002; Davies, 2004a). Strategic participation was
enhanced through genuine strategic conversation. The consequences of greater
participation could impose positive effects among staff members on the development
of, for instance, trust-building capabilities and capabilities to build a psychological
contract (Gratton, 2000:19-20) for coping with current operational needs as well as
building organisational sustainability and continuing renewal in order to be
strategically successful (Davies, 2004a).

39

The articulation process, the third category of the strategic processes, was
embedded in three main forms : oral, written and structural. Different in forms of
representation, they addressed the current managerial needs, the school improvement
issues, the broader- and longer-term strategic policy aspect and the broader strategic
development issues. The oral message given by leaders, the printed documentation
message, and the organisational structures that are set up to facilitate the strategic
development of a school should not be in isolation from one another (Davies, 2004a).
Rather, they were part of an integral having the same vision and direction.
The implementation process, the last category of the strategic processes, was
in operation to tackle four challenges: to translate strategy into action; to align the
mindset of the individual and the organisation to the new direction and strategy; to
decide between sequential and parallel implementation approaches; and finally, to
decide the strategic timing that could produce the optimum result (Davies, 2004a).
The process of implementation was indeed a monumental leadership challenge
(Pietersen, 2002:54), which called for extensive staff development and training
(Davies, 2004a:20) both on individual and corporation levels. The success of a
significant strategic change relied on the leaders ability to consider a twin-track
parallel approach instead of the sequential one, and to choose the right strategic
change to make (Davies, 2004a:20), and to define the key moment for effective
organisational strategic intervention (Burgleman and Grove, 1996; Boal and
Hooijberg, 2001).
In all, shouldering transactional responsibilities, strategic leaders were also
capable of going through the process of recognising and absorbing new information,
analysing it, learning from it, and applying it to introduce new outcomes (Cohen and
Levinthal, 1990), which were in different degrees resonated with the descriptions of
transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Bennis and Nanus ,1985; Kouzes and

40

Posner ,1987, 2002).
2.1.10 Summary
To summaries the whole section on the historical development of leadership
theories, it was crucial to note that a more comprehensive view had been establishing
since the formulation of the trait approach in the 1940s and 1950s. The development
of leadership theories could be regarded as a synthetic and dialectic process. The
Trait Approach, the Skill Approach, the Style Approach, and the Situational
Approach pointed out the basic constituents such as leaders personalities,
knowledge, abilities, and behavioural styles, the situational context and leader-
subordinates relationship. These aggregate the synthesis of more sophisticated
theories: The Contingent Theory combined the elements of leadership styles and
situations, the Path-goal Theory synthesised the relationship among the leaders style,
the characteristics of the subordinates as well as the contextual setting, the Leader-
member Exchange Theory drew the components of leaders and subordinates together
through the dyadic relationship in the earlier stage of development and then related
the impact of leader-member exchange to organisational performance in the latter
stage. The Transactional and Transformational Theories, having most basic
leadership elements stated above and were found to be complimentary and the
integral of a classical leadership model, constituted the dialectic components of
Strategic Leadership Theory. The strategic approach emphasised the interaction
between leaders and followers, individuals and the collective, as well as the
collective and the environment; it also focused on the implementation processes and
expected outcomes, as well as the scope encompassing the present and the future.
It has to be noted that the intention of this historical review is not to exhaust all
recognised leadership styles, for instance, invitational leadership, ethical leadership,
distributed leadership and sustainability leadership and so on, but to focus on

41

certain leadership styles, that according to theoretical and practical considerations,
relevant to the global trend and the local context of education reform 2000.
2.2 The Leadership revisit
2.2.1 The diverse definition of leadership
The process of defining the term leadership has always been a controversial
issue since no one school of thought can capture the whole spectrum of its nature
(Rost, 1991). The attempt of searching for an inclusive definition of leadership had
been shared by many other scholars in the last century (Stogdill, 1974; Burns, 1978;
Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Smith and Peterson, 1988). Back in the 1970s, Stogdill
concluded that the endless accumulation of empirical data has not produced an
integrated understanding of leadership (Stogdill, 1974:vii). Burns argued that the
irrelevance of leadership studies was attributed to the failure to grasp the essence of
leadership that is relevant to the modern age (Burns, 1978:1). He stressed the
ambiguity of research findings on leadership definition: leadership is one of the
most observed and least understood phenomena on earth (Burns, 1978:2). A
comparable complaint was issued, claiming that thousands of empirical
investigations of leadership have been conducted in the past seventy-five years alone,
but no clear and unequivocal understanding exists as to what distinguishes leaders
from non-leaders (Bennis and Nanus, 1985:4). Smith and Peterson (1988:1) even
warned their readers after reviewing hundreds of references that quite a few
practitioners conclude that research into leadership has little to offer them. No
wonder J. C. Rost (1991:6) found that not much insight had been accumulated after
decades of investigations as of 1990, scholars and practitioners do not know, with
certainty, what leadership is.
2.2.2 The reasons behind the diverse definitions of leadership
The diverse phenomena of leadership studies were due not to adding up the

42

concept of leadership in the existing literature (Argyris, 1979; Hosking and Morley,
1988:89). This problematic definition of leadership was likely to be originated from
the nature of academic framework of behavioural sciences, such as social
psychologists, organisational behaviourists, and political scientists whose leadership
studies were first made to be their subspecialty (Rost, 1991). As a subspecialty,
scholars of leadership studies followed the scientific culture established by the
behavioural scientists that they are not expected to clearly articulate an
understanding of what it is they are studying (Rost, 1991:15). Even an articulated
definition had been given by previous researchers, it was likely to be ignored by
mainstream behavioural scientists who adopted the logical positivist framework of
research. Another difficulty in studying this issue was associated with the
incompatibility of its nature and the method used. Leadership was, by its very nature,
a multidisciplinary subject of inquiry encompassing the disciplines of behavioural
sciences and liberal arts. Unless leadership was studied from a framework involving
several different disciplines, it was impossible for scholars and practitioners to gain a
clear understanding of its nature. However, leadership studies remained an
unidisciplinary subject for decades. It was not until the 1980s that leadership was
studied from an interdisciplinary perspective (Rost, 1991).
2.2.3 The thematic definition of leadership
An array of leadership definition on theme basis was soon derived (Hackman
and Johnson, 2009). Leadership definitions were classified into four thematic
categories. The first leadership definitional theme of who you are, the oldest way
of conceptualising leadership, emphasised on leaders traits and attributes. This
notion of leadership was defined in terms of personality in action, whose leadership
affects the course of school development (Riley and Louis, 2000:10). Leadership
was refined as the one having the most desirable traits of personality and character

43

(Hackman and Johnson, 2009).
The second leadership theme was about how you act. Leaders were identified
to be the ones who exercised influence or power over others. Any effort to influence
others is attempted leadership (Bass, 1960:90) and the others could be individual or
group (Hersey, 1984:14). To influence others, it was a culture-influencing activity
that included the management of meaning in the course of communication
(Alvesson, 2002:105). The third leadership definitional theme of what you do
focused on the significance of followers. Leaders tried to confine their influence to
targeted individuals or groups of followers to encourage change so as to accomplish
the goals of a group. The last leadership definitional theme was concerned with how
you work with others. Collaboration was the key to this theme. Leaders highlighted
the importance of the interdependent and partnership relationship with followers by
establishing mutual purposes and a collaborative working atmosphere.
The third and the fourth themes were becoming an integral in subsequent
development. Direction and influence are at the core of almost all conceptions of
leadership (Leithwood and Day, 2007:4), whereas collaboration was the means
advocated by many scholars to achieve shared goals. Sergiovanni proposed
leadership [as] the process of persuasion by which a leader or leadership group
(such as the state) induces followers to act in a manner that enhances the leaders
purposes or shared purposes. Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders
and their collaborators [followers] who intend real changes that reflect their mutual
purposes (Rost, 1993:99). Most recently, the leadership definition with direction and
influence as the core concept was further complimented by the notion of values: it
was a process of influence leading to the achievement of desired purposes. It
involves inspiring and supporting others towards the achievement of a vision for the
school which is based on clear personal and professional values (Bush and Glover,

44

2003:8).
As noted in the preceding paragraph that direction and influence as the most
encompassing themes of leadership are basically purpose-achieving oriented (for
example, Leithwood and Day, 2007; Rost, 1993 and Bush and Gloves, 2003). This
explication is of course in congruence with the trend of emphasising the significance
of effectiveness in the global context mentioned in the beginning section of this
chapter. Following this line of thought, it is logical to choose the frame of leadership
competence, with special relevance to local context of education reform, as the tool for
the identification of leadership styles to be included in the conceptual framework of
the undertaking study.
2.2.4 Leadership competence as a classification of leadership
Leadership competence, one of the three effective leadership qualities, is
an area of concern in recent leadership studies (Sergiovanni 1984; Bush 2003; Davies
2005, Wong 2011). Recognising the inevitability for leaders to practise different
leadership approaches with respect to different situational conditions (Hersey and
Blanchard 1974, 1993; Fiedler 1967; Vroom and Yetton 1973; Vroom 2000), an array
of leadership competences have received attention in the context of school-based
management, one of the main features of Hong Kong education reform 2000 by the
end of the twentieth century. These leadership competences are instructional,
transformational, ethical, participative, managerial, emotional, cultural, servant,
distributed, sustainable etc (Wong 2011:524; Davies 2005; Bush 2003). Among all
these competences, managerial and transformational competences are to be elaborated
with regard to their theoretical and practical relevance to Hong Kongs education
reform 2000.
Given that management-by-exception in transactional leadership is recognised
as a managerial leadership style (Kleinman 2004), transactional and transformational

45

leadership have been perceived not only as complimentary and integrated concept
(Leithwood, 1992; Bass, 1985a; Sergiovanni, 1992, Kakabades and Kakabades, 1999;
Davies and Davies, 2004; Davies, 2004; Huber, 2004), and promising leadership styles
at times of changes and risks (Bennis, 1983; Weatley 2005; Antonakis and House,
2002; Leithwood and Day, 2007), but also the leadership styles that either have taken
root or have to be developed in the actual context of Hong Kong.
Transactional leadership, characterised by leaders command and control in
terms of positive and negative reinforcements over subordinates (Wheatley, 2005:4), is
likely to be easily adopted by school principals in a scenario that demands
accountability in a centralised education system. In view of the fact that the new
governing body of Incorporated Management Committee of Hong Kong secondary
schools, is a milestone for centralised decentralisation, and being accountable to the
government and the public has been persistently highlighted since the beginning of the
education reform 2000, particular at times of survival risks, Hong Kong education
reform has provided a scenario that flavor the practice of transactional leadership style.
On the flip side of the coin, as suggested by the government official and scholarly
literatures abovementioned, the education reform 2000, which is focusing on keeping
pace with changes of the world and organisational success (Education Commission,
2000; Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Leithwood and Day, 2007), is
also an inviting context for the development of transformational leadership. In fact, a
number of local researchers, which are to be scrutinised in the below-session, have
found this leadership style a meaningful area of study and confirmed the contributions
of it in the specific context of Hong Kong education reform.
2.3 Summary
The ever-evolving leadership theories, responding stringently to the concurrent global
climate of education reforms in recent decades, have been conceptualised into transactional

46

and transformational leadership approaches which were fruitful products of the
interdisciplinary studies in the 1980s. They mirrored the third and the fourth themes of the
stated leadership definition, in which direction and influence are the core concepts; and are
among the effective leadership competences postulated by the end of the second
millennium. Furthermore, the developmental history of leadership theories could also be
perceived as a dialectic process where the development of transactional and
transformational leadership styles should receive special attention in the context of recent
ever-changing major educational movements. In the course of conceptual and empirical
investigation, leadership theories have been developed from individual and independent
approaches to an inclusive delineation. For the development of transactional and
transformational leadership theories, not only do they develop from inclusive
representations to systemic process model with interdependent components, and with
organisational outcomes as the ultimate accomplishment, but also which is to be elaborated
in the next section of organisational learning.
3. Organisational learning in school administration
Enormous changes around the globe in the latter half of the 20
th
century induced social and
technological changes that put greater value and emphasis on learning and flexibility in which
these two crucial elements have become the cornerstones of implementing educational changes
(Collinson and Cook, 2007). A new age characterised by a knowledge society has begun
(Drucker, 1994, Education Commission, 2000) which was marked with the mutual reinforcing
factors of learning and change (Dixon, 1999:3). The faster the current of change, the more new
knowledge was required to steer the wind; the more new knowledge we had created, the faster
the pace of change. Obviously, educational leaders recognise the urgency to lead changes
effectively at school, both at personal and school levels, and among staff and pupils, for the sake
of excellence, competitiveness and survival.
Shedding light from the discipline of ecology, new ways of coping with changes were

47

employed : In order for an organism to survive, its rate of learning must be equal to or greater
than the rate of change in its environment. The formula is written L C (Dixon, 1999:2).
Wartgow (2008:80) suggested starting with the building of institutional capacity. To be more
specific, as Schwandt and Marquardt (2000:3) put it, only by improving the learning capacity
of organizations can we deal with change dynamics. For these organisations to survive,
traditional practices need to be replaced by modern ways of thinking and postmodern ideas.
Systemic thinking should prevail over linear thinking, social world should be more important
than physical world, and, independent learning and success had to give way to interdependent
learning and success (Kikoski and Kikoski, 2004). Thus, the development of organisational
learning to increase its learning capacity was crucial for adaptation and survival, as well as for
gaining and sustaining competitive advantages over rival organisations (Schwandt and
Marquardt, 2000). This assertion had profound implications for education systems. Some
researchers even believed that organisational learning offered a promising path for school
systems to develop and to live up to the expectations of a knowledge society (Collinson and
Cook, 2007).
To explicate the importance of organisational learning in times of change, the first part of
this section delegates to the delineation of the historical development of the concept of
organisational learning, in which both a chronological approach and a thematic approach are
employed to explicate the successive theoretical development from different perspectives.
Among other themes, the themes such as organisational learning processes and organisational
learning outcomes are emphasised according to its inclusiveness and its relevance to the
leadership styles as depicted in the Systemic Process Model in Section 2.1.8.3, a summary on
transactional and transformational leadership. Upon a comprehensive understanding on the
conceptual development of organisational learning, the second part looks for a precise and
concise description of it by reviewing literatures and its definitions from different perspectives,
which pertains to the proposed conceptual framework to be discussed in the following chapter.

48

3.1 The historical development of the concept of organisational learning
The concept of organisations as learning systems could be traced back to the early
1900s at the time when Frederick Taylor proposed the theory of scientific management.
The rationale of the theory was that all management truth had to be articulated and
measured; subordinates could learn from it and the efficiency of the organisation could be
enhanced as a consequence (Thompson, 2003). Since the latter portion of the 1950s, the
literature that paid particular attention to organisational learning could be divided into two
major categories. The first type was of prescriptive natured and practice-oriented
literature of the learning organisation that was supported by consultants and practitioners;
and the second type was principally sceptically inclined to literature of organisational
learning which was a product of the academic scholars. Although these two streams of
thought were different in terms of targeted audience and language forms, they both shared
the same conceptions about the contributing and threatening factors to organisational
learning, and their attempts to overcome these threats, if there were any (Argyris, 1999).
Limited by the scope of this study, the review was confined only to the sub-category of
the general term organisational learning according to the categorisation of C. Argyris
(1999) which was in congruence with the two categories identified in the 1950s.
3.1.1 The understanding of organisational learning chronological approach
In the late 1950s, a number of theorists such as Richard Cyert, James March,
and Herbert Simon attempted to scrutinise the meaning of organisational learning.
Among all considerations, organisational rules, designed to adapt to the environment,
was once regarded as the reflection of organisational learning processes (March and
Simon, 1958). In the 1960s, issues concerning organisational change received much
attention. It was perceived that the apparent conflicting interests between
organisations and individuals had led to the potential decline in organisational
effectiveness. Thus, the development of strategies attempting to integrate the

49

organisational- and individual-goals became the focal point of research. However, it
was not long before the researchers surpassed the conceptual constraints of putting
too much weight on performance objectives and began exploring the cognitive
dimension of organisational learning (Schwandt and Marquardt, 2000).
In the 1970s, organisational learning theories developed in response to the
contextual background characterised with persistent social tensions and uncertainty.
March and Olsen (1976), both developed the classic model of complete cycles of
organisational choice, contributed to the progress of organisational learning theories.
This model was a closed cycle of connection elements so that one element was
affecting the performance of the others. These elements, in the order of exercising
influence to the next, were individuals cognitions and preferences, individuals
behaviour, organisational choices, and environmental acts which were supposed to
exert influence on the first element to initiate another cycle. This model, in spite of
being overtly dependent on individual cognition, successfully linked up elements
such as individual belief and organisational behaviours, and extended the scope of
studying learning from individual to collectives (Schwandt and Marquardt, 2000).
In the second half of the 1970s, Chris Argyris and Dotard Schon (1978) laid a
milestone in the development of organisational learning upon their publishing the
book, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Their field of
research concerning the realisation of organisational learning was primarily one of
working with individual actions and the inherent lack of congruency between their
theory-in-use (often tacit) and their espoused theory (Schwandt and Marquardt,
2000:37). The interactions between the individual and the collective as well as the
relationship between the theory-in-use and espoused theory was best demonstrated in
the concepts of first- and second-order learning, a mechanism central to the
understanding of organisational learning.

50

In organizational single loop learning, the criterion for success is
effectiveness. Individuals respond to error by modifying strategies and
assumptions within constant organizational norms. In double-loop learning,
response to detected error takes the form of joint inquiry into
organizational norms themselves, so as to resolve their inconsistency and
make the new norms more effectively realizable. In both cases,
organizational learning consists of re-structuring organizational theory of
action. When organization engages into deuteron learning, its members
learn about organizational learning and encode their results in images and
maps.
(Argyris and Schon, 1978:29)
The first-order learning, also known as single-loop learning, was associated
with organisations routine, behavioural learning, and the improvement of its
learning capacity (Argyris and Schon, 1978; Bateson, 1972). The second-order
learning, was also called double-loop learning, involved the individuals
improvement of their capacity to be eligible in the process of re-evaluation of
organisational objectives, values and beliefs, for the disclosure of the performance
gap between the theory-in-use and the espoused theories. Upon the surfacing of
underlying incongruence, the step of re-evaluation was followed by the invention of
solution and the generalisation of learning outcomes for the interests of the
organisation. Indeed, second-order learning involved the engagement of individuals
in learning how to learn in the process of organisational cultural change (Snyder and
Nason, 1992).
During the mid-1980s, scholars took a more descriptive approach to the
classification of organisational learning. For instance, Shrivastavas four approaches
(1983), including adaptive learning, assumption sharing, development of
knowledge and institutional experience, considered organisational learning as a
culturally dependent and action oriented complex social phenomenon, and also an
integral of elements of organisational processes, organisational outcomes and
contextual environment (Schwandt and Marquardt, 2000:38). Rather than following
the stream of integrated conception, Fiol and Lyles (1985) adopted a totally different

51

either-or framework. They dichotomised the existing literature of organisational
learning in terms of either cognitive changes or behavioural changes, that was, to
interpret organisational learning either as learning or adaptation. Although little
insight was offered by this approach to the relationship between learning and
adaptation, it contributed to the presentation of organisational learning as a
multidimensional and complex set of actions (Schwandt and Marquardt, 2000:38).
Daft and Huber (1987) were another group of researchers who brought insight
to the understanding of organisational learning. They derived a construct from the
systems-structural-perspective and the interpretative-perspective with emphasis on
the development of internal mechanisms for the acquisition, distribution and
interpretation of information. They viewed the systematically designed
organisational learning process as the central focus of organisational learning. To
assess the effectiveness of the learning, Huber (1989:3) suggested that an
organization has learned if any of its components have acquired information and
have this information available for use, either by other components or by itself, on
behalf of the organization. The concept of organisational learning process was
further scrutinised by a number of scholars. For instance, Lundberg (1989)
highlighted the importance of organisational transformation and learning cycles.
Walsh and Ungson (1991) introduced the relevance of organisational memory
retrieval and the storage of it, and Huber (1991) continued his effort in synthesising
an interactive organisational learning model with an emphasis on organisational
learning process. He renewed a construct consisting not only of knowledge
acquisition, information distribution and information interpretation, but also
organisational memory that was not included in his previous construct.
In the late 1980s and the decades that followed, along with the prevalence of the
sense of facing a future of increasing turbulence and uncertainty, theorists developed

52

an array of conceptions concerning the importance of learning. The introduction of
uncertainty in the future had [turned] planning for the future from a one-off episodic
activity into an ongoing learning proposition (van der Heijden, 1996:7). Strategy
gurus, irrespective of their styles, recognised the critical role of learning in
organisational development in the future. Michael Porter, the most eminent old-style
strategy guru, found learning to be an essential element to organisational success.
The companies that are going to be able to become successful, or
remain successful, will be the ones that can learn fast, can assimilate this
learning and develop new insights.companies are going to have to
become much more like universities than they have been in the past.
Companies tended to think that they knew a lot, and therefore tried to be
efficient in doing what they thought they knew. But now its a matter of
learning.
(Porter, 1997:59).
The new strategy gurus, other than emphasising the central role of learning, also
argued competence building as a crucial element to organisational success in the
future. Gary Hamel, possibly the major strategy thinker of the time, proposed the
competency to create a point of view about unique opportunities at times of change:
We had a wrong focus for many years when we used to think about
the future. The primary focus was on forecasting and trying to identify [one]
particular future, rather than developing a deep-down sense of
discontinuities the things that are driving change. And then, out of that
understanding trying to imagine or construct a point of view about the
unique opportunities we might create
(Hamel, 1997:88).
Learning was perceived to be the key to make organizations, more responsive to
change and to creating organizations in which individuals can grow and develop
(Starkey, Tempest and McKinlay, 2004:5).
The 1990s was a decade with a new wave of experimentation and
advancement around the concept of organisational learning (Schwandt and
Marquardt, 2000:40). The dawn of the wave was marked by Peter Senges
monumental work, The Fifth Discipline, in 1990. Senge had been one of the leading
figures in the studies of organisational learning. He was one of those researchers who

53

attempted to bridge the gap between theory and practice, and put it in the context of
education. He was also one of those revolutionary theorists who shifted from the
philosophical to the practical field and from the arena of business to education. At
least partly because of the popularity of his work and his tremendous influence in the
field of management, Senge had been given the honour of being considered as the
guru of organizational learning (Yeung, Ulrich, Nason, and Glinow, 1999:22).
Peter Senge called for attention to the five organisational learning disciplines.
They were personal mastery, building shared vision, mental modals, team
learning and system thinking (Senge, 1990:7-13). Personal mastery was a practice
of continually clarifying, deepening and articulation of personal vision that coupled
with an authentic assessment of current reality. Under the condition that the
experience of dealing with the tension so caused was cultivated properly, the
identified tension could be the catalyst to expand choice-making capacity. The focus
of building shared vision was on a leaders capacity to establish mutual purposes
with organisational members so that genuine commitment rather than compliance
could be fostered. Mental models were deeply ingrained assumptions or
generalisations that affected our understanding of the world and the corresponding
action being taken. Therefore, this discipline involved the skills of reflection and
inquiry so that the current reality could be defined more clearly. Team learning was a
discipline of team interaction. It was through dialogue and skilful discussions that
members transformed their collective thinking and had their energies mobilised to
achieve desirable common goals. System thinking was the fifth discipline. Through
the building of conceptual framework for the better understanding of patterns of
events and behaviours, this discipline aimed at cultivating individuals to perceive
oneself and the world in new ways. To the extent that the mentioned five disciplines
of personal mastery, shared vision building, mental modals and team learning could

54

be fused into a coherent body, the discipline of system thinking can realise its
potential (Senge, 1990, 2000).
3.1.2 The understanding of organisational learning thematic approach
Noted was the fact that the long-term success of organisations seemed to
depend on the understanding of their learning patterns in response to internal and
external changes, and the ability of organizations to learn to cope with the
escalating dynamism and complexity of organizational environments (Schwandt and
Marquardt, 2000:40-41), the two general themes that many researchers had shared in
the study of organisational learning were the relationship between organisational-
and individual-learning (Argyris,1996, 1999; Senge,1990, 2000), and the concept of
organisational renewal (March, 1991; Crossan et al., 1999). Together with the theme
of organisational learning as processes and outcomes, the three themes formed the
thematic framework of organisational learning. Relevant materials are delineated so
as to reveal the more encompassing theme, which is of utmost importance to the
establishment of conceptual framework of the present undertaking.
The first theme was to view organisational learning as an organisational- and
individual-learning relationship. Argyris and Senge were in the midst of many
scholars who shared the theme pertaining to the relationship between organisational-
and individual-learning (Argyris, 1996, 1999; Senge,1990, 2000). These two
variables of organisational learning and individual learning were interrelated in a
very special way: the former was dependent not only on effective interaction and
shared learning goals, but also on individual learning which was already interwoven
in the tapestry of organisational learning and the latter could take place without any
social interaction (Leithwood and Louis, 1998; Louis and Kruse, 1998). According
to Collinson and Cook, organisational learning, and learning in general, were
basically initiated by organisational members active involvement in discovering

55

erroneous assumptions, questioning existing ways of operating, learning from
mistakes, and ensuring that useful ideas and innovations spread beyond individual
ideas (Collinson and Cook, 2007:15). The importance of individuals and their
intricate relationship was further explicated in C. Argyriss concept of interpersonal
inquiry. He defined this inquiry as a scenario where people took initiative to interact
with one another on behalf of the organization to which they belong in [such] ways
that change the organizations theories of action (Argyris , 1999:9).
The second common theme of organisational learning was organisational
renewal. Renewal had been a perennial concept in the education arena. Dewey (1916,
1944) highlighted this concept and regarded it as the chief concern in education.
Consequently, different scholars had unique contributions to this concept. Crossan et.
al. (1999) regarded renewal as the central theme of his framework of organisational
learning. In sustaining the practice of self-renewal, March (1991) proposed the
tension between learning new things and exploiting old practices, while many other
researchers raised the concerns of balancing change and continuity (Drucker, 1959;
Schein, 1992; Fullan 1993; Leithwood et al. 1995; Elmore, 1997). In order to
maintain this balance, Schn (1975), proposed to enhance organisations capacity in
learning to learn, which was understood as the capacity to set and solve problems
and to design and redesign policies, structures, and techniques in the face of
constantly changing assumptions about self and the environment (Schn, 1975:8,10).
The capacity of organisations in learning to learn was so important that it was
chosen as one of the themes of Hong Kong Education Reform (Curriculum
Development Council, 2000:1).
The third theme was to regard organisational learning as processes and
outcomes. Whilst it is one of the two foci of the present undertaking, it deserves
close scrutiny. This investigation begins with the literature review on processes and

56

outcomes in the context of organisational theories before studying them again in the
more focused discipline of organisational learning theories. Materials are delineated
chronologically to illustrate the intellectual progress in terms of complexity and
inclusiveness.
The concept of outcomes in organisational theory
The conceptual source of organisational outcomes could be traced back to 1911
when Frederick Taylor formalised his ideas of scientific management, which placed
significance on the optimisation of physical production (Kanigel, 1997 and
Thompson, 2003). Although nearly a century had elapsed since the formulation of
Taylorss ideas, Kanigel (1997) argued that Taylors focus on time, order,
productivity, and efficiency had been ingrained into the culture of modern
organisation. The goal models of rationality and effectiveness, a representative of
this tradition, had received much attention (Hall and Tolbert, 2005:226). Campbells
Goal Model (1977) was among the simplest. He assumed that the effectiveness of an
organisation was measured against the degree of its goal attainment (Campbell,
1977). Hannan and Freeman examined the goal model and argued that the matter
was more complicated than those arguments raised by Campbell: factors like
multiplicity, specifity and temporal dimension of organisational goals should be
included (Hannan and Freeman, 1977a:111-113). In the goal model derived by
Penning and Goodman (1977:161), the concepts of multiplicity and effectiveness
that can be assessed by the degree to which a goal approximates or exceeds a
referent were incorporated. The contradictory model that followed took a more
inclusive perspective, yet organisational goals were still one of its focal concerns.
This model recognised the multiplicity and conflicting nature of organisational
goals, as well as environmental constraints, time frames and [stakeholders]
interests, which were closely intertwined with organisational goals. (Hall and

57

Tolbert, 2005: 239-241).
The concept of processes in organisational theory
The conceptual source of organisational process could also be traced back to the
period of the human relations movement in the 1930s. According to the observations
of Hoy and Miskel, the movement was developed in large part as a reaction to the
scientific managers and perceived inadequacies of the rational-system model (Hoy
and Miskel, 2005:13); whereas Mary Parker Follett, a pioneer in the movement,
argued that the development and maintenance of dynamic and harmonious
relationships was in fact fundamental to organisations. The recognition of the
importance of informal patterns of interactions among organisational members was
further identified by the Hawthorne plant experiment and its subsequent
investigations in the 1930s. Although decades had passed, these findings remained
important in the eyes of contemporary natural-systems advocates. The natural-
systems perspective emphasised the informal organization rather than the formal,
people rather than structure, and human needs rather than organizational demands;
proponents of this perspective regarded organisations as primarily social groups
participating in various forms of interactions processes in an attempt to adapt, to
survive and to maintain its equilibrium in their particular situation (Hoy and
Miskel, 1982, 2005:14-15).
The integrated concept of process and outcomes in organisational theory
Both rational (outcome oriented) and natural (process oriented) perspectives
were found limited and incomplete, Hoy and Miskel (2005) synthesised these two
perspectives to form the open-systems model to provide a more complete perspective,
which could be interpreted as an elaboration of the concept of organisational
processes and outcomes. In this model, transformation processes were identified as
the processes to transform organisational input to performance outcomes in terms of

58

organisational effectiveness, and these processes could be understood as
administrative processes employed to influence the interaction among elements
including organizational structure, the individual, climate and culture, politics,
and teaching and learning to achieve desirable organisational effectiveness (Hoy
and Miskel, 2005:30-31).
In view of the increasing recognition of system thinking and interdisciplinary
dialogue, a more encompassing process model embedded with leadership theories
and organisation theories was developed by J. J. Sosik and D.I. Jung in 2010.
Inspired by Bernard Bass, one of the pioneer scholars of transformational leadership,
the process model was basically an amalgamation of Basss Full Range Leadership
Development (FRLD) Model to be interpreted in the interdependent relationship
among leaders, followers and environmental situation, and organisation theory in
terms of organisational processes and outcomes. It is through the [organisational]
processes by which the leader, follower, and situation interact to produce leadership
outcomes at multiple levels (Sosik and Jung, 2010:60), in which organisational
outcomes were regarded as the ultimate goal of the whole system model.
The concept of processes in organisational learning theory
The process perspective has been rooted in the discipline of organisational
learning for decades and been shared by distinguish scholars like Chris Argyris and
Peter Senge. The trend of interpreting organisational learning with a focus on
continuous renewals processes could be traced back to the 1970s : Argyris and Schon
(1978:20) delineated organisational learning as a process in which members of an
organization detect error or anomaly and correct it by restructuring organizational
theory of action, and embed the results of their inquiry in organizational maps and
images. Hedberg (1981) held a similar idea of changing for the better. He proposed
that organizational learning includes both the processes by which organizations

59

adjust themselves defensively to reality and the processes by which knowledge is
used offensively to improve the fits between organizations and their environments
(Hedberg, 1981:3-4). At the same point of departure, Fiol and Lyles interpreted
organisational learning as the process of improving actions through better
knowledge and understanding (Fiol and Lyles, 1985:203). His idea had been shared
by a number of researchers.
However, not until the 1990s were some prominent models emphasising
organisational learning process being formulated, in which one of them was derived
by P. Senge, the guru of organisational learning. Senges five disciplines model was
considered as two levels of a learning process (Starkey, Tempest and McKinlay,
2004). The first was the personal level aiming at learning new skills and advancing
capabilities. The second level, as interpreted by Starkey, Tempest and McKinlay
(2004), pertained to different ways in which we organise ourselves to support
learning. With these two levels of change, Senge envisaged the development of
learning capabilities in more flexible, responsive, adaptive, and less bureaucratic
organizations (Starkey, Tempest and McKinlay, 2004:4).
The Five Disciplines was indeed a thought-provoking model, yet there were
some other models also worth mentioning. Among them was the model derived by
A.K.Yeung, D.O. Ulrich, S.W. Nason and M.A.V. Glinow. They categorised the
processes into two sub-categories involving idea generation and generalization,
with the former related to the processes of discovery and invention and the later
pertaining to the processes of implementation and diffusion (Yeung, Ulrich, Nason
and Glinow, 1999:26). Dixon (1999) also developed a model with a focus on the
concept of process. To him, organisational learning was a dynamic cyclical process
with a purpose to ensure continuous transformation of the organization (Dixon,
1999:7-8). This process started with the widespread generation of information,

60

which was followed by the [integration] of the new information into the
organizational context, and then followed by the [collective interpretation] of
information, and concluded with the transformation of collective interpretations into
action by authorised organisational members, which also served as the step to
initiate the generation of new information of another cycle (Dixon, 1999:7-8).
To further scrutinise the concept of organisational learning process, many
scholars stressed the prominent role of organisational structure, or organisational
culture, or both of them as an integral (for example, Dixon, 1994; Yeung, Ulrich,
Nason and Glinow, 1999; Senge, 2000, Starkey, Tempest and McKinlay, 2004).
Among the many elements included in the category of organisational learning
process, Senge argued the significance of the aspects of organisational structure and
culture (Senge, 2000:328). He stressed that without weaving these two categories
into the tapestry of organisational learning, it was difficult to build a professional
community marked with reflective dialogue, the unity of purpose, collective
focus on student learning, collaboration and norms of sharing, openness to
improvement, deprivatization of practice and critical reviews, trust and respect,
renewal of community, and supportive and knowledgeable leadership (Senge,
2000:326-328).
Between the two elements of organisational culture and structure, the former
received particular attention by many other scholars. Dixon, also coined the
relevance of organisational culture to organisational learning. His arguments began
with the necessity to innovate and to establish generative relationship with others:
Learning is at a premium because we are not so much masters
of change as beset by it.. Multiple possible futures, the need for
discontinuity almost for the sake of it, means that we must be able
to think imaginatively, to be able to develop ourselves and, in
generative relationships with others, to continually organize and
reorganise ourselves.
(Dixon, 1994:xi)

61

Dixon further elaborated the crucial importance of establishing a culture of
conversation and dialogue that bounded the domains of individual and collective
together and served as the major tool of management in the process of collective
reasoning (Dixon, 1999). His viewpoint was echoed by a number of scholars. They
made a conclusive statement that culture change is central to our concept of
organizational learning capacity, where organizational learning capacity is the
capacity to generate and generalize ideas with impact, across multiple organizational
boundaries, through specific management initiatives and practices (Yeung, Ulrich,
Nason and Glinow, 1999:59).
Kets de Vries explicated the nature of organisational culture from the
psychodynamic perspective that aimed at surfacing the unconscious and shaping the
present patterns by past experience in order to gain insight into the ways
organisations function and learn (Starkey, Tempest and McKinlay, 2004). Kets de
Vries stressed the urgency of organisational renewal in this new, dynamic, and
turbulent world. Change would have to become a permanent phenomenon in the
new corporation, and the executive of the future had better learn how to live with it.
To facilitate change, it was imperative for an organisation to create a corporate
culture that fostered a continuous learning process (Kets de Vries, 1995). Kets de
Vries further stressed the importance of having a culture embedded with the value of
openness:
A key value of [a healthy] corporate culture is openness to
change. Executives have to create a protean organization one that
has the capacity to learn and change. If there is no change, no
creativity will be found. He further postulated that it has to be build
by leaders and to be supported by a learning architecture.
(Kets de Vries, 1995:97)
These leaders had to be capable of building an organisational climate of trust,
because only with trusting relationships could individuals learn about themselves
and their potential, and contribute to organisational development through the quality

62

of dialogue (Starkey, Tempest and McKinlay, 2004:7). However, as argued by Senge,
culture can never be cultivated in a vacuum, a high quality culture has to be
supported by a learning architecture (Senge, 2000). It was the kind of designs and
structures that facilitate the envisioning, empowering, and energizing processes of
leadership that an organisation with a focus on learning was looking for (Kets de
Vries, 1995:12). The coherent combination of school structure and culture, in which
the principal aimed at adjusting the structure to accelerate expected outcomes
embedded in the culture, was found to be the practice of successful school principals
(Hoog et al., 2007).
The concept of outcomes in organisational learning theory
A number of researchers comprehended organisational learning in terms of its
outcomes (Kets de Vries,1995; Yeung, Ulrich, Nason and Glinow, 1999; Starkey,
Tempest and McKinlay, 2004). Following Senges proposed idea on the importance
of systems-thinking as an antecedent of organisational learning capacity, researchers
argued that the capacity to learn has both antecedents and consequences (Yeung,
Ulrich, Nason and Glinow (1999:25). They highlighted organisational learning
outcome as a consequence of organisational learning in their framework of eight
basics that constituted the meaning of organisational learning capability. According
to their argument, organisations that learnt to adapt more quickly to the needs of
customers were more likely to attain their primary goal in its ever-improving
competitiveness of the learning organisation (Yeung, Ulrich, Nason and Glinow,
1999:25). It was most appropriate to parallel knowledge attainment with
organisational learning outcomes.
Knowledge in the context of organisational learning was supposed to be
socially constructed in a shared manner (Louis, 1994). [It] is the outcome of the
learning process and the basis for the effective exercise of competence (Starkey,

63

Tempest and McKinlay, 2004:9). Peter Drucker (1988:45-53) long argued that only
knowledge could serve as the lasting resource of competitive advantage. In a
knowledge society, a knowledge worker was even the key to organizational
survival and success. Toffler and Toffler (1997) suggested that knowledge, in terms
of ways to assess and manage knowledge, and as a means to promote individual
and organizational learning, was a key concern in the new age (Toffler and Toffler,
1997 cited in Starkey, Tempest and McKinlay, 2004:2-3).
Adapting and extending Collins (1993) categorisation of knowledge types, five
categories of knowledge including embrained, embodied, encultured, embedded and
encoded were identified and elaborated in terms of organisational learning (Blackler,
2004:340). Embrained knowledge was knowledge that was conceptual skills and
cognitive abilities dependent. Perhaps the best-known theorist of organisational
learning who featured embrained knowledge was Argyris whose theory of double-
loop learning (Argyris and Schon, 1978) bred the skills of in-depth examination of
taken-for-granted assumptions and beliefs as well as problem solving skills.
Embodied knowledge was action oriented. A contemporary account was
Zuboffs (1988) description of knowledge that depended on the physical presence of
people, sensory information and face-to-face discussions, and that was to be learned
by doing and was context specific. Other accounts included Scribners (1986)
depiction of practical thinking and Hirschhorns (1984) tacit knowledge.
Encultured knowledge denoted the process of attaining shared understanding.
Such understanding probably depended heavily on language and hence was socially
constructed. In the literature of organisational learning, important contributions
included Orrs (1990) account of storytelling and Nonakas (1991, 1994) argument
of knowledge-creating organisations.
Embedded knowledge was knowledge that was entrenched in systemic routines.

64

The concept of embeddedness was introduced by Granovetter (1985) who proposed
that economic behaviour was closely related to social and institutional arrangements
of the time. It was suggested that embedded knowledge be analyzed in systems terms,
in the relationships between roles, formal procedures and organisational routines
(Levitt and March, 1988).
Encoded knowledge referred to information like reports and policies conveyed
by signs and symbols. It was represented in forms such as books, manuals and
electronic devices. Zuboff (1988) suggested that information encoded by
decontextualised and abstract symbols such as information technologies was
inevitably presented in a highly selectively manner.
Among all possible organisational leaning outcomes, Kets de Vries (1995)
proposed the ability to act more creatively as the major potential outcome of learning,
whereas Senge (1990) and Fullan (1994) coined organisational memory, the shared
collective understanding that was developed in schools over time and was influential
in affecting schools learning capacity (Louis and Miles, 1990), as one of the areas of
knowledge gained through organisational learning. Positive shared memories
provided a base of common understanding for the initiation of new learning activities;
while contrasting shared memories would influence collective learning in a negative
manner.
The integrated concept of process and outcomes in organisational learning theory
The incorporation of process and outcome in the conceptual framework of
organisational learning was found in recent decades both in overseas and local
research. The conceptual application can be traced back to an overseas study in the
late 1980s as well in several local investigations in the 2000s. The five-year
longitudinal research of policy implementation in the Canadian province of British
Columbia administered by Leithwood et al. from 1989, was a landmark endeavour to

65

incorporate the concept of organisational learning from the business field to the
education arena. Categories including school conditions, organisational learning
process (OLP), organisational learning outcomes (OLO), stimulus for learning, out-
of-school conditions and school leadership were examined to search for their
relationship with organisational learning (Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach, 1998).
Findings pertaining to the first three components are delineated in the following
section in view of their connection to the conceptual framework of organisational
learning of the present study.
School conditions, the first category, that fostered organisational learning in
both areas of individual- and collective- professional learning comprised five factors.
The first was collaborative and collegial cultures, the second was structures that
allowed for greater participatory decision-making, the third was school strategy
including the coupling of clarified short-term [school] goals for improvement and
personal professional growth goals, the fourth was sufficient resources to support
essential professional development, and the last one was school vision. The
category on school culture appeared to have a dominant influence on collective
learning, while the effects of school structure and strategy were found to be moderate,
as for mission and vision, unless they were shared among staff, they seemed to be
less important in fostering organisational learning in comparison with the others
(Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach, 1998:74-76).
OLP comprised both the individual- and collective learning process. Collective
learning processes were five-fold. They were informal collegial discussions,
systematic professional knowledge exchange, formal or informal scheduled
observation, professional collective reflection on areas such as school goals and
research, and interschool visitation which was for the purpose of observing relevant
practices. The focus of individual learning processes, which was less significant in

66

comparison to collective learning processes, was teachers personal reflection and
their learning stemmed from personal and professional experiences. Other individual
learning processes included new strategies experimentation, personal professional
inquiry and reading, and the undertaking of relevant research (Leithwood, Jantzi and
Steinbach, 1998).
Most of the OLO reported by teachers of this research were the implementation
of new practices and the renewal of existing practices. It was followed by new
understandings, for instance, the acceptance of the necessity of catering to the needs
of individual students, and the importance of attending to the needs of the whole
child. Increased commitment was the third category of OLO: teachers reported their
willingness to enhance student learning by making the learning process more exiting
and authentic, and their desire to commit themselves to continuing professional
development. The least frequently mentioned category, among the OLO identified by
teachers in this research, was the acquiring of new skills that pertained to novel
instructional strategies (Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach, 1998).
The discipline of organisational learning was so appealing that it had captured
the attention of a number of local scholars in the previous century (Pang and Lam,
2000; Lam and Pang, 2003; Lam, 2004; Pang, 2006; Pang and Poon, 2008). Among
all these scholars, Pang combined Senges Five Disciplines with the system- and
individual dimensions in the model developed by Getzel-Guba (Pang, 2006),
whereas Lam, who was inspired by Senges Five Disciplines, developed his three-
stage model of germination, transformation and perpetuation in 2001, and later a
dynamic model of organisational learning with a focus on the types of process and
outcomes (Lam, 2004:303).
In Lams (2004) dynamic model of organisational learning, the term process
was derived from the system model (Hoy and Miskel, 1982), which pinpointed the

67

organic nature of getting tasks accomplished in organisations, whereas the
conceptual source of outcome came from the Goal Model (Campbell, 1977), which
was a quantified measure of established goals attainment. From the operational
perspective, OLP involved the collective acts attempting value changes, and OLO
related to results of value modifications resulted from applying organisations
espoused theories-of-action. This model provided information concerning the
operational processes of schools, the leadership style, the interaction among staff, the
nature of collective learning and organizational defensive routine through the
analysis of contextual conditions (Lam, 2004:305-308), in which the concept of
organisational renewal and the learning relationship between individual teachers and
the collective were implicitly included.
Zhang Zhaoqin (2007), inspired by Pang and Lam and many other scholars,
incorporated the concept of organisational processes and outcomes in the conceptual
framework of her PhD theses in order to examine the characteristics of schools as
learning organisations and their relationship to educational reforms and sustainable
school development in mainland China, especially in Shenzhen. In Zhangs model
(2007), cooperative culture was included as one of the important constituents of OLP,
whereas the concept of individual- and organisational-learning relationship in terms
of effectiveness was categorised under OLO.
As noted from the above organisational learning conceptual framework, all
assumptions and concepts relating to the first two themes of organisational learning,
that are, the interpretation of it in the light of individual- and organisational-learning
relationship and organisational renewal, are included in the third theme of
organisational learning process and outcome. With respect to the literature review,
concepts such as interpersonal inquiry and an organisations capacity in learning to
learn, which pertain to the elements of organisational culture, organisational

68

structure and knowledge, and which comprise both the individual and organisational
level are also embedded in the framework of organisational learning as process and
outcome. All these review materials provide valuable information for the conceptual
framework to be constructed in the following chapter.
3.1.3 Summary
The synthesis of different lines of thoughts and models are found in the
evolution of organisational learning theories, be it in the in chronological or thematic
development. In particular, the stream of organisational learning processes and
outcomes, which can be traced in the respective chronological development, was
found to be a more comprehensive and encompassing thematic classification in
comparison with the other two common themes of interpreting organisational
learning in terms of individual- and organisational-learning relationship and
organisational renewal. Meanwhile, a more encompassing model, such as the Process
Model, was developed not only to include the significant elements of organisational
learning, process and outcome, but other components pertaining to leadership, which
was another focus of the present study.
3.2 The Organisational learning revisit
3.2.1 The four main intellectual sources in defining organisational learning
As implicated in the chronological and thematic delineation of organisational
learning, the definitions of organisational were too diverse to mention. According to
Collinson and Cook (2007), there were at least four main intellectual sources in
defining organisational learning. The first one, an extension of Deweys concept of
inquiry, and explained by Argyris and Schn (1978) was the process of individual
and collective inquiry through which any mismatch between expectations and
outcomes was recognised, and, theories-in-use were examined, revised and even
reconstructed. To them, organisational learning could either be single-looped or

69

double-looped. Single-loop-learning involved the detection and correction of error
within a given set of governing variables. It was linked to incremental change to
ensure continuous adjustments and adaptations. Double-loop-learning, which was
often portrayed as superior to single-loop learning, aimed at changes at a more
advanced level (Argyris, 1996; Miner and Mezias, 1996). It was associated with
radical changes, such as major changes in strategic direction, and involved changing
the governing variables themselves (Easterby-Smith and Araujo, 1999:3).
The second intellectual source was derived from Daft and Weick (1984). They
viewed organisations as interpretation systems, where interpretation was the process
through which information is given meaning and actions are chosen (Daft and
Weick, 1984:294). The model proposed by Daft and Weick represented the overall
learning process of an organisation: scanning, interpretation, and learning. Scanning
was the process of collecting information from the environment; interpretation was
the application of previous understanding of the environment to conceptual
development; and learning involved the acquiring of knowledge to be used as the
reference for organisational decision-making (Kim, 2004). From this perspective, the
distinctive feature of organisational learning laid in the process of collective
interpretation. It was through this learning experience that organisation members
tended to reach intellectual convergence and were enabled to become a system
(Collinson and Cook, 2007).
The third intellectual source of organisational learning was found in the work of
Fiol and Lyles (1985). Through the review of the works of Argyris and Schn (1978),
Cangelosi and Dill (1965) and Cyert and March (1963), they argued that the
organisations not only had the ability to make adjustments but also had the capacity
to develop insights, knowledge, and associations between past . and future
actions (Fiol and Lyles, 1985:811). Their interpretation resembled the double-loop

70

learning propounded by Argyris and Schn, which was delineated in the earlier
section of this chapter.
The fourth intellectual source of organisational learning came from Levitt and
March. They regarded organisations as learning by encoding inferences from history
into routines that guide behaviours (Levitt and March, 1988:320). They placed
considerable emphasis on organisational routines like rules, procedures, conventions
and strategies. Routines, once being established, tended to remain stable even in the
midst of considerable internal and external changes. However, it could also be
reviewed, adjusted and even changed if they were inquired and reformulated through
the process of members interpretation of the past.
3.2.2 The summative meaning of organisational learning
Synthesis of intellectual sources was done by prominent scholars like Leithwood
and Aitken (1995). According to their suggestion, organisational learning was a
group of people pursuing common purposes (and individual purposes as well) with a
collective commitment to regularly weighing the value of those purposes, modifying
them when that makes sense, and continuously developing more effective and
efficient ways of accomplishing those purposes (Leithwood and Aitken, 1995: 41).
Similar insight was shared by scholars like Collinson and Cook (2007) that
organisational learning involved the deliberate gathering of individual and groups, and
the administering of system learning to embed creative thinking and practices to
ensure the organisation is continually renewed and transformed in ways that support
shared aims and visions.
3.3 Summary
In conclusion, the emergence of the above-named models, approaches and theories
served the purpose of understanding the sophisticated educational structures by describing
and explaining from different perspectives of the intertwining forces that shaped a specific

71

context at a specific time. To understand organisational learning in school administration in
simple yet comprehensive models, we have Argyriss single- and double-loop-learning
model (1978) and Senges five disciplines of organisational learning (1990, 2000). From the
three theme-wise categorisations of models, organisational learning can be explained
through the discovery of the relationship between organizational- and individual-learning,
organizational renewal, and the organizational learning as processes and outcomes,
which has embedded in it the essence of the first two themes
Over the years, many researchers have contributed their efforts directly and indirectly
into the identification of representing factors of the theme organizational learning as
processes and outcomes. Organisational learning processes were understood as the
continuous renewal processes, the individual- and collective learning process, the dynamic
cyclical process, organisational culture and/or structure, the administrative processes and the
processes by which the leader, follower, and situation interact to produce leadership
outcomes. Moreover, organisational learning outcomes were comprehended as
organisational goals, organisational memory, and knowledge attainment which could be
understood as embrained, embodied, encultured, embedded and encoded knowledge.
The classification of organisational process and organisational outcome has diverse
implications. In addition to its application in the formulation of conceptual framework in
overseas and local empirical researches as mentioned, it can also be used to categories
intellectual sources in defining organisational learning. In view of the inclusiveness and
applicability of this process and outcome classification, the same categorisation with the
mentioned scholastic interpretations is employed in the conceptual development of the
present undertaking to be delineated in the next chapter.
4. The relationship between principal leadership and organisational learning
This section portrays the conceptual and empirical findings concerning the relationship
between principal leadership and organisational learning. It begins with the prominence of

72

principal leadership in fostering organisational learning; it follows with the explication of
principal leadership as a complementary integral, and then the influence of it upon school
internal conditions which are crucial to organisational learning. To resonate with the first
subsection, that focuses on the prominence of principal leadership to organisational learning,
the discussion of this topic ends with the role of principal leadership to the processes and
outcomes of organisational learning.
4.1 Relevant conceptual and empirical findings
4.1.1 Prominence of principal leadership to organisational learning
In a world of volatile changes, school as an organisation had to learn ever
faster to keep up. Principals were called to foster a culture that functioned as a
perpetual learning system (Schein, 1992:372), which echoed with the metaphor
of schools as living systems (Senge, 2000; Wheatley, 2005:27) and the
description of schools as learning organizations (Leithwood and Day, 2007:201).
The perspective of organisational learning suggested that the collective, regular
processes of teachers and administrators [discuss, share and critique] around
issues of practice and professional knowledge will provide schools with the
capacity of change and development (Louis and Kruse, 1998:34), which was
essential for the sustenance and continuing development of schools. The
importance of school principals in organisational learning had been affirmed by
many researchers (Kofman and Senge, 1993; Mohrman and Mohrman, 1995,
Creemers and Reezigt, 1996; Silins et al., 1999). Leadership was even regarded as
a crucial factor for the variation in organizational learning (Leithwood, Jantzi
and Steinbach, 1998: 68). School principals were expected to be the principal
learner, the embodiment of the meaning of the idea of life-long learning (Bowring-
Carr and West-Burham, 1997).
4.1.2 Principal leadership as an integral of transactional and transformational leadership

73

Transformational leadership was found to be positively related to
organisational learning (Leithwood, Aitken and Jantzi, 2001; Silins and Mulford,
2002; Lam, 2002a, 2002b); however, school principals were not only expected to
fulfil transformational responsibilities, they also meant to carry out transactional
tasks. The daily organisational office proceedings and the administrative routines
such as resources management and even communication processes. should not
be underestimated (Huber, 2004:8) because they were fundamental for an
effective and also efficient work flow within the organization (Huber, 2004:8,9).
In times of change, the unique role of transactional leadership should deserve
more attention than ever: its characteristic of giving command and control
(Wheatley, 2005:4) could effectively assure employees certainty about their
work, and [increase] the schools level of accountability to government and the
public (Leithwood and Day, 2007: 200).
This concept of integral school leadership was shared by many scholars.
Sergiovanni (1992) argued that school principals were both transactional and
transformational; on one hand, they were to ensure that systems were maintained
and developed, goals were formulated, followed-through and met, and on the other
hand, they were entitled to build on esteem, to foster professional competence, to
celebrate success, to uplift the behavioural conduct and the ethical aspiration of all
leaders and the led. This was exactly Hubers (2004) integral school leadership
and Davies and Daviess (2004) strategic leadership that called for the
integration between management and leadership. Indeed, this leadership style had
become the new paradigm and an international trend and development
tendency (Huber, 2004:315,318).
The implications of transactional and transformational leadership were
perceived to be weaving in and out of the findings of successful principals. With

74

respect to the report of the longitudinal research administered by Day and
Leithwood (2007:182), principals achieved their success because they were able
to enter two kinds of [interdependent] relations with their worlds the personal
and the functional, in which functional relations are essentially instrumental in
nature and personal relations have no purpose other than to enable us to be
ourselves (Fielding, 2001:11). Their success also revealed in their recognition of
relational identities to be responsible to students and parents, collegial
professional, the government and the society; their abilities to hold onto and
express moral purpose with steadfast believes and values; and their capacities to
manage paradoxes, dilemma and tensions in ways that were only responsive to
context but never dependent on it (Day and Leithwood, 2007). With these
capabilities, principals soon become more intent on harnessing government
accountability initiatives to their own schools priorities (Leithwood and Day,
2007:198). In all, there were two points worth-noting in whatever synthesised
leadership styles, that education value should be observed as the guiding principle
of leadership at the apex of organisational hierarchy (Saphier and King, 1985;
Leithwood and Stager, 1989, Sergiovanni, 1992, Leithwood and Day, 2007;
Hallinger, 2010), and learning should always be the locus of concern (for example,
Leithwood and Day, 2007; Hallinger, 2010).
4.1.3 The influence of principal leadership upon school internal conditions
In the waves of organisational change, many researchers scrutinised leaders
influence in the internal conditions of the organisations. It was recognised that
transformational leadership is about culture-changing and the strategies employed
to secure the change (Coleman and LaRocque, 1989; Hoog et al. 2007).
Leithwood et al. (1989) also highlight the significance of school culture, among
many other factors such as school structure and school strategies, in fostering

75

organisational learning. The important role of school principals in the
transformation of school culture, including the norms, values, beliefs and
assumptions held by staffs that affected organisational decision-making and -
implementation was studied by many researchers (for example, Stopl and Smith,
1995; Karpicke and Murphy, 1996; Johnston and Wartel, 1998; Leithwood and
Jantzi, 1998; Lam and Pang, 2003; Hoog et al. 2007). Leaders were validated as
catalysts for the formation of a new environment (Reynolds et al., 1996;
Leithwood and Jantzi, 1998; Lam and Pang, 2003).
Leadership has been found to be highly influential in creating positive and
innovative learning cultures (Schein, 1992; Committee for the Review of Teaching
and Teacher Education, 2003: xxiv), particularly in facilitating the quality of
teaching and learning (Committee for the Review of Teaching and Teacher
Education, 2003:xxiv). A cross-country research also concluded that leadership
was prominent to teachers occupational satisfaction (Dinham, 2005). The
collegial collaborative culture, which was a part of the learning culture, was
another promising element in fostering organisational learning (Tschannen-Moran
et al., 2000). In turn, this collaborative culture could be reinforced by school
principals demonstrating support for collaborating teachers and providing
opportunities for teamwork skill development (Dee and Henkin, 2001).
As a matter of fact, transformational leadership, together with positive school
culture and supportive structure was a more important factor than other school
internal conditions and factors to facilitate organisational change, despite
variations in terms of schools type, nature, incumbents and background (Lam,
2002b). The logical question concerning the cultural specificity of
transformational leadership to organisational learning was resolved in his
subsequent cross-cultural comparison between Hong Kong, Taiwan, Western

76

Australia and Central Canada. It was confirmed that in the four places, the effects
of transformational leadership were all closely linked to that of school
structure and school culture, which in turn has a substantial impact on
organisational learning (Lam, 2002b:448). Meanwhile, to be successful principals,
it was essential for them to focus on a balance between both school cultures and
structures (Hoog et al.,2007), and their influence upon these areas should be
consistent both with their beliefs and values (Day and Leithwood, 2007:178)
Another important internal condition that principals may manipulate in
shaping the process of organisational change was school structure (Hallinger and
Heck, 1998). Leaders role in the relationship network could contribute to school
effectiveness by being supportive in curriculum implementation, instructional
resources allocation, professional learning facilitation, and collaboration
opportunities provision (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2000). With collaboration
opportunities, leaders could promote teachers cooperative learning and
participative decision-making on a continuous basis (Smylie et al., 1996; Lam,
2005).
4.1.4 The influence of principal leadership upon OLP and OLO
Principals influence upon OLP and OLO has been affirmed by many
scholars. Leithwood et al. (1989) regarded them as two important categories to
organisational learning. Their relevance to recent Hong Kong education reform
was revealed by the expected mission upon school principals. Education reform
initiatives such as curriculum integration, merger of information technology into
the instructional process, decentralization of decision-making power in the form of
site-based management, and accountability for school performance all called for
transformational leadership to maximize collective learning in the face of new
challenges (Lam and Pang, 2003:85). To realise this mission of optimising

77

collective learning, school principals were to possess a high degree of motivating
and integrative competences [in order to] unleash and integrate all the staff and
make them more productive. Only with this ability could principals act as a
catalyst to [develop] efficient, cooperative decision-making and problem-
solving strategies (Huber, 2004:9). According to this conception, school
principals rendered processes and outcomes the same degree of importance. On
top of paying attention to operational processes, they also concentrated on the
results, the success of the teaching and learning processes, on the outcomes and on
the relation between the outcomes and the development processes themselves,
which are supposed to result in improved outcomes (Huber, 2004:9)
The outcomes of organisational learning, could be in the form of valuable
organisational memory, advanced teaching and learning practices, new insight and
increased commitment. Given that efficiency had become schools dominant
performance criterion, the concern for the maximum utilization of school
resource would be school leaders guiding principle (Lam, 2004:301). Hence,
leaders facilitation of positive shared organisational memory (Senge, 1990; Fullan,
1994), which was indeed a precious organisational resource, so as to enhance
organisational learning capacity (Louis and Miles, 1990) was another important
step gearing up for learning organisation. Suggested by Lam, teachers could
[institutionalise] decisions and solutions attained through collective learning,
thus enlarging organisational memory by written record so as to broaden and
rationalise problem-coping strategies in times of crisis (Lam, 2004:304). Besides,
the implementation of new teaching and learning practices and the renewal of
existing ones was among the most significant OLO coined by Leithwood et al.
(1989). Also, teachers new understandings concerning catering for diversity and
an all-rounded education, and their willingness to commit themselves to

78

continuing professional development were also some of the OLO worth
considering (Leithwood, 1989).
4.2 Summary
Transformational and transactional leadership as a synthesised integral has unique
implications in times of change and of a societal developmental stage emphasising
accountability. This integral of transformational and transactional leadership has been
investigated in many related studies with different degrees of intensity. Bass and Bass
(2008) interpreted the variations of this integral in terms of their activeness. He postulated
that leaders have a profile of how frequently they are transformational and how
frequently they are transactional. Many active leaders may be high in both. Others may be
high in one and low in the other. Less active leaders may be low in both [leadership
styles] (Bass and Bass, 2008:647). Kakabades and Kakabades (1999) argued that
transactional and transformational leadership styles correlate negatively with one another.
Meanwhile, another empirical piece of research conducted in Israel showed the otherwise.
It indicated that all possible inter-relations within the leadership styles were statistically
significant and in the right direction, meaning that transformational and transactional
styles correlated positively with each other (Kurland, Peretz and Hertz-Lazarowitz,
2010 :17-18).
This integrated leadership was not only a mere combination, it had to be value-led
and learning-centred to bring ideas to school principals in managing the inevitable
paradoxes, dilemma and tensions that characterised the vibrant interactions between
different stakeholders in a changing society and school. This managing process was
indeed the combination of the processes of organisational learning with school culture the
fulcrum of change, and school structure and strategies alike the supportive mechanisms
for organisation changes. As for organisational learning outcomes, they were basically in
the forms of organisational memory and ever-renewing and advancing organisational

79

capacity that contribute themselves to the progression of the school to be a learning
organisation.
5. Focus of the current research
Despite prolific writings of leadership contribution to organisational learning cited above,
it was a pity to note that many studies exploring the relationship between leaders and their
organisations were obsessed with one style of leadership, that was, transformational leadership.
Yet, in reality, as registered in decades of investigation on the incumbents of top hierarchical
positions, the role of transactional leadership should not be overlooked. It was perceived by
some leaders as an effective leadership style particularly in times of change. Given our common
concern that schools should continue to survive in time of turbulent changes, it seemed
advisable to investigate the impact of leadership with transactional and transformational
components to organisational learning. It was to this end that the present study was undertaken.
6. Summary
This chapter began with a description of the global context of Education Reform, and key
domains affecting reform outcomes, namely, leadership studies and organisational learning.
These two domains were duly explored in chronological order, and, specifically, organisational
learning was scrutinised thematically in terms of process and outcome, which are to be
elaborated in the following chapter. To seek a precise and concise understanding of both
leadership and organisational learning, their definitions were reviewed at the end of each section.
The gap between empirical research findings and practical needs stated in the previous section
underscore the need for the present study to be undertaken.

80

Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology
This chapter consists of five main sections. The first section states the purpose of the study,
which is followed by the key concepts of the proposed framework depicting the intricate
relationships between transactional and transformational leadership styles and constituents of
organisational learning. The delineation of the conceptual framework on which this study is
undertaken forms the third section. The fourth section is the general research design of this study.
This part includes the presentation of the nature of the study, the construction of research
instruments, the rationale of the quantitative approach, the proposed testing of validity and
reliability of the instrument, the sample size and selection procedure, the data collection procedures
and the method of analysis. To conclude, the last section gives an overview of the conceptual
framework and methodology by which the research will be analysed.
1. Aim of the Study
In view of the prominent role that principals play in shaping the destiny of their schools, a
phenomenon well documented in the literature review of Chapter Two, the aim of the study is
to investigate the relationship between transactional and transformational leadership styles and
organisational learning, in terms of its processes and outcomes in Hong Kong secondary
schools in the context of education reform 2000.
The general question is:
What is the relationship between transactional and transformational leadership styles and
organisational learning in Hong Kong secondary schools?
2. Definition of key concepts for the study
Several key concepts need to be defined to make explicit their meanings so that the
following construction of the conceptual framework and subsequent interpretations of the
empirical findings will become more coherent.
2.1. Leadership styles

81

The prominent transactional leadership of the 1980's, which is the synthesis of
various leadership styles developed in the previous decades, and transformational
leadership of the 1990s, are the leadership styles to be studied in the present undertaking.
To ensure the validity of this investigation, the constituent factors and indicators of these
two leadership styles are taken from the widely used Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire MLQ-5X (short) which was developed by Bass and Avolio (1992) to
measure the full range of leadership. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) is
the most widely used measure of transformational leadership (Northouse 2010:198). It
has been evolved over the last 27 years based on numerous investigations of leaders in
public and private organizations, from CEOs of major corporations to non-supervisory
project leaders (Avolio and Bass 2004:3). Also, the psychometric properties of this
questionnaire has been assessed by using a business sample with more than 3,000
respondents and confirmed to have strong support for its validity (Antonakis, Avolio and
Sivasubramaniam 2003).
The first-order factors of the transformational leadership are delineated as follows:
(1) Idealised influences, both in terms of its attribution and behaviour, constitute the
first and second factors of transformational leadership. Transformational leaders
charismatic actions are both centred on and anchored in values, beliefs, and a
sense of mission (Antonakis et al., 2003. Cited in Kurland et al. 2010, 11).
These leaders are conceptualised as role models exhibiting high standards of
ethical and moral conduct. They were admired, respected and trusted so much
that subordinates regarded the vision of these leaders as their own (Avolio and
Bass, 2002; Hoy and Miscel, 2005; Hackman and Johnson, 2009).
(2) Inspirational motivation, the third factor of transformational leadership,
postulated transformational leaders as those who provide meaning and challenge,
communicate high expectations, inspire and demonstrate commitment, build

82

team spirit, and create shared, idealised and attainable vision (Avolio, 1994; Bass
and Avolio, 1994; Avolio and Bass, 2002; Hoy and Miskel, 2005; Hackman and
Johnson, 2009).
(3) Intellectual stimulation constitutes the fourth factor of transformational
leadership. It addresses the issue of creativity in the interactions between leaders
and subordinates (Atwater and Bass, 1994). Transformational leaders were to
stimulate subordinates to be creative and innovative by challenging their
practising assumptions, traditions, values and belief, and by encouraging them to
unlearn, to reframe problems, to engage in difficult problem-solving, and to
develop innovative approaches in dealing with organisational issues (Avolio and
Bass, 2002; Hoy and Miskel, 2005; Hackman and Johnson, 2009). In return,
leaders received intellectual stimulations from subordinates to review their
perspectives and assumptions (Avolio, 1999), and subordinates were not
criticised if their ideas were different from that of their leaders (Avolio and Bass,
2002).
(4) Individualised consideration is the fifth factor of transformational leadership.
This factor demonstrated how transformational leaders fostered subordinates
professional growth and achievements helped subordinates to unleash their
potential to the full. To realise these purposes, leaders recognised and accepted
individual differences in terms of needs and desires; they acted as coaches or
mentors, cultivated a supporting climate in which they listened actively and
effectively to individuals needs, created learning opportunities and delegated
challenging tasks for subordinates to learn through practices (Avolio and Bass,
2002; Hoy and Miskel, 2005; Hackman and Johnson, 2009).
To gain an in-depth understanding, it was worth noting the difference between truly
and pseudo-transformational leaders. The former was socialised in orientation and

83

values as well as morally uplifting, while the latter was personalised in orientation
and values, and caters in the long run to his or her self-interests (Avolio and Bass,
2002:8). Generally speaking, truly transformational leaders were promising for
future organisational success, as opposed to the otherwise who inclined to bring
organisational destruction (Avolio and Bass, 2002).
The transactional leadership comprises the following first-order factors:
(1) Contingent reward, the first of the three transactional leadership factors, has
been found to be reasonably effective (Avolio and Bass, 2002; Antonaks, Avolio,
and Sivasubramaniam, 2003, Hoy and Miskel, 2005). It was an exchange
process between leaders and subordinates based on an agreement of the interests
of both parties (Kuhnert and Lewis, 1987; Hoy and Miskel, 2005). Promised
rewards were given upon satisfactory accomplishment of agreed assignments
(Avolio and Bass, 2002).
(2) The other two factors were the active and passive form of management-by-
exception. Leaders adopting the active form supervised subordinates actively for
deviances from standards or rule violations and took corrective actions as
necessary, whereas leaders deploying the passive form intervened only after
deviances, mistakes and error occurred (Avolio and Bass, 2002; Hoy and Miskel,
2005; Hackman and Johnson, 2009). These corrective transactions inclined to be
more ineffective (Avolio and Bass, 2002).
In essence, transactional leaders neither considered subordinates individual needs
nor their personal development. They were task oriented. Their major concern was
only to carry out the exchange in the best interests of subordinates and themselves as
leaders (Kuhnert and Lewis, 1987). In all, leaders of this kind employed corrective
criticism, negative feedback, and negative reinforcement (Hackman and Johnson,
2009:185). As opposed to truly transactional leaders, pseudo-transactional leaders

84

could easily be discerned: these leaders didnt deliver rewards as promised, failed to
take corrective actions upon monitoring, or gave no response when an error occurred,
but called attention to it after it was too late to remedy the situation (Avolio and Bass,
2002).
2.2. Organisational learning
Organisational learning is a response to the enormous global changes in the latter
half of the 20th century that calls for a paradigm shift emphasising more on learning and
flexibility (Collinson and Cook, 2007). In this thesis, organisational learning is defined as
the systematic combination of organisational learning process and outcome, that involves
the continuous changes in the belief, the value, the structural environment, and the
learning capacity of the collective interaction as well as their joint achievements
institutionalised in concrete policies and administrative actions. This definition is adapted
from the research findings of Lam (2004:303) and Hoy and Miskel (2005:30-31), where
these two conceptually and empirically separable components, organisational learning
process (OLP) and organisational learning outcome (OLO), were clearly delineated.
The concept of process and outcome are first found in organisational theories of
the business sector, before being applied to the setting of education. The notion of
organisation process has been adapted by prominent scholars such as Argyris and Schon
(1978) to describe organisational learning as a process in which members of an
organization detect error or anomaly and correct it by restructuring organizational theory
of action, embedding the results of their inquiry in organizational maps and images. Fiol
and Lyles (1985) refers to organisational learning as the process of improving actions
through better knowledge and understanding. Hoy and Miskel (2005:30-31) further
proposed these processes as administrative processes employed to influence the
interaction among elements including organizational structure, the individual, climate
and culture, politics, and teaching and learning to achieve desirable organisational

85

effectiveness. The outcome, according to the goal model (Campbell, 1977), stands for
the degree of goal attainment of organisational members. The attainment of primary goal
of the learning organization is also addressed by Yeung, Ulrich, Nason and Glinow
(1999:25).
To broaden the crucial components of organisational learning, the process in this
study is further conceptualised in terms of three separable domains: namely, contextual,
static and dynamic organisational learning processes.
(1) Contextual organisational learning process refers to the evolving conditions that
sustain or inhibit collective learning in the school organisation to take place. In
other words, it is argued that group learning can only take root in an environment
where a professional community characterised with reflective dialogue, the
unity of purpose, collective focus on student learning, collaboration and
norms of sharing, openness to improvement, reprivatisation of practice and
critical reviews, trust and respect, renewal of community, and supportive
and knowledgeable leadership (Senge, 2000:326-328) can flourish. Many of
these characteristics such as Openness to change are regarded as a key value of
[a healthy] corporate culture that fostered a continuous learning process (Kets de
Vries, 1995:97). Simply since school principals provide the context in which
school changes are legitimised and treated as continual processes of growth, in
this frame of reference, it seems justifiable to adopt the term contextual
organizational learning to replace what other scholars call school culture (for
example, Dixon, 1994; Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach, 1998, Yeung, Ulrich,
Nason and Glinow, 1999; Senge, 2000, Starkey, Tempest and McKinlay, 2004).
(2) Static organizational learning process represents the formalised patterns of
working relationships between superiors and subordinates in schools developed
from a relatively slow, yet continuously evolving process of adapting to work

86

changes. As in the case of individual learning, an organisation accumulates its
successful experiences of adapting to on-going changes and consolidates them
into some recognisable structure to regulate internal working order and operation.
It is upon this formalised format that further collective acquisition of knowledge,
skills, and practices are nurtured. Suggested by Ranson, Hinings, and Greenwood
(1980:3), organisational learning is seen as a complex medium of control which
is continually produced and recreated in interaction and yet shapes that
interaction: structures are constituted and constitutive. In other words, it is
argued that interaction with changes continues to shape and reshape the working
patterns within the school organisation in fine-tuning an optimal stage that best
accommodates external challenges. In view of its relatively stable condition prior
to another needed adjustment, this stable organizational learning process is
equated to the more common term, school structure used by other scholars in
literature (Kets de Vries, 1995; Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach, 1998; Senge,
2000).
(3) The interpretation of organisational learning as a dynamic process echoes that of
Dixon that organisational learning is a dynamic cyclic process with the purpose
to ensure continuous transformation of the organization (Dixon, 1999:7-8).
Organizational dialogue, which referred to the interaction in a collective
setting that results in mutual learning upon which the organization can act, is the
essence to organisational transformation (Dixon, 1997:83). It is through various
forms of group interactions processes that participants are generating and
generalising ideas in an attempt to adapt, to survive and to maintain its
equilibrium in their particular situation (Yeung, Ulrich, Nason and Glinow,
1999; Hoy and Miskel, 1982, 2005:14-15). In school scenarios, dynamic
organisational learning entails the interactive learning process of administrators

87

and teachers in the operational decision-making in areas such as administrative
acts as well as teaching and learning. All these procedural actions are subjected
to constant revision and improvement based upon available data. Argyriss (1978)
concept of double-loops learning appropriately portrays the self-correction
learning process, in which administrators and teachers are learning continuously
and dynamically as a group.
Organisational learning outcome is conceptualised as evolving accomplishment and
institutionalised organisational learning.
(1) The watershed of organisational learning process breeds the evolving dimension
of the learning outcomes. This perspective resonates with the postulation that the
ability to act more creatively is the major potential outcome of learning (Kets de
Vries, 1995). In this study, evolving organisational learning outcome refers to
knowledge that is continuously being created or recreated by the organisation as
a collective act. According to Collins (1993) five-category of knowledge types,
it can also be understood as embrained, embodied, encultured, knowledge
(Blackler, 2004:340), in which embrained knowledge was conceptual skills and
cognitive abilities dependent, embodied knowledge was action oriented, and
encultured knowledge denoted the process of attaining shared understanding. In
response to the rapidly changing environment, some schools choose to encourage
teachers to be engaged in double-loop learning (Argyris and Schon, 1978) to
renew practising rationale and assumptions of school policies, and to take a
proactive role to turn unexpected challenges to be a spring-board to further
success. These schools welcome creativity, experimentation, being positive to the
experience of failure, and never satisfied with the existing policies, strategies and
teaching learning programmes, irrespective of their degree of success. Their
learning outcome is indeed characterised by continuous renewal (Argyris and

88

Schon,1978; March, 1991; Fullan 1993; Leithwood et al. 1995; Crossan et al.,
1999).
(2) Complementary to the evolving dimension is the institutionalised organisational
learning outcome. These outcomes including the designation of school structures
and the knowledge accumulated in daily decision making, administrative acts
and teaching learning processes may soon be institutionalised or characterised
with the core nature of ever-evolving. Institutionalised learning outcome in the
context of organisational learning can best be identified as embedded
knowledge and encoded knowledge (Blackler, 2004:340), adapted from the
categorisation of knowledge types (Collins, 1993). Embedded knowledge
entails knowledge that entrenches in systemic routines, that is, in the
relationships between roles, formal procedures and organisational routines
(Levitt and March, 1988), while encoded knowledge is generally represented in
forms such as books, manuals and electronic devices (Blackler, 2004), and
particularly is referred to collective memory (Senge, 1990; Fullan 1994), in the
form of documentations including policy statements and descriptions, school
plans and school reports and the like in school settings. Though these routines
and documents are also subject to revision, they tend to remain features of
organisational legacies cumulated from various cycles of collective learning.
3. Conceptual framework
Built upon the earlier research that external environmental constraints are far less
influential in motivating a school break away from individual and organisational inertia, and
that internal school elements are the ultimate determinants of the overall changing capacity of
the school in face of school reforms (Lam and Pang 2003), the present study attempts to build
on the existing findings further by hypothesising how leadership styles displayed by principals
account for differential phenomenon of organisational learning. In brief, it is postulated that

89

the styles which principals show tend to exert either positive or negative effects on the process
and achievements in schools adaptations towards resolving emerging challenges imposed by
external changes.
The following are the conceptual framework depicting the possible relationship between
transactional and transformational leadership, as well as the organisational learning process
and organisational learning outcome.
Figure 3.1 The Conceptual Framework







4. Research question reformulation
The reformulated general research question is:
How do organisational learning processes and outcomes differ under various leadership
styles, namely, transactional and transformational?
Subsumed under the general question are three specific inquiries:
4.1 Recognising the various kinds of possible relationships between these two leadership
styles postulated by different researchers. Is there any relationship between transactional
and transformational leadership in the context of Hong Kong Education Reform?
Should there be any kind(s) of relationship : what is it/are they?
4.2 What are the general conditions of organisational learning in Hong Kong schools?
4.3 To what extent does each type of leadership have a direct and indirect effect on
organisational learning processes and outcomes?
Transactional Leadership Style
Contingent reward (X
6
)
Management-by-exception (Active) (X
7
)
Management-by-exception (Passive) (X
8
)
Transformational Leadership Style
Idealized Influence (Attributes) (X
1
)
Individualized consideration(X
2
)
Inspirational motivation (X
3
)
Intellectual stimulation (X
4
)
Idealized Influence (Behaviors) (X
5
)
Organisational Learning Process
(OLP)
Contextual OLP (X
9
)
Static OLP (X
10
)
Dynamic OPL (X
11
)
Organisational Learning Outcome
(OLO)
Evolving OLO (X
12
)
Institutionalised OLO (X
13
)

90

5. Nature of study
5.1. The adoption of the Quantitative Approach
In the present study, the quantitative approach is adopted. There is no definitive
criterion in judging which research approach is superior. Mentioned by Gay and
Airasian (2003:9), the appropriate methodology depend[s] on the nature of question or
topic to be investigated. The present study attempts to detect some general pattern that
might exist between leadership styles and the stages of organisational learning, for
which the quantitative approach seems to be adequate.
Additionally, there has been some research that revealed the relationship between
transformational leadership and organisational learning, (e.g. Lam and Pang, 2003, Lam,
2004), it seems necessary to expand the framework and examine what influence other
types of leadership style exert upon organisational development. Through the expansion
of the conceptualisation, using a similar approach, with items adapted to local context,
we hope to further illuminate the intricate roles leaders play in shaping school
organisational capacity of self-renewal in the turbulent environment of change.
The choice of the quantitative approach for the present study is also much influenced
by the logic of order as well as by limited time and resources. Conceivably, we need
first to establish a generalised pattern of relationship before we can proceed to mull over
the inner psychological inclination of the leaders as to why certain set of behaviour
better suit their schools. Parallel to sequential order of the systemic inquiry is the reality
of time and resources available to the present research. The shortcomings of the one-
short scrutiny must be acknowledged in the interpretation of the findings from the
present endeavour.
5.2. Construction of research instruments
The Research Instrument, to be completed by the teaching staffs, including the
vice-principal(s) and front-line teachers, but the school principal and the Native English

91

Teacher(s), consists of three parts. The first part pertains to the backgrounds information
of the sampled schools. These include teaching experience, ranking, history of school,
school sizes and academic nature of student in-takes.
The conceptual source of the second part is taken from the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) (short-adapted) developed by B.M. Bass and B. Avolio
(2003). The original version of MLQ, which was developed by Bass (1985), has gone
through many revisions and has been refined continuously since it was first designed to
strengthen its reliability and validity. Basically, there are thirty items, with three items
in each of the five factors for measuring transformational leadership (X
1
, X
2
, X
3,
X
4
and
X
5
) and with seven, four and four items in the three factors tapping transactional
leadership (X
6,
X
7
and X
8
). Each item is attached to a likert-type scale ranging from 0
(not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always).
The third parts conceptual source is adapted from Lam (2002b). It contains
twenty-eight items measuring various aspects of organisational learning processes (OLP)
and nine items assessing organisational learning outcomes (OLO). To be more specific,
twelve items were constructed to detect the nature of contextual OLP (X
9
), six items
were devoted to tap static OLP (X
10
), ten items were used to probe dynamic OLP
(X
11
), five items were reserved for reflecting evolving OLO (X
12
), and the remaining
four items were prepared to look into the extent of institutionalised OLO (X
13
).
In terms of the overall design of the research instrument, items measuring different
concepts are intermingled in a scattered manner to ensure that all participants of the
study will respond conscientiously. Both positive and negative statements are included
for detecting the consistency of responses. A reference table with items in bilingual
statements categorising according to the factors in the four domains of transactional
leadership, transformational leadership, organisational learning processes and
organisational learning outcomes are attached in Appendix 1.

92

5.3. Sampling design
A sample of the present study is drawn from public secondary schools in Hong Kong.
Out of the 398 Government, Aided and CAPUT secondary schools in the academic year
2011-2012, 40 of them, which accounts for a 10% of the total population are selected in
the beginning of the school year by random sampling procedure to identify school
principals displaying the leadership styles delineated in the conceptual framework.
Assuming that school banding contributes to the choice of leadership styles, the
secondary schools are randomly selected in two consecutive phases with 40 schools in
each phase until 40 schools with approximately equal number of schools with different
banding responded by sending the questionnaires back to the researcher.
Data concerning the leadership styles of the school principals is collected by using
the research instrument from the respective teachers in randomly selected secondary
schools. The principals to be assessed refer to the previous terms of office, the school
year of 2009-2010 : this is to eliminate the possibility of having newly appointed
principals whose terms of service are too short to present authentic pictures of their
leadership styles. The teacher invited to complete the self-report research instrument
include all but the school principal and the Native English Teacher(s), i.e. the vice-
principal(s) and all other front-line teachers, so as to ensure the data obtained are
phenomenon observed by the second party who has every means of access to the
principal. It should be stressed that all teachers in each randomly selected school,
despite of different rankings, are invited to provide information for the identification of
the respected principals leadership styles. It is based on the common observation that
teachers with different roles capture different perspectives about their leaders style of
operation and therefore the strategy of combining viewpoints is more likely to provide
more authentic leadership style portrayals. However, taking into consideration the busy

93

schedule of teachers, the percentage of eligible respondents is set to be at least 50% in
each school.
5.4. Procedure of data collection
After being granted the consent from the administrators of the selected schools, the
researcher follows the logistics of administering the questionnaire. The preparation
work includes the explanation of the purposes of administering the research instrument,
the ethical code of observing confidentiality, anonymity and honesty, the time limit and
the way of returning the questionnaire, as well as the plan for researchers feedback,
which are to be stated precisely on the front page of the research instrument. It is
followed by the fieldwork of requesting the cooperation of a clerical clerk in each
particular school to help deliver and collect the questionnaire to and from the target
subjects in a given stamped envelope to ensure confidentiality within the time schedule.
5.5. Data treatment
Upon the collection of data by using the research instrument from teachers in the
forty randomly selected secondary schools, the procedures of scanning invalid
respondents and addressing the uncertainty due to missing values are initiated. It is
followed by the statistical procedure Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) to confirm
whether the data should be aggregated on the basis of individual respondents or schools.
This result is crucial for the determination of the statistical significance and confidence
level of the existence of specific leadership styles to particular categories of schools. If
the data should be aggregated on individual respondent basis, Structural Equation
Model (SEM) is to be undertaken in the attempt to find the corrections and the direct
and indirect effects among different variables which will be delineated in the later
section.



94

5.6. Proposed testing of Validity and Reliability of the Instrument
Face validity
Both survey instruments will be scrutinised by a small group of school staff to
ensure that the items are precise and unambiguous. Those that are wrongly answered
due to misunderstanding will be revised or replaced so as to ensure a high degree of face
validity. It is only after this review that the two sets of questionnaires will be distributed
to the randomly selected samples.
Inter-item consistency
In detecting internal consistency of the organisational learning research instrument,
items constructed for measuring each concept or variable will be subject to Chronbachs
alpha () analysis. Items showing low coefficients will be eliminated.
Construct validity
To further assess the construct validity of the instrument, confirmatory factor
analyses will be conducted by means of the computer programme of LISREL 8.8. By
looking into the Goodness-of-fit Index in the output, the construct validity can be
assessed to see whether each theoretical construct fits with the data.
5.7. Method of analysis
Structural Equation Model (SEM) will be employed in assessing the relationship
between transactional and transformational leadership styles and organisational learning.
This analysis will be conducted once again by means of computer programme LISREL
8.8. This analytical tool has several advantages. Firstly, the hypothesised direct and
indirect relationship of independent on dependent variables will be assessed. Secondly,
their gross relationships will be identified and the error components estimated. Thirdly,
the complex network of interactions among all the key components of the school
organisation will be fully revealed so that future intervention strategies can be more
effectively applied.

95

6. Summary
Key concepts employed in the proposed framework involving different factors under the
categories of leadership style and organisational learning, as well as the respective conceptual
framework are depicted at the beginning of this chapter. The factors of leadership style are
Idealised influence (Attributes), Individualised Consideration, Inspirational Motivation,
Intellectual Simulation and Idealised Influence (Behaviours) of transformational leadership,
and Contingent reward, Management-by-exception (Active) and Management-by-exception
(Passive) of transactional leadership. While those of organisational learning are contextual,
static and dynamic organisational learning process and evolving organisational learning
outcome and institutionalised organisational learning outcome. In an attempt to investigate the
possible relationship between transactional and transformational leadership, if there is any, in
the context of Hong Kong education reform, correlation analysis is conducted before
proceeding to the subsequent Path Analysis.
To achieve the aim of this study, a quantitative path analysis is employed to identify the
direct and indirect relationship between variables of leadership styles and those of
organisational learning. A combined research instrument adapted from B.M. Bass and B.
Avolio (2003) and Lam (2002b) is used for the identification of factors constituting the
specific leadership styles, organisational learning process and organisational learning outcome.
The validity of the instrument is another major concern. It is to be ensured by the techniques of
pilot-testing as well as the employment of random sampling strategy. Noting the strengths and
limitations of quantitative analysis, the researcher is ready to embrace the challenge with
sincerity.

96

Chapter Four: Sampling and Data Collection
The overview of this chapter is to describe and explain the conceptual and logistic information
on the areas of sample design, sampling procedure, data collection process and treatment on missing
values. The first section, sample design, is the fundamental to the administration of the survey. It
includes the details on the population frame, the sample size, the sample unit and the sampling
design. The information that constitutes the second section of sampling procedure is basically the
actual implementation of the survey. To help understand the flow and the summative information of
categorised information, sub-topics like, sample list, invitation procedure, and prospective and
declined participant lists, are depicted both in paragraphs and in table forms. It is followed by the
third section, the process on data collection. To make this process a success, communication
mechanism, questionnaire delivery and collection procedure, as well as response rate are crucial.
The last section of this chapter is the treatment on missing values. Upon the completion of this
statistical consideration, a full set of sample data is ready for a whole series of statistical analysis in
the chapters to come.
4.1 The Sample Design
4.1.1 Population Frame
The population of this study includes all aided schools and CAPUT schools out of
all secondary schools in Hong Kong in the academic year 2011-2012. The total
number of these schools is 364, which accounts for a 80.0% of all 455 secondary
schools. The significance of this population frame is three folded:
Firstly, this population frame accounts for the highest percentage across all
categories of secondary schools with respect to its unique operational mode. The
operational consideration is inspired by Salganik and Karweits perspective of
accounting the fundamental characteristics of private and public education by
voluntarism and government control which in turn is related to authority, consensus
and commitment in schools (Salganik and Karweit 1982; Pong 1983:24). The

97

operations of Aided and CAPUT secondary schools are basically the same. Thus, they
are different by names but are under the same category by their operations.
In Hong Kong, CAPUT schools, according to the Information Note of
Transitional Subsidy for Caput Schools to Join the Direct Subsidy Scheme discussed
by the Legislative Council Panel on Education in 2005, are generally treated on par
with aided schools in most education initiatives. Administratively, many principles
adopted for the aided sector are also applicable to Caput schools (Legislative Council
LC Paper No.CB(2)2505/04-05(01)). Hence, Aided and CAPUT schools are in fact
schools of the same category with similar administrative operations.
Secondly, the administrations of all aided schools and CAPUT schools are both
subjected to the mandatory instructions of the Hong Kong SAR Government as well as
the expectations of the market. However, in comparison, aided schools and CAPUT
schools are more flexible than government schools in implementing the government
policy, and are less risky should they not being responsive to markets expectations.
The administration of government schools, perceiving principals as bureaucrats,
strictly reflects the policy and measures stipulated by the Government, while private
schools and direct subsidy schools, for survival sake, have to be highly responsive to
the demands of the market.
Thirdly, given the fact that government schools are entitled to follow the
Governments policy of class number reduction in an era of student enrolment
population decline; their school number has been ceased increasing, and even
decreasing in the last decade. However, their counterparts, the number of the category
of aided and CAPUT secondary schools have been increased in the last ten years, the
decade with the general crisis of student enrolment decreasing. From the perspective
of political consideration, the number of school in the Aided and CAPUT category
will increase and is likely to follow a trend of long-term development as compared to

98

the government schools. Its research value is more prominent and deserves receiving
more attention particularly in academic studies than the government schools.
Table 4.1 The frequency and percentage of territory-wide secondary school categories

School
Types
Aided
Schools
CAPUT
School
Government
School
Private
School
Direct
Subsidy
School
Total
f 361 3 31 1 59 455
% 79.3% 0.7% 6.8% 0.2% 13.0% 100%

4.1.2 Sample Size
The determination of the size of the sample is crucial in making inferences about a
population from a sample. It has once been claimed by B. Williams (1978:46) that the
larger the data set is the larger the percentage of nonsampling errors will be, for
sampling errors are but one of the many resources of error in a study (Pedhazur and
Schmelkin, 1991:320). However, a total coverage can be very costly, or even
unfeasible and unworthy. Not only does it produce a voluminous amount of data to
handle and analyse, but also it can only be implemented by the mobilisation of
enormous human resources or sometimes at the risk of limited comprehensive scope of
information being sought. Thus, balancing the factors of economy, feasibility and
accuracy is the central concern of the researcher in the determination of the sample size
of this study.
To ascertain the validity of the samples inferences to a population, probability
sampling rather than nonprobability sampling, which has been prevalently used in
sociobehavioural research, is employed in this study (Pedhazur and Schmelkin, 1991).
Aiming at calculating an optimal adequate sampling size to maximise sampling effort
within the constraints of economy and flexibility, there are different approaches in the
determination of a sample size. One of the most popular approaches used in the domain
of behavioural sciences is Cohens statistical power analysis. The decision of the
sample size is not only subject to practical and economic considerations, but also to

99

significance level, effect size (ES), desired power and estimated variance (Cohen,
1988). Another commonly used approach, proposed by Krejcie and Morgan (1970),
considered the importance of the table value of chi-square for one degree of freedom at
the desired confidence level, the population size, the population proportion, and the
degree of accuracy.
Since different approaches are supported by their own conceptual framework, it is
not a surprise to have different required sample sizes, even with a wide range,
calculated by using different formula. Therefore, as a rule of thumb, a valid sample,
which accounts for at least a 10 % of the population, is presumed to be well-
representative in surveys nowadays. This percentage is also regarded as an expected
value in the undertaking study, in which the actual percentage of valid sampled schools
to the population of aided and CAPUT Schools has to exceed the expected value of
10%.
The representativeness of the sample is to be further illustrated by comparing the
distribution of its nested categories to that of the designated population. As indicated,
the percentage of Aided Schools in the sample is very much in congruence to that of
the territory, they are 97.8% and 99.2% respectively. While there are only 3 CAPUT
schools in Hong Kong, the presence of 1 CAPUT school in the sample is already the
best possible number in achieving the balance of being representative and maintaining
the lowest possible percentage. In all, the distribution of the sample, to a great extent,
matches that of the population.
Table 4.2 The comparison of descriptive statistics of Aided and CAPUT Schools on both the
sample and the population

Territory-wide information Information of sampling schools
School
Type
Aided
Schools
CAPUT
Schools
Total
Aided
Schools
CAPUT
Schools
Total
No. of
schools
361 3 364 44 1 45
%
99.2% 0.8% 100% 97.8% 2.2% 100%

100

4.1.3 Sample Unit
The sample unit of the study is school. That means every school in the population of all
Aided and CAPUT schools has equal chance of being selected.
4.1.4 Sampling Design
The sampling design of the undertaking study is non-stratified random sampling,
which is the most basic approach to probability sampling. This sampling design has
been considered by many researchers as a methodological procedure to maximise
external validity by minimising sampling bias, that is, to minimise the error resulting
from failing to ensure all members of the reference population have a known chance of
being selected for inclusion in a sample. Potential practical barriers, such as difficulties
in the development of a sample frame, are not at all an implementation limitation of
this type of sampling design since the whole population is well-identified. However,
another practical barrier relating to the greater expenditure in terms of time and money
in comparison with non random sampling design is an authentic obstacle to overcome
in this study (Cook & Campbell,1979; St. Pierre & Cook, 1984, and Patrick, 2010).
The time and monetary resources used in the distribution and collection of
questionnaires can be reflected by the geographic distribution of the sampled schools,
around one-third of them are located in Kowloon, another one-third are situated in the
New Territories, while the remaining are on Hong Kong Island. The geographical
representation, is indeed a practical limitation, but also the beauty of this sampling
design.
Table: 4.3 Geographic Distribution of Sampled Aided and CAPUT Schools

Hong Kong
Island
Kowloon New Territories Total
No. of schools
13 16 16 45
%
28.9% 35.6% 35.6% 100%





101

4.2 Sampling Procedure
4.2.1 Sample List
To ensure having adequate sample schools with the minimum investment, the
researcher has prepared two sample lists, with 40 randomly selected schools for the
first list, and 31 schools for the second. An invitation letter for each school on the
first list was scheduled to be sent one week ahead of the second batch. In the event
that the expected sample size, at least a 10% of the whole population, was reached in
the first round of invitation, the researcher would have considered not proceeding to
the second round. It is important to note that practically the sample size should be
well-beyond the 10% to make possible the attainment of having a sample size with
valid sample units which account for at least 10% of the population.
The requirement for a sample unit to be considered as valid is diverse.
According to a well-known international survey, PISA, which has already been
conducted for more than a decade in more than 30 participating countries, the
requirement of a valid sample unit refers to the predetermined number of students
selected per school reaching the standard of at least 20, this number is not at all
selected arbitrarily but to ensure adequate accuracy in estimating variance
components within and between schools (Pisa 2009 Technical Report, p.4; Pisa
2006 Technical Report, p.46; and Pisa 2003 Technical Report). The same minimum
requirement is to be applied in this study, which is to be delineated in Section 4.3.3.
4.2.2 Invitation Procedure
The researcher initiated the procedures of conducting the survey by sending
both invitation letters (Table 4.5, Appendix 2) and reply slips to all principals of
randomly selected schools according to the two sample lists in two designated time
periods. The reply slips received indicated each schools intention of participating in
the survey, the principals term of service in the serving school and the name of the

102

assigned contact personnel in dealing with the chore of distributing and collecting
questionnaires. The mailing of invitation letters and reply slips was followed with
telephone calls to all principals to confirm their delivery of them, and courteously
further invite their participation. Following the acknowledgment of the initial letter
by the prospective participants, the researcher replied to each one of them with a
note of thanks with an itinerary of how the survey was to be conducted keep the
principal well-informed (Table 4.5, Appendix 3). For further information such as the
Leadership Styles and Organisational Learning Questionnaire (Appendix 4), it was
given upon request of the principal (Appendix 5).
4.2.3 Prospective and Declined Participant Lists
Upon the first phase of sending invitation letters, as expected by the researcher,
the minimum of 10%, which is equivalent to at least 36 affirmative intentions on the
completion of the questionnaires, was not attained. Only 31 schools replied
positively out of the 40 invitations. The response rate was indeed good but not
desirable. In the second phase, the researcher sent another 31 invitation letters as
scheduled. The response rate was comparatively less than that of the first phase, only
14 schools replied with a yes for participating in the survey. Therefore, the total
number of prospective participants in the first list of 40 and the second list of 31 is 45,
and the numbers of declined participants in the first and second lists are 9 and 17
respectively. As for the number of valid sample unit, it is to be discussed in Section
4.3.3.

103

Table 4.4 Prospective and Declined Participant Lists
Phase
Number
Sample List
Number
Invitation
Accepted/Declined
School code
Communicative
Frequency
I 1 Accepted S45 1
I 2 Accepted S30 2
I 3 Accepted S06 3
I 4 Declined ----- 3
I 5 Accepted S36 4
I 6 Accepted S19 5
I 7 Accepted S04 6
I 8 Accepted S23 77
I 9 Accepted S28 8
I 10 Accepted S37 9
I 11 Declined ----- 9
I 12 Accepted S31 10
I 13 Accepted S20 11
I 14 Declined ----- 11
I 15 Declined ----- 11
I 16 Accepted S39 12
I 17 Accepted S41 13
I 18 Accepted S14 14
I 19 Accepted S22 15
I 20 Accepted S29 16
I 21 Accepted S32 17
I 22 Accepted S35 18
I 23 Accepted S16 19
I 24 Accepted S33 20
I 25 Accepted S27 21
I 26 Accepted S10 22
I 27 Declined ----- 22
I 28 Declined ----- 22
I 29 Accepted S24 23
I 30 Accepted S44 24
I 31 Declined ----- 24
I 32 Accepted S21 25
I 33 Declined ----- 25
I 34 Declined ----- 25
I 35 Accepted S17 26
I 36 Accepted S15 27
I 37 Declined ----- 27
I 38 Accepted S03 28
I 39 Accepted S09 29
I 40 Accepted S40 30
II 41 Declined ----- 30
II 42 Declined ----- 30
II 43 Accepted S38 31
II 44 Accepted S02 32
II 45 Declined ----- 32
II 46 Accepted S26 33
II 47 Declined ----- 33

104

Phase
Number
Sample List
Number
Invitation
Accepted/Declined
School code
Communicative
Frequency
II 48 Declined ----- 33
II 49 Accepted S42 34
II 50 Declined ----- 34
II 51 Declined ----- 34
II 52 Declined ----- 34
II 53 Accepted S11 35
II 54 Accepted S43 36
II 55 Accepted S34 37
II 56 Accepted S01 38
II 57 Declined ----- 38
II 58 Declined ----- 38
II 59 Accepted S07 39
II 60 Declined ----- 39
II 61 Declined ----- 39
II 62 Declined ----- 39
II 63 Declined ----- 39
II 64 Accepted S25 40
II 65 Accepted S12 41
II 66 Accepted S13 42
II 67 Accepted S05 43
II 68 Accepted S08 44
II 69 Declined ----- 44
II 70 Declined ----- 44
II 71 Accepted S18 45

4.3 Data Collection Process
4.3.1 Communication Mechanism
By telephone, contact was first made between the researcher and the liaison
officer in each school (Table 4.5). Soon after a communication mechanism was
clarified and the name of the liaison officer representing the researcher was
introduced, the researchers assistant took the initiative to get in touch with the
liaison officer of each school until the dates of questionnaire delivery and collection
were confirmed. Further communication was then made between the representatives
of both parties. The researcher would involve herself in the communication network
upon the request of her assistant. By the same token, all school liaison officers were
notified by the researcher that they were all welcome to make direct contact with her
whenever they found it necessary.

105

4.3.2 Questionnaire Delivery and Collection Procedure
The whole procedure of questionnaire delivery and collection started with the
preparation of a parcel for each participating school. It included a pile of
questionnaires, and accessories such as a big envelope for the collection of
completed questionnaires, a thank-you card for the principal, a load of small gifts for
each participating teacher and the liaison officer, as well as a reply slip to be returned
by the target school to the researcher indicating to her the time of receipt of the items
concerned. The parcels were delivered by both the researcher and her assistant in the
period between November 7 and 21 for schools in the first sample list, and in the
period from November 12 to December 13 for participants in the second list. Upon
the notification by the schools liaison officers that the questionnaires were ready for
collection, the self-planned parcel collection tour began. Accounting for all
participating schools in both phases, the collection lasted for nearly two months, in
which the dates of commencement and completion were on November 24, 2011, and
January 15, 2012 respectively. The details of the survey itinerary are listed as
follows (Table 4.5).
Table 4.5 Survey Itinerary
Phase 1 - Number of randomly selected secondary schools (40) Period
1. Date of sending invitation letter 30/10/2011
2. Date of making telephone contact to principals of schools being invited 1-3/11/2011
3. Expected responding deadline 7/11/2011
4. Actual date of the latest response 18/11/2011
5. Date of sending a note of thanks and itinerary to each participating school 4-21/11/2011
6. Date of making contact with liaison officers of participating schools
4/11/2011-
15/1/2012
7. Date of questionnaire and reply slip delivery 7-21/11/2011
8. Date of questionnaire collection
24/11/2011-
15/1/2012
Phase 2 - The number of randomly selected secondary schools (31) Period
1. Date of sending invitation letter 5/11//2011
2. Expected responding deadline 12/11/2011
3. Date of making telephone contact to principals of schools being invited 8-10/11/2011
4. Actual date of the latest response 18/11/2011
5. Date of sending a note of thanks and itinerary to each participating school 11-21/11/2011
6. Date of making contact with liaison officers of participating schools
11/11/2011-
15/1/2012
7. Date of questionnaire and reply slip delivery
12/11/2011-
13/12/2011
8. Date of questionnaire collection
5/12/2011-
15/1/2012

106

4.3.3 Response Rate
The response rate of the survey was subject to the criteria being applied to the
study. Should all 45 schools, despite the number of respondents, have been included
in the calculation, the overall number of teachers and respondents were 2812 are
1553, and the response rate was 55.23%. However, after the process of eliminating
the invalid questionnaires, the total number of respondents was reduced to 1507,
with the response rate decreased to 53.59%. In the event that the validity criteria of
PISA at school level also applied to this study, that only schools with at least 20
valid respondents could be included, then the number of participating schools
became 38 instead of 45, and the number of teachers and respondents in these
schools turned out to be 2370 and 1449 with the response rate 61.14%. After the
invalid questionnaires were removed, the response rate increased by around 6% in
comparison with the related percentage for the 45-school category to 59.24% (Table
4.6).
The response rate on school level is more than satisfactory. Not only does this
survey reach the expected percentage of 10%, which is equivalent to 36 schools, but
also exceeded the threshold. The number of participating schools is actually 45,
however, only schools with at least 20 respondents could be chosen, shaping the
final number of sample unit, 38, which exceeds the threshold by 2.

107

Table 4.6 Response rate for participating schools
School Code
Total no. of teachers
in each school (a)
Total no. of respondents
in each school (b)
Response rate
(b/a)*100%
Total no. of valid
Respondents in each
school (c)
Response rate
(Valid)
(c/a)*100%
Schools with at least
20 respondents
Cumulative No. of
schools with at least 20
respondents
1 74 58 78.38% 53 71.62% 1 1
2 65 52 80.00% 47 72.31% 1 2
3 62 48 77.42% 48 77.42% 1 3
4 100 58 58.00% 54 54.00% 1 4
5 69 53 76.81% 51 73.91% 1 5
6 41 31 75.61% 31 75.61% 1 6
7 55 45 81.82% 43 78.18% 1 7
8 69 61 88.41% 60 86.96% 1 8
9 71 63 88.73% 60 84.51% 1 9
10 60 30 50.00% 30 50.00% 1 10
11 67 40 59.70% 39 58.21% 1 11
12 60 50 83.33% 50 83.33% 1 12
13 55 48 87.27% 45 81.82% 1 13
14 57 50 87.72% 50 87.72% 1 14
15 59 28 47.46% 28 47.46% 1 15
16 53 35 66.04% 33 62.26% 1 16
17 49 44 89.80% 33 67.35% 1 17
18 64 40 62.50% 40 62.50% 1 18
19 66 57 86.36% 55 83.33% 1 19
20 65 33 50.77% 33 50.77% 1 20
21 65 32 49.23% 32 49.23% 1 21
22 90 29 32.22% 29 32.22% 1 22
23 62 33 53.23% 32 51.61% 1 23
24 61 30 49.18% 30 49.18% 1 24

108

School Code
Total no. of teachers
in each school (a)
Total no. of respondents
in each school (b)
Response rate
(b/a)*100%
Total no. of valid
Respondents in each
school (c)
Response rate
(Valid)
(c/a)*100%
Schools with at least
20 respondents
Cumulative No. of
schools with at least 20
respondents
25 82 25 30.49% 25 30.49% 1 25
26 58 26 44.83% 26 44.83% 1 26
27 67 21 31.34% 21 31.34% 1 27
28 50 35 70.00% 35 70.00% 1 28
29 60 20 33.33% 20 33.33% 1 29
30 61 25 40.98% 24 39.34% 1 30
31 69 43 62.32% 43 62.32% 1 31
32 52 31 59.62% 31 59.62% 1 32
33 69 13 18.84% 12 17.39% 0 32
34 65 17 26.15% 17 26.15% 0 32
35 47 20 42.55% 20 42.55% 1 33
36 69 18 26.09% 18 26.09% 0 33
37 61 18 29.51% 18 29.51% 0 33
38 42 23 54.76% 22 52.38% 1 34
39 57 12 21.05% 12 21.05% 0 34
40 59 12 20.34% 12 20.34% 0 34
41 44 39 88.64% 38 86.36% 1 35
42 61 35 57.38% 35 57.38% 1 36
43 68 23 33.82% 23 33.82% 1 37
44 70 35 50.00% 35 50.00% 1 38
45 62 14 22.58% 14 22.58% 0 38
Total:
all 45 schools
2812 1553 55.23% 1507 53.59% ----- -----
Total:
38 Schools
with 20
respondents
2370 1449 61.14% 1404 59.24% ----- -----

109

4.4 Treatment on Missing Values
Upon the collection of questionnaires, the researcher initiated the procedure of screening
out invalid questionnaires by identifying responses with specific patterns, which was followed
by the subsequent procedure of data input. With the assumption that the missing data is
completely at random (MCAR), the MI computation to address the uncertainty due to missing
values is applied (Rubin, 1976).The software LISREL 8.8 is used to prepare a ready-to-use
data set for analysis. The total number of valid respondents in this sample is 1404, and 122
respondents have missing data. The total number of missing items is 183 out of 102492, which
represents a 0.2% of the whole data set. The number and percentage of missing cases handled
by MI for each question is shown below in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7 The distribution statistics of missing cases in the sample with at least 20 respondents in
each sample unit
Missing Response Missing Response
Respondent Code f % Respondent Code f %
S01Tr0002 1 1.37 S01Tr0006 1 1.37
S01Tr0016 1 1.37 S02Tr0052 1 1.37
S02Tr0058 1 1.37 S02Tr0061 1 1.37
S02Tr0065 1 1.37 S02Tr0089 1 1.37
S02Tr0090 1 1.37 S02Tr0097 1 1.37
S02Tr0098 1 1.37 S03Tr0100 1 1.37
S03Tr0113 1 1.37 S03Tr0115 1 1.37
S03Tr0121 4 5.48 S03Tr0123 2 2.74
S04Tr0144 3 4.11 S04Tr0154 2 2.74
S04Tr0156 1 1.37 S04Tr0177 1 1.37
S04Tr0185 1 1.37 S04Tr0186 1 1.37
S04Tr0187 6 8.22 S04Tr0189 1 1.37
S04Tr0190 3 4.11 S05Tr0199 2 2.74
S05Tr0205 1 1.37 S05Tr0213 1 1.37
S05Tr0214 2 2.74 S05Tr0215 2 2.74
S05Tr0227 1 1.37 S05Tr0235 1 1.37
S05Tr0236 1 1.37 S06Tr0240 2 2.74
S06Tr244 2 2.74 S06Tr248 2 2.74
S06Tr249 1 1.37 S06Tr264 1 1.37
S07Tr270 1 1.37 S07Tr276 1 1.37
S07Tr296 1 1.37 S07Tr310 2 2.74
S08Tr319 1 1.37 S08Tr338 1 1.37

110

S08Tr347 1 1.37 S08Tr353 1 1.37
S08Tr385 1 1.37 S08Tr386 1 1.37
S09Tr404 3 4.11 S09Tr413 1 1.37
S11Tr448 4 5.48 S11Tr452 1 1.37
S11Tr467 1 1.37 S11Tr478 1 1.37
S12Tr496 1 1.37 S12Tr501 1 1.37
S12Tr510 1 1.37 S12Tr518 1 1.37
S12Tr529 3 4.11 S13Tr0530 1 1.37
S13Tr0532 2 2.74 S13Tr0538 1 1.37
S15Tr0625 1 1.37 S15Tr0641 1 1.37
S15Tr0647 2 2.74 S15Tr0649 4 5.48
S16Tr0659 1 1.37 S16Tr0660 2 2.74
S16Tr0675 1 1.37 S17Tr0699 1 1.37
S17Tr0729 4 5.48 S18Tr0731 2 2.74
S18Tr0736 2 2.74 S18Tr0741 2 2.74
S18Tr0745 1 1.37 S19Tr0774 5 6.85
S19Tr0777 1 1.37 S19Tr0804 1 1.37
S19Tr0805 1 1.37 S19Tr0820 1 1.37
S19Tr0827 3 4.11 S20Tr0851 1 1.37
S20Tr0854 1 1.37 S21Tr0866 2 2.74
S21Tr0875 2 2.74 S22Tr0896 3 4.11
S22Tr0899 1 1.37 S22Tr0904 1 1.37
S22Tr0909 1 1.37 S22Tr0910 1 1.37
S22Tr0925 1 1.37 S23Tr0934 1 1.37
S13Tr0567 1 1.37 S13Tr0568 2 2.74
S14Tr0584 1 1.37 S25Tr1004 3 4.11
S27Tr1054 1 1.37 S28Tr1074 1 1.37
S28Tr1078 1 1.37 S28Tr1080 1 1.37
S28Tr1083 1 1.37 S28Tr1086 2 2.74
S29Tr1097 1 1.37 S30Tr1127 1 1.37
S30Tr1119 2 2.74 S31Tr1137 1 1.37
S31Tr1153 2 2.74 S31Tr1157 2 2.74
S32Tr1178 1 1.37 S32Tr1186 2 2.74
S35Tr1239 1 1.37 S35Tr1255 1 1.37
S38Tr1295 1 1.37 S38Tr1307 2 2.74
S42Tr1377 2 2.74 S42Tr1378 1 1.37
S42Tr1394 1 1.37 S43Tr1416 1 1.37
S43Tr1430 1 1.37 S44Tr1508 1 1.37
S44Tr1510 1 1.37 S45Tr1533 1 1.37
S45Tr1536 1 1.37 Total 183 0.2



111

4.5 The Unit of Analysis
The first decision confronting the study is to determine the unit of analysis to be used
in the subsequent statistical analyses. On one hand, the unit of analysis can be based on
individual-teacher level taking the 1404 teachers perceptions on school leadership as a basic
unit of analysis. On the other hand, these teachers perceptions on the leadership style of their
school principals can be taken as nested within each sampled school. It is because teachers
servicing in each same sampled school are perceiving the leadership style of the same
principal. Hence, the aggregated responses of teachers within the 38 sampled schools could be
taken as unit of analysis. To solve this problem, a series of multi-level regression analyses is
conducted by means of the computer programme of Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) with
the 30 items measuring teachers perceptions of their principals leadership style as dependent
variables and no independent variables are included, that is, in technical term these models are
null models in HLM. The results of these null models, as shown in Table 4.8, indicate
consistently that the majorities (on the average of 87.92%) of the variances of the 30 items lie
at the individual levels, while only a very minor percentage (on the average of 12.08%) of
these variances are found at the school level. Though the variances found at the school levels
are all statistically significant, in order to capture the 87.92% of the variances of the items on
leadership style, the subsequent statistical analyses will be conducted at individual level. As
for those 12.08% of the variances on teachers perceptions on leadership style, they could
only be accounted for in future studies.

112

Table 4.8 Variance Components of Items Measuring Leadership Style of School Principals
Variance Component
Item Labels Variance at Individual Level (%) Variance at School Level (%)
B1 85.15% 14.85%
B2 87.42% 12.58%
B3 91.92% 8.08%
B4 76.91% 23.09%
B5 91.72% 8.28%
B6 95.00% 5.00%
B7 78.66% 21.34%
B8 89.67% 10.33%
B9 92.78% 7.22%
B10 86.02% 13.98%
B11 83.99% 16.01%
B12 95.22% 4.78%
B13 87.65% 12.35%
B14 86.97% 13.03%
B15 93.76% 6.24%
B16 82.00% 18.00%
B17 87.95% 12.05%
B18 96.00% 4.00%
B19 93.23% 6.77%
B20 81.13% 18.87%
B21 91.54% 8.46%
B22 88.89% 11.11%
B23 92.42% 7.58%
B24 71.58% 28.42%
B25 89.16% 10.84%
B26 91.08% 8.92%
B27 86.41% 13.59%
B28 93.57% 6.43%
B29 84.63% 15.37%
B30 85.29% 14.71%

4.6 Summary
In all, the survey was conducted smoothly. The only remarks were that the dates of
questionnaire delivery and collection, as well as the expected date of finishing data input, were
all behind the schedule. The delay was somehow related to participating schools. For different
reasons, some of the schools needed more time in deciding whether to participate in the survey,
and teachers in some other schools requested more time in filling out the questionnaires.
Meanwhile, the researcher also under-estimated the time required for the processing of data.
The overall time required shouldnt be regarded as simply positively proportional to the

113

number of questionnaires, but also be considered a factor like the operators prolonged
involvement in laborious and tedious job. Other than that, the procedures including the sample
design, sampling procedure, the delivery and collection of questionnaires, the finalising of
valid responses, the treatment of missing values, and the determination of the unit of analysis
have proceeded satisfactorily. The questionnaire response rate, be it at the individual or school
level, was more satisfactory than expected.

114

Chapter Five : Descriptive Statistics
This chapter presents the main features of the sample, with the aims to establish an overview
of the respondents towards their principals leadership styles and their schools development in
terms of organisational learning. To establish a statistical ground for an in-depth discussion in the
following chapters, descriptive statistics is used as the tool of presentation in the subsequent two
sections. The first section provides demographic profiles of the sample schools as well as the
respondents, whereas the second section focuses on the major study.
5.1 Demographic Profile
Based on the responses from participating schools with at least 20 respondents, a total
number of 1404 responses were obtained. These responses covered a wide range of
possibilities in six different demographic domains: the size of the school in terms of the
number of employed teachers, the history of the school, the banding of the school, the ranking
of individual teachers, and the years of teaching experience of individual teachers throughout
their career lives and in their present serving schools. Descriptive statistics in terms of the
range, mean, median, skewness, standard deviation, and frequency distribution are used in the
description of the demographic profile of the sample.
Table 5.1 Descriptive Statistics of Demographic Factors
Item Range Mean Median Mode Skewness SD
1 1-3 2.32 2 2 -0.44 0.65
2 1-3 2.36 3 3 -0.69 0.74
3 1-3 2.17 2 3 -0.33 0.82
4 1-4 2.07 2 2 0.36 0.72
5 1-6 3.26 3 4 0.09 1.65
6 1-8 4.55 5 6 -0.11 1.95

The size of all responding schools is the concern of the first demographic item (A1). In a
3-point scale indicating the size of a school ranging from small, medium and large, the mean,
the median, the mode, the skewness and the SD are equal to 2.32, 2, 2, -0.44 and 0.65
respectively. While the mean and median are not the same, the distribution is not at all
symmetrical. Also, the data distribution is left-skewed with the majority of schools medium

115

sized (Table 5.1). As indicated in the frequency distribution table, 23 out of 38 participating
schools are medium schools (Table 5.2).
Table 5.2 Size of all participating schools (A1)
Total Teachers No. of schools % Cumulative %
less than 51 2 5.26 5.26
51 to 65 23 60.53 65.79
more than 65 13 34.21 100.0
Total: 38 100.0 100.0

The second demographic item is about the years since the schools have been founded
(A2). The description of the 3-point scale is : the school has been established for at least 20
years, for 20 to 40 years, and for at least 40 years respectively. The resulting mean, the median,
the mode, the skewness and the SD of this item are 2.36, 3, 3, -0.69 and 0.74 respectively.
Again, asymmetrical distribution is indicated by the difference between the mean and median.
With negative skewness, the data distribution is skewed to the left. Meanwhile, the mode of
this sample is equal to 3 indicating that there are more schools having historical background
for at least 40 years in comparison with the other two given categories (Table 5.1). With
reference to the frequency distribution table, this category accounts for a 52.63% (Table 5.3).
Therefore, it is likely that most sampled schools have their unique culture developed and have
the chance to fully experience the change between the education climate of pre-education
reform and the exact reform 2000.
Table 5.3 History of participating school (A2)
Total Years No. of schools % Cumulative %
less than 20 6 15.79 15.79
20 to 40 12 31.58 47.37
more than 40 20 52.63 100.0
Total: 38 100.0 100.0

School banding is the focus of the third demographic item (A3). Schools in Hong Kong,
according to their students public examination results, are categorised into 3 bandings.

116

Practically, the top 1/3 students, who are supposed to be the most-able ones, are admitted to
Band 1 schools, the next 1/3 are being enrolled to Band 2 schools, and the last 1/3 are enlisted
to Band 3 schools. The mean, the median, the mode, the skewness and the SD of this item are
2.17, 2, 3, -0.33 and 0.82 respectively. The negative skewness suggests a left-skewed data
distribution. More respondents are selecting scale 3 and thus the mode is 3 representing band 3
schools in this 3-point scale (Table 5.1). This is confirmed by the frequency distribution table,
the percentages of respondents choosing scales 1 to 3 are 26.3%, 26.3% and 47.4%
respectively, with band 3 schools the larger portion (Table 5.4). Comparing the distribution of
data set in the territory and this study, we can draw a conclusion that the distribution of schools
with respect of banding in this sample is roughly similar to that of the territory.
Table 5.4 Banding of participating schools (A3)
Banding No. of schools % Cumulative %
1 10 26.3 26.3
2 10 26.3 52.6
3 18 47.4 100.0
Total: 38 100.0 100.0

The fourth demographic item is about the distribution of teachers ranking (A4). It is a 4-
point scale ranging from 1 to 4 with the categories including CM, GM, SGM and PGM
teachers. The mean, the median, the mode, the skewness and the SD of the item are 2.07, 2, 2,
0.36 and 0.72 respectively. The positive skewness indicates a right-skewed data distribution.
The distribution can be further scrutinised by a frequency distribution table: the composition of
CM, GM, SGM and PGM teachers are 19.79%, 56.30%, 20.93% and 2.92% respectively, with
teachers of GM grade or above comprised of 76.1%, which the figure is close to the maximum
employment of 85% GM teachers that is currently officially specified by the Education Bureau
in Hong Kong (Table 5.5).

117

Table 5.5 Ranking of valid respondents in participating schools (A4)
Ranking No of teachers % Cumulative %
CM 278 19.79 19.4
GM 791 56.30 76.1
SGM 294 20.93 97.0
PGM 41 2.92 100.0
Total: 1404 100.0 100.0

The fifth demographic item extracts the years of teaching experience (A5). In this 6-point
scaled item, respondents can choose among the choices of different teaching duration. The
mean, the median, the mode, the skewness and the SD of the item are 3.26, 3, 4, 0.09, and 1.65
respectively. The positive skewness confirms a right-skewed data distribution. Whereas the
mode equalling to 4 is indicating more teachers, in comparison with other given categories,
who have teaching experience between 15 to 20 years. To have a more comprehensive
understanding, it is necessary to refer to the frequency distribution table. It is noted that,
among all respondents, 79.43% of them have more than 5 years of teaching experience. Even
if the bar is raised up to 10 years of teaching experience, 63.27% teachers satisfy the
requirement. It may imply that more than 63.27% teachers have fully experienced the changes
brought by the Education Reform 2000, and so they have sufficient professional learning
opportunities to understand the importance of continual development of the school and to
realise the significant role of the principal in the actualisation of the schools sustainable
improvement (Table 5.6).

118

Table 5.6 Teaching experience of respondents in participating schools (A5)
Total Years (x) No of teachers % Cumulative %
x5 289 20.57 20.57
5x10 227 16.16 36.73
10x15 233 16.58 53.31
15x20 289 20.57 73.88
20x25 214 15.23 89.11
x25 152 10.82 100.0
Total: 1404 100.0 100.0

The last demographic item is about the duration of teachers in their serving schools (A6).
In this 8-point scaled item, the mean, the median, the mode, the skewness and the SD of the
item are 4.55, 5, 6, -0.11 and 1.95 respectively. The negative skewness signifies a left-skewed
data distribution. While the mode only indicates the given category that most teachers selected,
further details have to be extracted from the frequency distribution table should a more
comprehensive picture be revealed. It is noted that among all respondents, 67.83% of them
have more than 5 years of teaching experience in their serving schools. If the criterion is raised
to 10 years of teaching experience, 52.03% teachers satisfy the requirement. It implies that
more than 52.03% of teachers have fully experienced the changes brought by the Education
Reform 2000 and its impact in the actual school context. Therefore, they have sufficient
professional learning opportunities to learn the importance of continual development of the
school, to realise the significant role of the principal in the actualisation of the schools
sustainable improvement, and to recognise the degree to which the leadership styles of the
serving principal agree with the needs of the school (Table 5.7).

119

Table 5.7 Teaching experience of respondents in serving schools (A6)
Total Years (x) No of teachers % Cumulative %
x1 118 8.40 8.40
1x2 101 7.19 15.59
2x5 233 16.58 32.17
5x10 222 15.80 47.97
10x15 226 16.09 64.06
15x20 271 19.29 83.35
20x25 142 10.11 93.46
x25 91 6.48 100.0
Total: 1404 100.0 100.0

All in all, the implications of these demographic statistical results are found to be similar
to the statistics given by the Education Bureau. The overall data provided by the sample has
provided an adequate profile of investigating the relationship between leadership styles and
organisational learning for the corresponding population in the territory.
5.2 Analysis of the main study
This study aims to investigate the relationship between leadership styles, the independent
variables, and organisational learning acting as the dependent variables. The independent
variables include Idealised influence (Attributes), Idealised influence (Behaviours),
Inspirational motivation, Intellectual stimulation, and Individualised consideration of
transformational leadership style; and also Contingent reward, Management-by- exception of
transactional leadership styles (B1 to B30), while the dependent variables consist of contextual,
static and dynamic organisational learning processes, as well as evolving and institutional
organisational learning outcomes (C1 to C37).
This section first focuses on the descriptive analysis of the main body of the undertaking
study to grasp the prominent features of responses, in an attempt to lay a foundation for the
measurement statistics and Structure Equation Modeling (SEM) in the following chapter in
which the research question stated in Chapter Three of this study will be answered.
5.3 Descriptive Analysis

120

5.3.1 The distribution of the general set of data
In view of the aim of the undertaking study, items that cover the two domains
of leadership styles and organisational learning form the main body of the research
instrument. Leadership styles were measured by an adapted shortened version by
Bass and Avolio's Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X (MLQ) ([5] Avolio et
al., 1999), while organisational learning was measured by a revised version
formulated by Lam (2002b). The two categories under the first domain of leadership
styles consist of the following components: transformational (Idealised influence
(Attributes), Idealised influence (Behaviours), Inspirational motivation, Intellectual
stimulation, and Individualised consideration), and transactional (Contingent reward,
Management-by- exception (Active), and Management-by- exception (Passive)). The
second domain, organisational learning, is also comprised of two categories, namely,
organisational learning process and organisational learning outcome.
The former consists of the components on the contextual, static and dynamic
aspects, while the latter includes the evolving and institutional dimensions of
organisational learning outcome. The first domain of leadership styles has 15 items
in each of its two categories, and the second domain has 28 items and 9 items
respectively in the two categories that belong to it (Table 4.8 a, 4.8 b). The items in
the domain of leadership styles are evenly distributed between the two categories of
transformational and transactional leadership, with none of their respected concept
over-represented. As for the second domain, the first category seems to be over-
represented in comparison with its counterpart in terms of the number of related
items. However, it can be justified in that this is the area that teachers are involved in
a daily basis, so it is a critical area for teachers to demonstrate their learning
experience.

121

Table 5.8 a Distribution of items on Leadership Styles
Item No of items % Cumulative%
Transformational #1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 15 50 50
Leadership # 22, 24, 29
Transactional #3, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 15 50 100
Leadership # 26, 27, 28, 30
Total: 30 100 100

Table 5.8 b Distribution of items on Organisational Learning

Item No of items % Cumulative %
Organisational #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 28 76 76
Learning Process # 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26,
27,
# 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35
Organisational #6, 7, 13, 19, 25, 30 9 24 100
Learning Outcome #31, 36, 37
Total: 37 100 100

5.3.2 The distributions of responses in each category
This is a 67-item research instrument with a five-point Likert scale ranging
from (1) not at all to (5) frequently, if not always. Distribution of the responses to
be described is according to the proposed factors of the four categories, namely,
transformational leadership, transactional leadership, organisational learning process,
and organisational learning outcome (Table 5.9a,b,c,d).
For transformational leadership, the maximum and minimum of the mean
among all items are 3.76 and 3.05, and those of standard deviation (SD) are 1.06 and
0.91 respectively, while the median and mode among all items in this category is
either 3 or 4, which imply the responses in most of the items are dispersed around
the scales of 3 and 4. A general glimpse of this category can be suggested by the
mean and the SD of the whole category, they are 3.41 and 1.01 respectively. It may
be concluded that in the assumption of having a normal distribution, 68% responses
are distributed in the zone between 2.40 and 4.42 (Table 4.9 a).

122

Table 5.9 a The Distribution of Responses on Transformational Leadership
N Mean Median Mode SD
B1 1404 3.11 3 3 1.06
B4 1404 3.69 4 4 1.02
B7 1404 3.41 3 4 1.02
B10 1404 3.60 4 4 1.02
B14 1404 3.37 3 4 0.98
B16 1404 3.76 4 4 0.98
B11 1404 3.56 4 4 0.95
B17 1404 3.75 4 4 0.95
B20 1404 3.68 4 4 0.93
B22 1404 3.20 3 3 0.91
B24 1404 3.28 3 3 0.96
B29 1404 3.05 3 3 0.97
B2 1404 3.36 3 4 0.94
B5 1404 3.19 3 3 1.00
B8 1404 3.13 3 3 1.04

The overall mean and the standard deviation (SD) of the category of
transactional leadership are 2.89 and 1.08 respectively. If the assumption of having a
normal distribution is held, 68% responses are distributed in the zone between1.81
and 3.97. Based on the observation from the mean median and the mode of the
respected items, the distribution of responses in this category is in fact more
dispersed in comparison with the previous category, and also more factor-specific.
For the first two factors, the maximum and minimum of the mean are 3.56 and
2.50, those of the SD are 1.21 and 0.91, while the overall mean and SD are 2.98 and
1.07 respectively. For the last factor, management-by-exception (passive), with the
mean and SD lying between 2.26 and 3.08, and also 1.00 to 1.10 respectively, the
overall mean and SD are 2.58 and 1.09. If the assumption of having a normal
distribution is held, 68% of responses are distributed in the zone between 1.49 and
3.67 for the first two factors, and between 1.49 and 3.67 for the last factor. Indeed,
the data of the former group is basically dispersed around the mean, and that of the
later group is skewed to the left.

123

The specific phenomenon of the last factor is in congruence with the literature
that this factor can be grouped with laissez-faire style together as 'passive-avoidant
leadership' instead of categorising it with the other two factors as transactional
leadership in the Full Range Leadership Model developed by Bass and Bass (Bass
and Avolio, 2004).
Table 5.9 b The Distribution of Responses on Transactional Leadership
N Mean Median Mode SD
B12
1404 2.76
3 3
1.04
B13
1404 2.50
3 3
1.21
B15
1404 3.09
3 3
1.05
B18
1404 2.94
3 3
1.01
B23
1404 2.95
3 3
1.03
B25
1404 3.56
4 4
0.91
B27
1404 3.39
3 4
0.93
B3
1404 3.07
3 3
0.96
B19
1404 3.28
3 3
0.97
B26
1404 2.85
3 3
0.96
B30
1404 2.62
3 2
1.09
B6
1404 3.08
3 3
1.00
B9
1404 2.56
3 3
1.02
B21
1404 2.26
2 1
1.10
B28
1404 2.42
2 3
1.05

The range of the mean and standard deviation (SD) of the category of
organisational learning process are between the intervals of 3.98 and 2.51 and also
1.09 and 0.76, where the overall mean and SD of this category are 3.29 and 1.01.
Assuming normal distribution also applies in this category of data, 68% of responses
are distributed in the zone between 2.28 and 4.30. This interpretation again in
general agrees with the observed descriptive statistics that the responses in most of
the items are dispersed around the scales of 3 and 4.

124

Table 5.9 c The Distribution of Responses on Organisational Learning Process
N Mean Median Mode SD
C1 1404 3.37 3 3 0.92
C2 1404 3.02 3 3 0.91
C8 1404 3.67 4 4 0.95
C9 1404 3.02 3 3 0.88
C14 1404 3.80 4 4 0.94
C15 1404 2.51 2 3 0.99
C20 1404 3.43 3 3 0.85
C21 1404 3.72 4 4 0.84
C26 1404 3.98 4 4 0.76
C27 1404 3.49 4 4 0.98
C32 1404 3.69 4 4 0.83
C33 1404 3.59 4 4 1.04
C3 1404 3.24 3 3 0.95
C10 1404 3.70 4 4 0.95
C16 1404 3.32 3 3 0.89
C22 1404 3.37 3 3 0.82
C28 1404 2.86 3 3 0.96
C34 1404 3.15 3 3 0.87
C4 1404 3.15 3 3 0.90
C5 1404 2.81 3 3 0.98
C11 1404 3.35 3 3 0.82
C12 1404 3.05 3 3 1.09
C17 1404 3.12 3 3 0.90
C18 1404 3.33 3 4 0.84
C23 1404 3.03 3 3 0.90
C24 1404 3.40 3 3 0.88
C29 1404 2.93 3 3 0.90
C35 1404 3.14 3 3 0.84

For organisational learning outcome, the range of the mean and the standard
deviation (SD) of all related items are from 3.17 to 3.77, and 0.74 to 0.95
respectively, where the overall mean and the SD are 3.40 and 0.85. If the assumption
of normal distribution applies to this category, 68% of responses lie between the
interval of 2.55 and 4.25. This statistical result is again in congruence with the
descriptive statistics: the distribution of responses is found consistent nearly among
all items. Responses in all items are dispersed around scales of 3 and 4, with no
items particularly skewing either to the left or to the right.

125

Table 5.9 d The Distribution of Responses on Organisational Learning Outcome
N Mean Median Mode SD
C6 1404 3.29 3 3 0.82
C13 1404 3.45 3 3 0.87
C19 1404 3.17 3 3 0.81
C30 1404 3.38 3 3 0.81
C36 1404 3.47 3 4 0.75
C7 1404 3.77 4 4 0.74
C25 1404 3.46 4 4 0.95
C31 1404 3.31 3 4 0.93
C37 1404 3.32 3 3 0.80

In this chapter, descriptive statistics have been used as the tools to illustrate the general
feature of the responses of the whole sample. Not only have all questionnaires been analyzed
on an item basis, but also the data derived from a factor base and a category base in an attempt
to give a more detailed overview and solid foundation for the next chapter to follow.

126

Chapter Six: Measurement of Statistics
Building on the ground of a general understanding of the sample provided by the descriptive
statistics in the previous chapter, the objective of this chapter is to analyse the construct validity of
the hypothesised measurement model and further scrutinise the internal consistency of items in each
factor of the model. Only under the condition that the empirical data of this sample is proved to fit
with the proposed model, and that the internal consistency of clusters of items in general reach an
acceptable level, could the researcher can proceed in the construction of Structure Equation Model
in the next chapter, in which the research questions will be answered. The software LISREL 8.8 is
used to provide analytical data for analysis.
6.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
To validate the hypothesis of the plausible relationship between the observed variables of
leadership styles and organisational learning and their respective underlying latent constructs, a
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is employed. A whole array of goodness-of-fit indices is
used in the validation of assumed models. These indices include the Root-Mean Square Error
of Approximation (RMSEA), the Root Mean Square Residual (RMR), the Comparative Fit
Index (CFI), the Non-normed Fit Index (NNFI), and the Goodness of Fit index (GFI).
According to the criteria determined a priori in all the above-listed measurements, a well-
fitting model can only be concluded with the designated statistical data reaching an acceptable
level.
The RMSEA value, regarded as one of the most informative fit indices
(Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000: 85), shows the degree that the proposed theory fits the
populations covariance matrix (Byrne, 1998). RMSEA values has to satisfy the 0.06 or less
criteria suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999), and in congruence with the criteria of a well-
fitting model that the lower limit is close to zero while the upper limit is less than 0.08
(MacCallum et al, 1996).

127

The NFI, a sample-size sensitive statistics with its range between 0 and 1, explains the
model by comparing the 2 value of the model to the 2 of the null/independence model. The
good fit range of NFI recommended by Bentler and Bonnet (1980) is of value greater than 0.90,
and a more stringent cut-off criteria is proposed by Hu and Bentler (1999) in which NFI is
greater than or equal to 0.95. The NNFI, which is a rectified NFI statistic, is another index with
the threshold at least equivalent to 0.95 (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
The CFI, a statistic which takes into consideration a sample size with a range between 0
and 1, compares the sample covariance matrix with its null model. The closer the CFI value to
1, the more convincing that the observed and the expected models are in a good fit. The
indicative criteria of good fit of CFI are any value greater than or equal to 0.95 (Hu and
Bentler, 1999).
The GFI calculates the proportion of variance that can be explained by the estimated
population covariance (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). It is generally accepted that any GFI
value reaching 0.90 or above indicates a well-fitting model. The same good fit criteria can also
apply to AGFI measurement.
Confirmatory factor analysis is thus conducted upon the assumed models for the variables
of transformational leadership style, transactional leadership style, organisational learning
process, and organisational learning outcome. The statistical results are delineated as the
followings.
6.1.1 Confirmatory factor analysis of transformational leadership variables
The statistical results of the analysis confirm that the assumed model is a good-
fitting model for the sample of the study undertaken. This conclusion is supported by the
values of RMSEA, NFI, NNFI, CFI, GFI, and AGFI, which are 0.043, 0.99, 0.99, 1.00,
0.98, and 0.96 respectively, and are all satisfied with the good fit criteria of the respected
measurement (Table 6.1c). To indicate the internal relationships of the assumed model
with respect to the sample, its factor structure is illustrated by using a structural diagram

128

(Figure 6.1), and its factor-item and factor-factor relationship are further represented in
terms of path-coefficients and correlation-coefficients with significance level (Figure 6.1;
Table 6.1a, 6.1b). While the p-values of the majority of related path-coefficients and all
correlation-coefficients are less than the significance level 0.001, the general result is said
to be statistically very significant. In this stance, the null hypothesis of having no
relationship between related variables is rejected and the contrary of attaining a
significant factor-item and factor-factor relationship for the sample is confirmed (Table
6.1a, 6.1b).
Figure 6.1a The Hypothesised Model of CFA for Transformational Leadership Variables
FA1 B1.



FA2 B4.




FA3 B7.

FC1 B2



FC2 B5

FC3 B8

FM1 B11.

FM2 B17.

FM3 B20.

FS1 B22.

FS2 B24.

FS3 B29.

FB1 B10

FB2 B14

FB3 B16

Idealised influence
(Attributes)

Intellectual
stimulation

Idealised influence
(Behaviour)

Inspirational
motivation

Individualised
consideration


129

Figure 6.1b The Modified Model of CFA for Transformational Leadership Variables

Table 6.1 a The Path Coefficients (LAMDA) between Transformational Leadership and its
Respective Items

Idealised
influence
(Attributes)
Idealised
influence
(Behaviours)
Inspirational
motivation
Intellectual
stimulation
Individualised
consideration
B1 0.83 ***
B2 0.80 ***
B4 0.45 *** 0.21 ***
B5 0.85 ***
B7 0.80 ***
B8 0.88 ***
B10 0.67 ***
B11 0.67 ***
B14 0.67 ***
B16 0.72 ***
B17 0.75 ***
B20 0.71 ***
B22 0.75 ***
B24 0.85 ***
B29 0.59 ***
Remarks: *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001



FA1 B1.

FA2 B4.

FA3 B7.

FC1 B2

FC2 B5

FC3 B8

FM1 B11.

FM2 B17.

FM3 B20.

FS1 B22.

FS2 B24.

FS3 B29.

FB1 B10

FB2 B14

FB3 B16

0.88***
0.85***
0.21***
0.59***
0.85***
0.75***
0.71***
0.75***
0.67***
0.45***
0.67***
0.80***
0.83***
0.80***


0.67***
0.72***
Idealised influence
(Attributes)

Intellectual
stimulation

Idealized influence
(Behaviour)

Inspirational
motivation

Individualised
consideration


130

Table 6.1 b The Correlation between the variables of Transformational Leadership

Correlation
Idealised
influence
(Attributes)
Idealised
influence
(Behaviours)
Inspirational
motivation
Intellectual
stimulation
Individualised
consideration
Idealised influence
(Attributes)
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Idealised influence
(Behaviours)
0.87*** ----- ----- ----- -----
Inspirational motivation 0.88*** 0.99*** ----- ----- -----
Intellectual stimulation 0.85*** 0.86*** 0.85*** ----- -----
Individualised
consideration
0.92*** 0.80*** 0.79*** 0.77*** -----
Remarks: *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001
Table 6.1c Goodness of Fit Indices of the CFA for Transformational Leadership variables

DF Chi-square RMSEA NFI NNFI CFI GFI AGFI
Transformational
Leadership Style
68 243.96 0.043
(0.037, 0.049)
0.99 0.99 1.00 0.98 0.96

6.1.2 Confirmatory factor analysis of transactional leadership variables
In accordance with the statistical results of the analysis, the assumed model is proved
to be a good-fitting model for the sample undertaken. This is supported by the values of
RMSEA (0.044), NFI (0.98), NNFI (0.97), CFI (0.98), GFI (0.98), and AGFI (0.96),
which are all satisfied by the good fit criteria of the respected measurement (Table 6.2c).
To indicate the internal relationships of the assumed model with respect to the sample, its
factor structure is illustrated by using a structural diagram (Figure 6.2), and its factor-item
and factor-factor relationship are further scrutinised in terms of path-coefficients and
correlation-coefficients, in which the respective level of significance is represented by p-
value (Figure 6.2; Table 6.2a, 6.2b). With the fact that the p-values of the majority of
related path-coefficients and all correlation-coefficients are less than the significance level
0.001, the general result is implied to be statistically significant at a high threshold.
Therefore, the null hypothesis of having no relationship between related variables is
rejected and the contrary of attaining a significant factor-item and factor-factor
relationship for the sample is confirmed (Table 6.2a, 6.2b).

131

Figure 6.2a The Hypothesised Model of CFA for Transactional Leadership Variables

SR1
1
B12.

SR2 B13.

SR3 B15.



SR4 B18.

SR5 B27.

SR6 B23.

SR7 B25.

SA1 B3.

SA2 B19.



SA3 B26.

SA4 B30.

SP1 B6.

SP2 B9.



SP3 B21.

SP4 B28.

Figure 6.2b The Modified Model of CFA for Transactional Leadership Variables
SR1
1
B12.

SR2 B13.

SR3 B15.

SR4 B18.

SR5 B27.

SR6 B23.

SR7 B25.

SA1 B3.

SA2 B19.

SA3 B26.

SA4 B30.

SP1 B6.

SP2 B9.

SP3 B21.

SP4 B28.

Contingent reward
Management-by-
exception (Active)

Management-by-
exception (Passive)

0.18***
0.59*** 0.45***
0.39***
0.64***
0.62***
0.71***
0.70***
0.58***
0.74***
0.25***
0.08***
0.60***
0.33***
0.63***
0.21***
0.54***
0.40*** 0.45***
0.75***
-0.27***
-0.50***
Contingent reward
Management-by-
exception (Active)

Management-by-
exception (Passive)


132

Table 6.2a The Path Coefficients (LAMDA) between Transactional Leadership and its Respective
Items
Item Contingent reward
Management-by-
exception (Active)
Management-by-
exception (Passive)
B3 ----- 0.60 *** -----
B6 ----- 0.18 *** 0.33 ***
B9 ----- ----- 0.63 ***
B12 0.59 *** ----- -----
B13 0.45 *** ----- 0.21 ***
B15 0.39 *** ----- -----
B18 0.64 *** ----- -----
B19 ----- 0.58 *** -----
B21 0.62 *** -0.49 *** 0.54 ***
B23 0.71 *** ----- -0.27 ***
B25 -0.13 0.74 *** -----
B26 ----- 0.25 *** 0.40 ***
B27 0.70 *** -0.50 ***
B28 ----- ----- 0.75 ***
B30 ----- 0.08 * 0.45 ***
Remarks: *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001
Table 6.2b The Correlation between the variables of Transactional Leadership

Correlation
Contingent
reward
Management-by-
exception (Active)
Management-by-
exception (Passive)
Contingent reward ----- ----- -----
Management-by-exception
(Active)
0.88 *** ----- -----
Management-by-exception
(Passive)
0.37 *** 0.13 *** -----
*: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001
Table 6.2c Goodness of Fit Indices of the CFA for Transactional Leadership variables

DF Chi-square RMSEA
(90% CI)
NFI NNFI CFI GFI AGFI
Transactional
Leadership Style
66 239.33 0.044
(0.038, 0.050)
0.98 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.96

6.1.3 Confirmatory factor analysis of organisational learning process
With respect to the statistical results of the analysis, the assumed model is shown to
be a good-fitting model for the sample of this study. This conclusion is based on the fact
that the values of RMSEA, a confidence interval of 90% of RMSEA, NFI, NNFI, CFI,

133

GFI, and AGFI are all satisfied with the good fit criteria of the respected measurement,
these values are 0.045, (0.043, 0.048), 0.98, 0.98, 0.99, 0.94, and 0.92 respectively (Table
6.3c). To further explicate the internal relationships of the assumed model with respect to
the sample, its factor structure is illustrated by using a structural diagram (Figure 6.3), and
its factor-item and factor-factor relationship, together with their significance levels are
presented statistically in terms of path-coefficients, correlation-coefficients, and p-value
(Figure 6.3; Table 6.3a, 6.3b). With the fact that the p-values of the majority of related
path-coefficients and all correlation-coefficients are less than the significance level 0.001,
the general result is referred to be statistically very significant. Therefore, the null
hypothesis of having no relationship between related variables is rejected and the
attainment of significant factor-item and factor-factor relationship for the sample is
confirmed (Table 6.3a, 6.3b).

134

Figure 6.3a The Hypothesised Model of CFA for Organisational Learning Processes Variables
CP1 C1.

CP2 C2.

CP3 C8.

CP4 C9.

CP5 C14.

CP6 C15

CP7 C20

CP8 C21.

CP9 C26.

CP10 C27.

CP11 C32.

CP12 C33.

SP1 C3.

SP2 C10.

SP3 C16.

SP4 C22.

SP5 C28.

SP6 C34.

DP1 C4.

DP2 C5.

DP3 C11.

DP4 C12.

DP5 C17.

DP6 C18.

DP7 C23.

DP8 C24.

DP9 C29.

DP10 C35.

Static Organisational
Learning Processes
Dynamic
Organisational
Learning Processes
Contextual
Organisational
Learning Processes

135

Figure 6.3b The Modified Model of CFA for Organisational Learning Processes Variables
CP1
C1.

CP2 C2.

CP3 C8.

CP4 C9.

CP5 C14.

CP6 C15.

CP7 C20.

CP8 C21.

CP9 C26.

CP10 C27.

CP11 C32.

CP12 C33.

SP1 C3.

SP2 C10.

SP3 C16.

SP4 C22.

SP5 C28.

SP6 C34.

DP1 C4.

DP2 C5.

DP3 C11.

DP4 C12.

DP5 C17.

DP6 C18.

DP7 C23.

DP8 C24.

DP9 C29.

DP10 C35.
0.49***
0.65***
0.43***
*0.20***
0.23***
0.38***
0.23***
-0.20***
0.30***
0.46***
0.57***
0.69***
0.35***
0.71***
0.79***
-0.32***
0.17***
0.61***
0.32***
0.68***
0.33***
0.18***
-0.17***
0.58***
0.90***
0.63***
0.33***
0.43***
0.76***
0.43***
0.62***
0.23***
0.44***
-0.33***
0.73***
0.46***
0.33***
Static
Organisational
Learning
Processes
Dynamic
Organisational
Learning
Processes
Contextual
Organisational
Learning
Processes
0.34***
0.26***
0.31***

136

Table 6.3a The Path Coefficients (LAMDA) between Organisational Learning Processes and
its Respective Items


Contextual Organisational
Learning Processes
Static Organisational
Learning Processes
Dynamic
Organisational
Learning Processes
C1 0.34 *** 0.33 ***
C2 0.26 *** 0.46 ***
C3 0.20 *** 0.58 ***
C4 0.73 ***
C5 0.31 *** -0.33 ***
C8 0.71 ***
C9 0.17 ***
C10 0.43 *** -0.04
C11 0.23 *** 0.44 ***
C12 0.30 *** 0.23 ***
C14 0.49 ***
C15 -0.32 *** -0.17 ***
C16 0.54 *** 0.18 ***
C17 0.62 ***
C18 0.23 *** 0.43 ***
C20 0.46 *** 0.33 ***
C21 0.79 ***
C22 0.29 0.61 ***
C23 0.76 ***
C24 0.38 *** 0.43 ***
C26 0.65 ***
C27 0.35 *** 0.33 ***
C28 0.68 ***
C29 -0.20 *** 0.90 ***
C32 0.69 ***
C33 0.57 ***
C34 0.32***
C35 0.63 ***
Remarks: *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001
Table 6.3b The Correlation between the variables of Organisational Learning Processes

Correlation Contextual OLP Static OLP Dynamic OLP
Contextual OLP ----- ----- -----
Static OLP 0.54 *** ----- -----
Dynamic OLP 0.73 *** 0.90 *** -----
Remarks: *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001






137

Table 6.3 c Goodness of Fit Indices of the CFA for Organisational Learning Processes variables

DF Chi-square RMSEA
(90% CI)
NFI NNFI CFI GFI AGFI
Organisational
Learning Process
299 1124.50 0.045
(0.043, 0.048)
0.98 0.98 0.99 0.94 0.92

6.2 Confirmatory factor analysis of organisational learning outcome
The assumed model, according to the results of the statistical analysis, is found to be
a good-fitting model for the sample of this study. This conclusive statement is supported
by the values of RMSEA (0.037), confidence interval of 90% of RMSEA (0.025, 0.048),
NFI (0.99), NNFI (0.99), CFI (1.00), GFI (0.99), and AGFI (0.98), which are all satisfied
with the good fit criteria of the respected measurement (Table 6.4c). To further explain
the internal relationships of the assumed model with reference to the sample, its factor
structure is illustrated by using a structural diagram (Figure 6.4), and its factor-item and
factor-factor relationship, together with their significance levels are presented statistically
in terms of path-coefficients, correlation-coefficients, and p-value (Figure 6.4; Table 6.4a,
6.4b). With the fact that the p-values of the majority of related path-coefficients and all
correlation-coefficients are less than the significance level 0.001, the general result is said
to be statistically significant at a high threshold. Therefore, the null hypothesis of having
no relationship between related variables is rejected and it is confirmed that a statistically
significant factor-item and factor-factor relationship is attained (Table 6.4a, 6.4b).
Figure 6.4a The Hypothesised Model of CFA for Organisational Learning Outcomes Variables

EO1 C6.

EO2 C13.

EO3 C19.

EO4 C30.

EO5 C36.

IO1 C7.

IO2 C25.

IO3 C31.

IO4 C37.
Evolving
Organisational
Learning Outcomes

Institutional
Organisational
Learning Outcomes


138

Evolving
Organisational
Learning Outcomes

Institutional
Organisational
Learning Outcomes

0.62*** 0.47***
0.63***
0.67***
0.70***
0.60***
0.37***
0.71***
0.75***
0.19***
Figure 6.4b The Modified Model of CFA for Organisational Learning Outcomes Variables

EO1 C6.

EO2 C13.

EO3 C19.

EO4 C30.

EO5 C36.

IO1 C7.

IO2 C25.

IO3 C31.

IO4 C37.

Table 6.4 a The Path Coefficients (LAMDA) between Organisational Learning Outcomes and
its Respective Items

Evolving Organisational
Learning Outcomes
Institutional Organisational
Learning Outcomes
C6 0.62 ***
C7 0.37 ***
C13 0.47 ***
C19 0.63 ***
C25 0.71***
C30 0.67 ***
C31 0.75 ***
C36 0.70 ***
C37 0.60 *** 0.19 **
Remarks: *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001
Table 6.4 b The Correlation between the variables of Organisational Learning Outcomes

Correlation Evolving OLO Institutional OLO
Evolving OLO ----- -----
Institutional OLO 0.80 *** -----
Remarks: *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001
Table 6.4 c Goodness of Fit Indices of the CFA for Organisational Learning Outcomes variables

DF Chi-square RMSEA
(90% CI)
NFI NNFI CFI GFI AGFI
Organisational
Learning Outcomes
19 55.17 0.037
(0.025, 0.048)
0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.98

In a nutshell, The Confirmatory Factor Analysis has been performed on the designated sample
and with affirmative results on the construct validity on each of the four models.

139

Chapter 7 Research Question Analysis
Based on the literature review and statistical findings of the previous chapters, this chapter
aims at addressing the three research questions posed in Chapter Four. The first three sections of
this chapter are committed to explicating the research questions : to identify the possible
relationship between transactional and transformational leadership in the context of Hong Kong
Education Reform; to recognise the general conditions of organisational learning in Hong Kong
schools; and to tap the direct and indirect effects of designated leadership styles on organisational
learning process and organisational learning outcome. Each section is a coherent part of the whole
study, with the third section being an integral part considering all related variables in the Structural
Equation Model by using the software LISREL 8.8. The whole chapter is concluded with the
highlight of the key points of the research findings in the context of Hong Kong.
7.1 The correlation between Transactional and Transformational Leadership
The assumed model, with reference to the results of the statistical analysis, is found to be
a good-fitting model for the sample of this study. This conclusive statement is supported by a
series of values of RMSEA (0.041), confidence interval of 90% of RMSEA (0.038, 0.043), NFI
(0.99), NNFI (0.99), CFI (0.99), GFI (0.95), and AGFI (0.93), which satisfy with the good fit
criteria of the respected measurement (Table 7.2).
To explain the correlation between the factors of transactional leadership and
transformational leadership, its factor correlation is illustrated by using a diagram (Figure 7.1),
and its factor-factor relationship, together with their significance levels are presented
statistically in terms of correlation coefficients and p-value (Table 7.1). All correlation
coefficients, except the one between Intellectual Stimulation of transformational leadership and
Management-by-exception (passive) of transactional leadership, are statistically significant
(p<0.001). The general result is said to be statistically significant at a high threshold.
The correlation between the latent variables of transformational leadership and
transactional leadership is partially positive and partially negative. Idealised influence

140

(Attributes), Idealised influence (Behaviours), Inspirational motivation, Intellectual stimulation,
and Individualised consideration, which are all the latent variables of transformational
leadership, are correlated in the same direction with Contingent Reward, one of the latent
variables of transactional leadership. These two groups of variables are actually consistently
positively correlated, with the values of correlation coefficients being moderately high, ranging
from 0.57 to 0.81 (Table 7.1).
The same five variables of transformational leadership and the two variables of
Management-by-exception (Active and Passive) are also correlated in the same direction. They
are consistently correlated negatively with the values of correlation coefficients being relatively
low, ranging from -0.21 to -0.41 and -0.04 to -0.35 respectively (Table 7.1).
The part of results with positive correlations coincides with the empirical findings of a
research study which was conducted in Israel by using the same shortened version of
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X (MLQ) developed by Bass and Avolio (1999) , that
transformational and transactional are correlated positively with each other (Kurland, Peretz
and Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2010:17-18). Whereas the part of results with negative correlations
resonates with the theories proposed by Kakabades and Kakabades (1999), arguing that these
leadership styles are in fact negatively correlated with each other. The empirical findings of the
study undertaken seems ambivalent to some of the current literature reviews which can be
explained in the local context of Hong Kong by some other theories.
The positive correlation between the variables of transformational leadership and
Contingent Reward can be explained by Maslows hierarchy of needs (1954). According to the
postulations of Bass, transformational leaders tend to go further [beyond transactional needs],
seeking to arouse and satisfy higher needs, to engage the full person of the
followerand [elevate] those influenced from a lower to a higher level of need according to
Maslow's (1954) hierarchy of needs (Bass, 1985:14). In this rationale, the teaching staff are
more likely to be inspired and to identify with the abovementioned transformational

141

characteristics of their principals if they perceive that their lower-level safety needs, such as the
realisation of agreements as promised by Contingent Reward, are gratified.
To explain the negative correlation between Management-by-exception (Active) and all
the variables of transformational leadership, it is firstly important to realise the significance of
management-by-exception (Active) in the context of education reform. Upholding
accountability is one of the many benchmarks of education reform. In view of this, Wheatley
argues that some principals rather leap backwards to the familiar territory of command and
control over the performance of their subordinates to safeguard organisational accountability
(Wheatley, 2005:4). The similar argument is also shared by Bass and Avolio, who even endorse
the necessity of employing management-by-exception [Active], a form of transactional
leadership style, in situations where risk is prevalent to ensure successful outcome
(Antonakis and House, 2002:11).
In the context of Hong Kong, prevalent risks include the uncertainties and changes
initiated by the Education Reform, and also the dramatic decrease in the number of school-
attendance aged group. According to the estimation of the Education Affairs Committee of the
Legislative Council, the number of students to be admitted to the first grade of secondary school
is reduced by 23.51 % with the estimated number of 68900, in the academic year of 2010-2011
in comparison with those of 84800 students in 2006-2007. The impending impact on secondary
schools in the future can be projected from the turbulence that primary schools have
experienced the tension for closure of schools. While the risk of school closure is school-
specific, the meaning of successful outcomes for some schools can merely be the sustainability
of the schools legacy.
Management-by-exception (Active) is basically an outcome-oriented leading strategy
with the means emphasising command and control. In the event that the risk is imminent and
devastating, as experienced by schools being threatened to closure, the targeting outcome can be
crisis-centred, short-sighted, fragmented, and superficial. This phenomenon is in theory not in

142

congruence with the expected outcome of transformational leadership, in which the strategies
employed are human-centred, vision-driven, holistic, and developmental.
Thus, the negative correlation between the variable, Management-by-exception
(Active), of transactional leadership and all the five variables of transformational leadership can
be explicated by the fact that, the more rigorous the risky factors are, the more stringent the
control from the administrative level will be, and the less likely the subordinates will perceive
the principals as potential elevating transformational leaders. In other words, safeguarding
accountability is not necessarily be the springboard for promising venture for teachers who may
perceive this, in juxtaposition, a threat of losing the job. As indicated in this negative correction,
it is likely that whenever security and survival becomes a high-stake factor, venturing for a
possible good way out will simply be beyond the scope of consideration. This suggestion can
further be justified by the positive correlation, 0.38, between Contingent Reward and
Management-by-exception (Active) of transactional leadership. Only if the security of
subordinates is safeguarded, be the accountability ensured (Table 7.1).
The negative correlation between the other variables, Management-by-exception
(Passive), of transactional leadership and all five variables of transformational leadership is
evident. Principals with the leadership style characterised by Management-by-exception
(Passive) are comparatively more passive and reactive leaders, who are characterised by their
failure to respond to problems systematically, and their behavioural trait of avoidance in their
general behaviour. In the circumstance when teachers in general needed to be inspired and
supported, this leadership style can be explained to be negatively correlated with
transformational leadership, which is basically proactive, engaging and vision-driven.
It is worthwhile to note that the correlation of all three variables of transactional
leadership with Idealised influence (Behaviours) of transformational leadership is consistently
more positive than those with Idealised influence (Attributes). It is the comparison between 0.74
and 0.57, -0.26 and -0.41, and also -0.31 and -0.35 respectively (Table 7.1). According to Bass

143

and Bass, the original designer of this questionnaire, influential behaviour in terms of
principals willingness to share risks with followers and their consistency between their conduct,
underlying ethics, principles and values, is more significant in the perception of respondents
than the influential attributes of principals in terms of whether they are admired, respected and
trusted, and whether they consider stakeholders needs over their own needs, in its correlation
with the principals competency to clarify expectations and offer recognition whenever
followers have the goals achieved.
In this stance, it is the influential behaviour that counts in comparison with the influential
attribute in realising the expectations and fulfilling the agreements offered by the principals, in
fulfilling the error-free expectations of the principals and also in working with reactive
principals. This finding is consistent with the pragmatic characteristics of Chinese culture,
revealed by some Chinese sayings like, Actions are bigger than words. The implications of the
results also match the needs of front-line teachers in the prevailing changing context of the
education reform. In facing uncertainties of all kinds, including the implementation of
Curriculum Reform, the introduction of Inclusive Education, the actualisation of the Fine-tuned
Language Policy, and the consequences of participating in the Voluntary Optimisation of Class
Structure Scheme and so on, teachers prefer actual support and substantial help more than
psychological assurance, though the latter is also important in this spectrum.
In sum, there exists a partially positive and partially negative correlation between the
variables of the designated leadership styles and organisational learning. The positive
correlation between transformational leadership variables and Contingent Reward, and the
negative correlation between the same set of transformational leadership and Management-by-
exception (Active and Passive) can be explained by the theories postulated by scholars as well
as the context in which the research is undertaken, in which security and risky factors are the
foci of discussion. In addition, the significance of Idealised influence (Behaviours) over
Idealised influence (Attributes) in its correlation with variables of transactional leadership is

144

also explained contextually in terms of Chinese culture and the changes brought about by the
education reform.
Figure 7.1 The Correlation Between Latent Variables of Transactional Leadership and
Transformational Leadership

Transactional Leadership Transformational Leadership













Table 7.1 The Summary of the Correlation Between Variables of Transactional and
Transformational Leadership


Idealised
influence
(Attributes)
Idealised
influence
(Behaviours)
Inspirational
motivation
Intellectual
stimulation
Individualised
consideration
Contingent
reward
Management-
by-exception
(Active)
Management-
by-exception
(Passive)
Idealised
influence
(Attributes)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Idealised
influence
(Behaviours)
0.85 *** ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Inspirational
motivation
0.85 *** 0.99 *** ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Intellectual
stimulation
0.78 *** 0.83 *** 0.83 *** ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Individualised
consideration
0.92 *** 0.81 *** 0.80 *** 0.76 *** ----- ----- ----- -----
Contingent
reward
0.57 *** 0.74 *** 0.81 *** 0.75 *** 0.60 *** ----- ----- -----
Management-
by-exception
(Active)
-0.41 *** -0.26 *** -0.21 *** -0.23 *** -0.39 *** 0.38 *** ----- -----
Management-
by-exception
(Passive)
-0.35 *** -0.31 *** -0.29 *** -0.04 -0.21 *** 0.00 0.29 *** -----
Remarks: *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001
Management-by-
exception (Active)
Management-by-
exception (Passive)
Contingent reward
Idealised influence
(Attributes)
Idealised influence
(Behaviours)
Inspirational
motivation
Intellectual
stimulation
Individualised
consideration
074***
-0.26***
-0.31***
0.81***
0.57***
-0.41***
-0.35***
-0.29***
-0.21***
0.75***
-0.23***
0.60***
-0.39***
-0.21***

145

Table 7. 2 The Summary of the Goodness of Fit Indices of the CFA for Transactional and
Transformational Leadership variables

DF Chi-square RMSEA
(90% CI)
NFI NNFI CFI GFI AGFI
Transactional and
Transformational
Leadership
329 1063.71 0.041
(0.038, 0.043)
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.93

7.2 The Relationship between Organisational Learning Processes (OLP) and Organisational
Learning Outcomes (OLO)

In accordance with the statistical results of the analysis, the modified model is proved to be
a good-fitting model for the sample undertaken. This is supported by the values of RMSEA
(0.048), NFI (0.98), NNFI (0.98), CFI (0.99), GFI (0.92), and AGFI (0.90), which satisfy the
good fit criteria of the respected measurement (Table 7.4). To indicate the internal relationships
of the modified model with respect to the sample, its factor structure is illustrated by using a
structural diagram (Figure 7.2).
The factor-factor relationship of the model is further scrutinised in terms of path coefficients
in which the respective level of significance is represented by p-value (Table 7.3). With the fact
that all related path coefficients, except the one between the variables of Static Organisational
Learning Processes and Institutional Organisational Learning Outcomes, are with p-value less
than the significant level of 0.01, the general result is implied to be statistically significant at a
high threshold. Therefore, the null hypothesis of having no relationship between related
variables is rejected and the contrary of attaining a significant factor-factor relationship for the
sample is confirmed (Table 7.3).
In this path analysis, standardised () coefficients, which are mostly often used, are
employed for the purpose of expressing effects of variables. This model contains five
hypothesised latent variables, namely Contextual OLP, Static OLP, Dynamic OLP, Evolving
OLO and Institutional OLO. OLO and OLP stand for Organisational Learning Processes and
Organisational Learning Outcomes respectively.

146

The statistical outcome of the direct effects of all variables of organisational learning
processes on those of organisational learning outcome are in the same direction and are all
consistently positive. Combining the results with significant level and direct effects, it implies
that the effectiveness of Contextual OLP, Static OLP and Dynamic OLP consistently predicts
the success of Evolving Organisational Learning Outcomes (Evolving OLO), with the
significant level higher between Contextual and Static OLP variables and Evolving OLO than
Dynamic OLP variable and Evolving OLO. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of Contextual OLP,
Static OLP and Dynamic OLP also consistently predicts the success of Institutional
Organisational Learning Outcomes (Institutional OLO), in which the significant level between
the Contextual and Dynamic OLP variables and Institutional OLO is prominent.
The path coefficients indicating the direct effects of Contextual OLP, Static OLP and
Dynamic OLP on Evolving OLO are 0.36, 0.42 and 0.31. This implies that Static OLP, the
proactive school administrative setting, predicts more on Evolving OLO, which is the success
of the schools readiness to renew and to initiate new attempts, than the other two variables of
Contextual and Dynamic OLP. (Table 7.3).
Meanwhile, the path coefficients demonstrating the direct effects of the same set of OLP
variables on Institutional OLO are 0.24, 0.22 and 0.38 respectively (Table 7.3). The
implications are as follows : the contributions of Dynamic OLP to the success of Institutional
OLO are more than that of Contextual OLP and Static OLP. In this regard, teachers perceive
schools accomplishment in the recollection, accumulation, and daily operation of the
organisations learned professional expertise and experiences (Institutional OLO) as a result of
the schools provision of authentic problem solving opportunities to teachers (Dynamic OLP)
which is a factor more important than a contextual environment with nurturing and
encouraging atmosphere and also with mutually supportive, collaborative and achievement
oriented colleagues (Contextual OLP); and a proactive school administrative setting (Static
OLP).

147

Generally speaking, the variables of OLP are in various extent significant to that of OLO.
The Static OLP variable contributes the most among other variables to the success of Evolving
OLO, but predicts the least for the success of Institutional OLO. By the same token, the
Dynamic OLP variable, the least contributing variable for Evolving OLO, predicts the most
among the other variables to the achievements of Institutional OLO. Whereas Contextual OLP,
being not the most or the least contributing factor to Evolving OLO and Institutional OLO,
serves as a highly statistically significant and consistent moderate predicting factor among the
three to the accomplishments of the two variables of OLO.
Last but not least, the conceptions of Static OLP, Contextual OLP and Dynamic OLP in
this study are originated from the perceptions of organisational structure and organisational
culture, in which the related ideas are very encompassing and have been interpreted with
various degrees of differentiation (for example, Hoy and Miskel, 2005; Dixon, 1994; Yeung,
Ulrich, Nason and Glinow, 1999; Senge, 2000, Starkey, Tempest and McKinlay, 2004).
Attempts to extract common and specific notions, like learning architecture, openness, trust
and respect, conversation, collaboration, reflective dialogue from the diverse views of
organisational structure and organisational culture, and re-categorise them to form the three
OLP variables, help the researcher understand not only the relationship among the variables of
OLP and their contributions to OLO in terms of given variables in the current education
context of Hong Kong, but also the relationship of variables from a broader and well-
documented conceptual ideas of organisational structure and organisational culture.

148

Figure 7.2 The Direct Effects of Latent Variables of Organisational Learning Processes on
those of Organisational Learning Outcomes

Organisational Learning Process (OLP) Organisational Learning Outcome (OLO)








Table 7.3 The Summary of the Path Coefficients (LAMDA) between Organisational Learning
Processes and Organisational Learning Outcomes


Contextual
Organisational
Learning Processes
Static Organisational
Learning Processes
Dynamic
Organisational
Learning Processes
Evolving
Organisational
Learning Outcomes
Institutional
Organisational
Learning Outcomes
Contextual
Organisational
Learning Processes
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Static Organisational
Learning Processes
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Dynamic
Organisational
Learning Processes
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Evolving
Organisational
Learning Outcomes
0.36 *** 0.42 *** 0.31**
----- -----
Institutional
Organisational
Learning Outcomes
0.24 *** 0.22 0.38 **
----- -----
Remarks: *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001

Table 7.4 The Summary of the Goodness of Fit Indices of the effect/influence of Organisational
Learning Processes on Organisational Learning Outcomes

DF Chi-square RMSEA
(90% CI)
NFI NNFI CFI GFI AGFI
Organisational
Learning Process
to Organisational
Learning Outcome
559 2262.64 0.048
(0.046, 0.050)
0.98 0.98 0.99 0.92 0.90


Contextual Organisational
Learning Processes
Static Organisational
Learning Processes
Dynamic Organisational
Learning Processes
Evolving Organisational
Learning Outcomes
Institutional Organisational
Learning Outcomes
0.36***
0.42***
0.24***

149

7.3 The Integral Model of leadership style and organisational learning
The modified model, with reference to the results of the statistical analysis, is found to be a
good-fitting model for the sample of this study. This conclusive statement is supported by the
values of RMSEA (0.031), confidence interval of 90% of RMSEA (0.030, 0.032), NFI (0.99),
NNFI (0.99), CFI (0.99), GFI (0.91), and AGFI (0.90), which satisfy the good fit criteria of the
respected measurement (Table 7.6). To further explain the internal relationships of the modified
model with reference to the sample, its factor structure is illustrated by using a structural
diagram (Figure 7.3), and its factor-factor relationship, together with their significance levels
are presented statistically in terms of effect size and p-value (Table 7.5).
The hypothesised model is presented in Figure 7.3 with thirteen factors categorised under
four domains. The first domain is transactional leadership, with factors of Contingent reward,
Management-by-exception (Active), and Management-by-exception (Passive). The second
domain is transformational leadership, including factors like Idealised influence (Attributes),
Idealised influence (Behaviours), Inspirational motivation, Intellectual stimulation, and
Individualised consideration. Contextual, Static, and Dynamic organisational learning process
serve as the factors for the third domain of organisational learning process, and Evolving and
Institutional organisational learning outcomes are the factors for the last domain of
organisational learning outcome.
The analysis starts with the correlation analysis between transactional and transformational
leadership in Structural Equation Model (Table 7.5). For the sake of simplicity, no double-
arrowed lines are drawn to indicate the correlation relationship between variables of
transactional and transformational leadership. Instead, an asterisk drawn on the left-hand-side of
the big double-arrowed sign between the groups of variables of transactional and
transformational leadership is used to denote their correlation relationship. Moreover, the
researcher will not explicate the nature of relationship in detail, because the statistical features
of the correlation relationship between transactional leadership and transformational leadership

150

are more or less the same when they were considered either alone or in the Structural Equation
Model (Table 7.1), or when they were considered in Structural Equation Model (Table 7.6).
In short, the direction of corresponding correlation loading is the same, and the loading, as
well as the level of statistical significance, is very much the same across the relationship
between corresponding variables of leadership and Contingent Reward, and the relationship
between corresponding variables of leadership and Management-by-Exception (Passive).
Therefore, the explication of the correlation relationship between leadership and transactional
and transformational leadership in Research Question One can also apply here in Research
Question Three, that the factor of subordinate security and leaders being passive, reactive and
even avoiding are important in the prediction of principals being perceived as transformational
leaders from the perspective of serving teachers (Table 7.5).
To tap the direct and indirect effects of designated leadership styles on organisational
learning processes and organisational learning outcomes, the analysis is first focused on
individual statistically significant path coefficients, then on groups of loadings with consistent
characteristics, and followed by the coherent explanation of all loadings with prominent features.
The analysis begins with the identification of path coefficients with p-value less than the
significance level of 0.001. They include the loadings indicating the direct/total effects of
Management-by-exception (Passive) on Contextual OLP (-0.27), Idealised influence
(Behaviours) on Dynamic OLP (0.76), Contextual OLP on Evolving OLO (0.23), Static OLP on
Evolving OLO (0.27) ; and demonstrating the total effects of Intellectual stimulation on
Evolving OLO (0.72), Dynamic OLP on Institutional OLO (0.77).
These highly statistically significant loadings highlight the negative direct effects of
principals being passive, reactive and avoiding upon the development of a contextual
environment with a nurturing and encouraging atmosphere. Those significant loadings also
mark the positive effects of principals responsibility and integrity upon schools provision of
authentic problem solving opportunities to teachers, the contributions of the three characteristics:

151

a contextual environment with nurturing and encouraging atmosphere, a proactive school
administrative setting and principals abilities to steer their followers' effort to schools
readiness to renew and to initiate new attempts; and also the positive effects of providing
teachers with authentic problem solving opportunities to schools accomplishment in the
recollection, accumulation, and daily operation of the organisations professional expertise and
experiences.
To further understand the relationship between leadership styles and organisational learning,
patterns of consistency across different characteristics of transformational leadership and
transactional leadership are scrutinised. For transformational leadership, the effects from
variables of Inspirational Motivation and Idealised influence (Attributes) to those of OLP and
OLO are nearly consistently negative. This phenomenon, according to the suggestions of the
researcher, can possibly be explained in parallel to the effects from variables of Idealised
influence (Behaviours), Intellectual Stimulation, and Individual Consideration to those of OLP
and OLO, which are consistently positive nearly across effects of all kinds.
The consistency of the positive effects across the three variables of transformational
leadership indicates that teachers in general favour three behaviours from their principal :
principals willingness to share risks with them, their consistency between ones own conduct
and underlying ethics, principles and values; their capability in employing different means to
steer their followers' effort; and their readiness to pay attention to the needs of individuals for
achievements particularly in the process of establishing organisational learning as well as in the
evolving stage of organisational learning outcome, rather than their abilities on articulating
themselves, even in the best wishes to motivate and boost the morale of their teachers in
envisioning the attractive future.
Particular attention has to be placed on the fact that, although three out of five variables of
transformational leadership, namely, Idealised influence (Behaviours), Intellectual stimulation,
and Individualised consideration, have generally consistent positive effects on variables of OLP

152

and OLO, in which has included all statistically significant path coefficients (p<0.05) indicating
the effects from all variables of transformational leadership to those of organisational learning,
there is only thirteen statistically significant path coefficients out of the forty-five parameters,
which accounts for a 29% of all possible data.
The same phenomenon is also found among the variables of transactional leadership.
Despite two out of three variables of transactional leadership, Contingent Reward and
Management-by-exception, have some consistent negative effects on those of OLP and OLO, in
which has included statistical1y significant path coefficients (p<0.05) specifying the effects
from all variables of transactional leadership to those of organisational learning, there exist only
two statistically significant loadings out of the twenty-seven parameters, which is only a 7% of
the whole.
With regard to the indicated statistical results, statistical1y significant path coefficients,
patterns of consistent statistical outcome and the relatively percentage of statistically significant
loadings to all related parameters, it is suggested that transformational leadership contributes to
a greater extent than transactional leadership to the effectiveness of organisational learning.
However, for the contribution of transactional leadership to organisational learning, in view of
the relatively low percentage of statistically significant loadings to all related parameters,
further investigations are suggested, and no conclusive statement can be drawn at this stage.
In an attempt to explain all loadings with prominent features in a coherent manner, the
following is basically a backward analysis that begins with the study of the significant effects
from variables of OLP to those of OLO and also from the variables of leadership to those of
OLP. Meanwhile, the research findings of Research Question Numbers One and Two are
revisited so as to identify the possible effect change of leadership and organisational learning
from being considered solely and to being incorporated with the other element of organisational
learning and leadership.

153

The first backward analysis begins with the study of the significant effects from variables of
OLP to those of OLO. When all latent variables of transactional leadership and transformational
leadership are taken into consideration, it is the human factor accounting for the variables of
Dynamic OLP which contributes the most to Evolving OLO and Institutional OLO. The direct
effects of Dynamic OLP on Evolving OLO and Institutional OLO are 0.45 and 0.77 respectively,
in which the effect size of Contextual OLP and Static OLP are highly statistically significant
(p<0.001) (Table 7.5). In this stance, the schools provision of genuine problem-solving
opportunities to the teachers, whom can really stage a change to the school and experience the
professional enrichment of their own as well as the team as a whole, contributes very much and
the most in comparison to those of Contextual and Static OLP to the accomplishment of
Evolving OLO and Institutional OLO. Dynamic OLP indicates an advance of 0.14 and 0.39 to
the path coefficients of 0.31 and 0.38 when OLP is considered as the sole contributing factor to
OLO (Table 7.3, Table 7.5). This increase in the path coefficients is likely to be induced by the
factor of leadership style, which is consistent with many research findings stated in the literature
review and the previous finding of this study that leadership contributes positively to
organisational learning.
It is also clear that all the latent variables of OLP contributing to Evolving OLO are
statistically significant, with two of its variables, Contextual and Static OLP significance level
reaches p<0.001, while that of Dynamic OLP is significant to the level of p<0.01. Given the
direct effects of the variables of OLP on Evolving OLO are all in the same direction and
positive, it is worthwhile to identify the scope of contributions of the variables of transactional
leadership and transformational leadership on those of OLP.
With reference to the direct effects with significance level of p-value less than 0.01, the
contributory leadership variables to the effectiveness of Dynamic OLP are Idealised influence
(Behaviours), 0.76; Intellectual stimulation, 0.53; and Individualised consideration, 0.28; for
Static OLP, its success is contributed by Idealised influence (Behaviours), 0.74; and for

154

Contextual OLP, its contributory variables of are Idealised influence (Behaviours), 0.75, and
Management-by-exception (Passive), -0.27 (Table 7.5).
In terms of the number of significant direct effects, Dynamic OLP, among other OLP
variables, is reflected by the maximum number of statistically significant leadership variables,
namely, Idealised influence (Behaviours), Intellectual stimulation, and individualised
consideration. Moreover, Idealised influence (Behaviours) is the variable which contributes
itself repeatedly to two other OLP variables, notably, Contextual OLP and Static OLP, in a
statistically significant (at least p<0.05) and high effect size (at least 0.74) manner (Table 7.5).
A further analysis of the contributing factors of Evolving OLO shows that Intellectual
Stimulation contributes the most to Evolving OLO, with the total effects is equivalent to 0.72
(p<0.001), in which the indirect effect, 0.39, is also a significant value (p<0.05) (Table 7.5).
It is indicated in the above example that analysing positive direct effects in a backward
manner helps identify the contributory factors in a coherent manner which can help trace the
chain of contributory factors. By the same token, other than tracking the chain of contributory
factors, the researcher suggests that analysing negative direct effects in a coherently backward
manner helps identify the unsatisfactory factors.
The second backward analysis begins with the variable of Management-by-exception
(Passive), which is significantly and negatively correlated with variables of transformational
leadership (Table 7.5), also serves as a highly significant negative contributory factor to
Contextual OLP, and a very significant negative contributory factor to Evolving OLO,
indicating the crucial importance of principals being not passive, reactive and avoiding in the
enhancement of a context with a nurturing and encouraging atmosphere, and which in turn is a
significant contributory factor to the direct effects on Evolving OLO, which refers to a schools
readiness to renew and to initiate new attempts. In the meantime, principals leadership
characterised by Management-by-exception (Passive) also exerts significant and negative total
effects on Evolving OLO.

155

In all, it is evident that transformational leadership in comparison to transactional leadership
contributes more to the fostering of organisational learning. Both individual- and group-wise
path coefficients and the implications of the two backward analyses indicate that variables of
transactional leadership and transformational leadership, including Idealised influence
(Behaviours), Intellectual stimulation, Individualised consideration and Management-by-
exception (Passive), have specific roles in their contributions to organisational learning.
Particularly, alongside with the general implications of the variables of leadership styles that
have consistent and significant positive and negative effects on those of organisational learning,
the statistically significant direct effects of leadership styles on organisational learning process,
and those of indirect effects on organisational learning outcome have to be highlighted.

156

Figure 7.3 The Integral Model of Leadership Styles and Organisational Learning

















0.76***
-0.27***
0.74*
0.75*
0.27***
0.23***
0.53**
0.28**
Contextual
OLP

Static OLP

Dynamic
OLP

Evolving
OLO
Institutional
OLO
Transactional Leadership Style
Organisational Leadership Processes (OLP)
Transformational Leadership Style
Organisational Learning Outcomes (OLO)
Management-by-
exception (Active)

Contingent reward
Management-by-
exception (Passive)

Idealised influence
(Attributes)

Idealised influence
(Behaviours)

Inspirational
motivation

Intellectual
stimulation

Individualised
consideration

*

157

Table 7.5 The Summary of the Effects of Leadership Styles and Organisational Learning Variables
Effects
Idealised
influence
(Attributes)
Idealised
influence
(Behaviours)
Inspirational
motivation

Intellectual
stimulation

Individualised
consideration
Contingent
reward
Management-
by-exception
(Active)
Management-
by-exception
(Passive)
Contextual OLP Static OLP Dynamic OLP
Contextual
OLP
DE () -0.11 0.75 * -0.04 0.13 0.16 -0.42 0.20 -0.27 *** ----- ----- -----
Contextual
OLP
IE ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Contextual
OLP
TE -0.11 0.75 * -0.04 0.13 0.16 -0.42 0.20 -0.27 *** ----- ----- -----
Static OLP DE() -0.07 0.74 * -0.85 0.45 0.24 0.30 0.08 0.03 ----- ----- -----
Static OLP IE ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Static OLP TE -0.07 0.74 * -0.85 0.45 0.24 0.30 0.08 0.03 ----- ----- -----
Dynamic OLP DE() -0.02 0.76 *** -0.43 0.53 ** 0.28 ** -0.23 0.22 0.04 ----- ----- -----
Dynamic OLP IE ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Dynamic OLP TE -0.02 0.76 *** -0.43 0.53 ** 0.28 ** -0.23 0.22 0.04 ----- ----- -----
Evolving OLO DE() 0.04 -0.26 0.25 0.33 -0.11 -0.15 0.14 -0.10 0.23 *** 0.27 *** 0.45 **
Evolving OLO IE -0.06 0.72 ** -0.44 0.39 * 0.23 * -0.12 0.17 -0.04 ----- ----- -----
Evolving OLO TE -0.01 0.46 -0.19 0.72 *** 0.12 -0.27 0.31 -0.14 ** 0.23 *** 0.27 *** 0.45 **
Institutional
OLO
DE() -0.02 0.38 -0.52 -0.33 -0.05 0.42 -0.04 -0.04 ----- ----- 0.77***
Institutional
OLO
IE -0.02 0.59 * -0.33 0.41 ** 0.22 * -0.18 0.17 0.03 ----- ----- -----
Institutional
OLO
TE -0.04 0.97 * -0.85 0.08 0.17 0.24 0.13 -0.01 ----- ----- 0.77 ***
Remarks: Total Effects (TE), Indirect Effects (IE), Direct Effects (DE), *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001

158
The Summary of the Integral Model of leadership styles and Organisational Learning:
1. The Total Effects of leadership styles on Organisational Leadership Processes and
Organisational Leadership Outcomes ;
2. The Total Effects of Organisational Leadership Processes on Organisational Leadership
Outcomes ;
3. The Indirect Effects of leadership styles on Organisational Leadership Outcomes;
4. The Direct effects of leadership style on Organisational Leadership Processes; and
5. The Direct effects of Organisational Leadership Processes on Organisational Leadership
Outcome s

Table 7.6 The Summary of the Goodness of Fit Indices of the Integral Model of leadership styles
and Organisational Learning : the correlation between Transactional Leadership Style
and Transformational Leadership Style to Organisational Learning Processes, then to
Organisational Learning Outcomes, and to Organisational Learning Outcomes directly


DF Chi-square
RMSEA
(90% CI)
NFI NNFI CFI GFI AGFI
The Integral
Model of
leadership styles
and
Organisational
Learning
1887 4362.64
0.031
(0.030, 0.032)
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.91 0.90

7.4 Summary
In view of the partially positive and partially negative correlation between latent
variables of transformational leadership and transactional leadership, the security and the
risk factors are the key to its explications. Teachers are more likely to be inspired and to
identify with the transformational characteristics of their principals if they perceive their
lower-level safety needs, as suggested by Maslow (1954), are gratified through the practice
of Contingent Reward. However, when the intensity of the risk reaches the level that their
security and survival become high-stake factors, such as the current scenario in Hong Kong,
and the leader insists on responding to increasing control and command as Management-by

159
exception (Active) ensuring an error-free performance, then the consequence is likely to be
the initiation of a vicious cycle of increasing control and command rather than upholding
accountability and ensuring success from the management and meeting the minimum
requirement and maintaining traditional practices to avoid making mistakes from the
teaching staff who are unlikely to unleash their potential and perceive their leaders as
facilitators and transformational leaders. Therefore, it is suggested that only if the security of
teachers are safeguarded, the accountability will be ensured and the transformational
leadership will be enhanced.
Teachers security is not at all the sole factor to the facilitation of transformational
leadership. Among the five mentioned characteristics of this leadership styles, it is the
Idealised influence (Behaviours) that consistently imposes more positive effects in
comparison with Idealised influence (Attributes) across all designated leadership styles in
this study. Although this phenomenon does not coincide with the findings of many research
carried out in the western world, it is consistent with the pragmatic characteristics of the
Chinese culture that treasure the sharing of weal or woe, as well as honour or disgrace
through genuine involvement among counterparts, and also matches the needs of front-line
teachers in the prevailing changing context of the education reforms, and also in facing the
risk of school closure in times of declining school-age population.
It is interesting to denote that considering OLO and OLP separately, Static OLP out-
performs other variables to the success of Evolving OLO, but predicts the least for the
success of Institutional OLO; and Dynamic OLP variables, the least contributing variables
for Evolving OLO, contribute the most among the other variables to Institutional OLO.
However, when all variables of transactional leadership and transformational leadership are
taken into consideration, it is the human factor, Dynamic OLP, which contributes the most
to both Evolving OLO and Institutional OLO. It may imply that when leadership is not yet a
prominent feature in the school setting, the established Static OLP, characterised by a

160
proactive school administrative setting which promotes an active learning culture, might
help develop organisational learning. Yet the development may possibly be only regarded as
preliminary until the factor of leadership is incorporated as an integrated factor of
organisational development.
According to the findings of the study being undertaken, it is the combination of the
factors of Idealised influence (Behaviours), Intellectual Stimulation, Individual
Consideration and Dynamic OLP, which pave a promising road for leaders to introduce a
leap for the school in the development of organisational learning in terms of process and
outcome. Leaders in this regard demonstrates themselves to be managers of responsibility
and with integrity, to have the capability to steer teachers' effort, to cater to teachers needs,
and to involve them in the process of introducing positive changes to the school. One more
worth-mentioning note is that the expressiveness of a leader, which is an ability generally
highly regarded in the western culture, is not well-received by teachers in this study. It is
highly possible that it is not study-specific, but reflects the cultural essence and teachers
expectations of a collaborative principal in times of uncertainties and risks.

161
Chapter 8 Conclusions and Implications
This chapter aims at summing up the steps that the researcher has gone through in the process
of the investigation of the relationship between the leadership styles and organisational learning.
The former includes transactional leadership and transformational leadership while the later is in
terms of its processes and outcomes. It starts with a review of the study, and is followed by a
section of conclusions and implications, and then recommendations for a better preparation and
advancement of headship, and finally a brief summary.
8.1 A Review of the Study
The study begins with the wave of Educational Reform that swept through Hong Kong
and other developed countries at the turn of the second millennium. To highlight the impact of
the Educational Reform, the respective local Hong Kong Reform was first scrutinised with
respect to its aims, implementation, evaluation, as well as teachers general feedback on some
of the consolidated seven wide-ranging major initiatives proposed by the HKSAR Education
Bureau. Although the education reform in general was not devoid of far-reaching vision and
well-intended planning, the intention and implementation of many policies fell short of
coherence and appropriate support. To make matters worse, coupled with this turbulence are
the policy of public accountability and the introduction of market force. Subsequently, the
whole school system in Hong Kong encountered unprecedented challenges.
Since the local education reform is an integral part of the political and social changes in
the local community as well as an echo of the global wave of education reform, it has to be
understood both in the local as well as the global contexts. Local changes relevant to the
Education Reform are four-fold. They are, namely, the sovereign and school governance
change, the change in financial funding model, the demographic shift, and the cultural
transformation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. A brief introduction to these
changes was given to highlight the intensity and complexity of challenges that schools are
facing.

162
School principals, the paramount figures, are crucial in terms of their roles in the
education reform 2000. In the process of educating our future students up to the expectations
stated in the consultation document of Learning to Learn (Curriculum Development Council,
2000), learning was expected to be the central focus of the school. Embracing the perceived
and undermined challenges, principals are inspired on many official occasions to incorporate
into their schools the essence of organisational learning in order to strengthen schools learning
capacity in the facilitation of school survival and development in accordance with the aims of
the Education Reform amidst these changes. The importance of school principals in
organisational learning had been affirmed by many researchers. In view of the vast supporting
literature and documents, the value of the study between leadership styles and organisational
learning was confirmed.
Whilst the local reform resonates with the global one, there exists an unequivocal
connectedness exemplified in the beliefs, the assumptions, the influence, the controversies, the
tensions and dilemma between the local and global contexts. To demonstrate this
connectedness, the literature review begins with a birds eye view to scrutinise the essence, the
underlying principles of the education reform, as well as the intricate phenomena of tensions
and dilemmas in the global and local context.
Facing the unprecedented rapidity, intensity and complexity of changes in school reform,
and the lack of sufficient experience or a reliable roadmap to guide their responses, educators
found the study of educational leadership to be of paramount importance. Varied in
perspectives, the locus was in the conceptual evolutionary trail of leadership, as well as its
relevance in the global and local trend of effectiveness. The transactional and transformational
theories, fruitful products of the interdisciplinary studies in the 1980s, have been developed
from individual and independent approaches to an inclusive, systemic process model with
interdependent components, and with organisational outcomes as the ultimate accomplishment.
These theories were suggested to be complimentary, and also constituted the dialectic

163
components of another recently developed theory, Strategic Leadership Theory. Yet the
correlation between transactional leadership and transformational leadership remains a
controversial area to be investigated.
In view of the inclusiveness of the two leadership styles being well-developed among the
relevant theories mentioned in this study and their theoretical area of interest, and their
significance particularly in the local context of governance and education reform: transactional
leadership is the one that likely to be adopted by principals under the governing policy of
centralised decentralisation, while being transformational is suggested to be the appropriate
leadership style at times of change, they were chosen to be one of the foci of this study.
A conceptual framework was then developed with the key concepts including different
factors under the categories of leadership style and organisational learning. The factors of
leadership style are Idealised influence (Attributes), Individualised Consideration, Inspirational
Motivation, Intellectual Simulation and Idealised Influence (Behaviours) of transformational
leadership, and Contingent reward, Management-by-exception (Active) and Management-by-
exception (Passive) of transactional leadership; while those of organisational learning are
contextual, static and dynamic organisational learning processes and also evolving and
institutionalised organisational learning outcome. A research instrument was designed
accordingly. To achieve the aim of this study, a quantitative path analysis by using the
software programme LISREL 8.8 is employed in an attempt to identify the direct and indirect
relationships between the variables of leadership styles and those of organisational learning.
The sampling and data collection procedures including the sample design, sampling
procedure, the delivery and collection of questionnaires, the finalising of valid responses, the
treatment of missing values, and the determination of the unit of analysis have proceeded
satisfactorily. The total number of missing items is 183 out of 102492, which represents a
0.2% of the whole data set. The unit of analysis is determined by conducting the computer
programme of Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM). While it is indicated consistently that the

164
majorities (on the average of 87.92%) of the variances of the 30 leadership items lie at the
individual levels, it is chosen as the unit of analysis.
Descriptive statistical analysis was then conducted as the tools to illustrate the general
feature of the responses of the whole sample. It was followed by performing both
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis on the designated sample so as to
scrutinise the internal consistency of items in each factor of the model, and to analyse the
construct validity of the hypothesised measurement model. Affirmative results both on the
construct validity of each of the four models, and on the internal consistency of related items
on all the factors were attained. Until then, it comes the analysis of the Structural Equation
Model in Chapter Seven, which constitutes the focal concern of this research study. The
conclusions and implications of the findings are to be delineated in the following section.
8.2 Implications
Examining the theoretical and practical implications of this study, interwoven into a
tapestry, they are to be depicted as an integrated whole. The first implication lies on the
partially positive and partially negative correlation between the latent variables of
transformational leadership and transactional leadership. The results revealed by the sample
undertaken are not in congruence with the research findings of some other researchers. Yet,
some interesting concluding remarks can be drawn from the contextual perspective which may
shed some light on related future research studies. The positive correlations imply that the
teaching staff are more likely to be inspired and to identify with the abovementioned
transformational characteristics of their principals if they perceive that their lower-level safety
needs, such as the realisation of agreements as promised by Contingent Reward, are gratified.
The negative correlation, on the contrary, can be explicated by the fact that, the more rigorous
the risky factors are, the more stringent the control from the administrative level will be, and
the less likely the subordinates will perceive their principals as potential elevating

165
transformational leaders. Only if the security of subordinates is safeguarded, be the
accountability ensured.
The second implication is based on the direct, indirect and total effects of designated
leadership styles on organisational learning processes and organisational learning outcomes,
which are in resonance with the intended contributions of this study. Those path coefficients
with highly significant level are first identified both on individual and group levels in the
Structural Equation Model. Individually, they are the direct/total effects of Management-by-
exception (Passive) on Contextual OLP (-0.27), Idealised influence (Behaviours) on Dynamic
OLP (0.76), Contextual OLP on Evolving OLO (0.23), Static OLP on Evolving OLO (0.27);
and the total effects of Intellectual stimulation on Evolving OLO (0.72), Dynamic OLP on
Institutional OLO (0.77).
Regarding the effects of all variables of transactional leadership on those of
organisational learning, there are only two path coefficients out of the twenty-seven parameters,
which is a 7% of all possible related data, are statistically significant. Although the effects of
all variables of transformational leadership on those of organisational learning are
comparatively more prominent, as thirteen out of the forty-five parameters are found to be
statistically significant, which accounts for a 29% of all possible related data, the overall
significance of these statistical data is not promising enough. It follows that no conclusive
statement can be made at this stage. Yet, it can be suggested that transformational leadership
contributes to a greater extent than transactional leadership to the effectiveness of
organisational learning, which is in congruence with the research findings of many researchers
around the world.
With reference to the intended contributions of this study delineated in the first chapter,
despite the low percentage of statistically significant path coefficients across all possible
parameters describing the effects of variables of transactional leadership on organisational
learning, the categorical and directional consistency of all related data suggested the

166
prominence of the negative contributions of the transactional variable of management-by-
exception. This finding, though preliminary and not yet conclusive, is suggestive enough for
other potential researchers to fill the gap of the leadership style complementary to
transformational leadership particularly under the governing policy of centralised
decentralisation.
The third implication refers to the consistency of the positive effects across the three
variables of transformational leadership, it indicates that teachers favour in general in terms of
the behaviours of their principals. They generally prefer a humane principal with genuine
commitment and integrity rather than abilities to articulate oneself, even in the best wishes to
motivate and boost the morale of teachers in envisioning an attractive future. The specific
notion of Chinese culture is suggested to be one of the explanations of this phenomenon,
which can be further investigated in future research studies.
The fourth implication tells the contributions of OLP to OLO. The variables of OLP are,
to a certain extent, significant in its contributions to OLO. When the variables of OLP and
those of OLO being considered alone, the Static OLP variable contributes the most among all
the other variables to the success of Evolving OLO, but predicts the least for the success of
Institutional OLO. By the same token, the Dynamic OLP variable, the least contributing
variable for Evolving OLO, predicts the most among all the other variables to the
achievements of Institutional OLO. However, when the leadership variables are also taken into
consideration in the Structural Equation Model, it is the Dynamic OLP that demonstrates the
highest degree of effects upon both Evolving OLO and Institutional OLO.
Last but not least, the preference for categorising organisational learning in terms of
processes and outcomes is found to be a reasonably good decision. This is not only because of
its inclusiveness in comparison with the other two themes mentioned above, but also its ability
to distinguish between the direct and indirect effects of leadership variables on the sub-
categories of organisational learning processes and organisational learning outcomes in this

167
study. The significant effects of variables of leadership on organisational learning processes are
consistently positive and direct, and the significant effects of variables of leadership on
organisational learning outcomes are consistently positive and indirect. It may provide some
clues for school principals in different procedural scenarios in the attainment of maximum
effects. Owing to the fact that the empirical study undertaken is a preliminary one and also
only a local research study, whether these specific statistical results have meaningful general
implications has yet to be further investigated in future studies
8.3 Limitations
Further implications of this study arise from its limitations. The first limitation is the
choice of the quantitative approach for the present study. Despite its advantage of focusing the
scope of study, it lacks an in-depth study of the idiosyncratic nature of a particular principal
since the researcher has faced the time constraint and limited financial resources. Furthermore,
the interpretations of the findings from the present endeavour are fundamental but very
preliminary, and are yet to be explored from different perspectives to understand the whole
array of leadership styles.
The second limitation refers to the size of the sample selected. Although the larger the
sample size projects the higher the percentage of non-sampling errors, full coverage can be
very costly, or even unfeasible and unworthy. However, we have to acknowledge the fact that
in balancing the factors of economy and feasibility, we somehow compromise on accuracy. As
far as this study is concerned, the researcher is well-aware that though the sample size is
acceptable but far from being desirable.
8.4 Recommendations
Theoretical Recommendations
To remedy the shortcomings of employing only quantitative research methods when
conducting the stated study, it is recommended to follow this research with a qualitative study.
In this way, the psychological inclinations and the mindset of the leaders by choosing a certain

168
set of behaviour to better suit their school context can be scrutinised, and a more
comprehensive picture regarding the relationship between the respective leadership styles and
organisational learning process and outcome can be revealed.
The result of HLM indicated consistently that the majority (87.92% on average) of the
variances of the 30 leadership items lie at the individual levels. It also implies that on the
average of 12.08% of the variances of the 30 leadership items lies at the school levels.
Although the latter percentage is much smaller than the former one, it is significant enough to
analyse the data of this study again at the school level. It may possibly shed light to the
relationship of the perceived leadership styles and the specific school scenario.
The designated population frame of including all aided and CAPUT secondary schools in
this study has been suggested to be involved in a trend of long-term development. Taking this
into consideration, it is worthwhile to conduct a longitudinal research to tap the relationship of
leadership styles and organisational learning in the specific local context of Hong Kong. As a
result, not only the principals belong to this specific category could be benefited from the
theoretical and practical findings, but also provide an academic platform for the confirmation
of preliminary but suggestive results portrayed in this study.
Recognising the only acceptable but far from desirable response rate when regarding all
secondary schools in Hong Kong, it is recommended to narrow the scope of population
concerned. Considering the religious background of the researcher, it is recommended to have
the population focused on secondary schools with Catholic religion background. The
connections between the researcher and the targeted schools might help increase the response
rate, and so provide more information for further investigations.
In view of the seemingly importance of the contextual risky factor and cultural specific
factor, it is suggested to incorporate these two factors as mediating factors, and examine if they
are significant in the choice of leadership styles to the enhancement of organisational learning.
Practical Recommendations

169
The statistical results of the study, including the partially positively and partially
negatively correlations between the latent variables of transactional leadership and
transformational leadership, the statistically significant direct effects of leadership styles on
organisational learning processes, and the statistically significant indirect effects of leadership
styles on organisational learning outcomes, suggest that successful principals are capable of
adjusting their leadership styles with respect to the specific school context, the stage of
organisational development, as well as the expectations of the role of the principal. It coincides
with the postulations of Day and Leithwood (2007:182) that principals achieved their success
because they were able to enter two kinds of [interdependent] relations with their worlds the
personal and the functional ones, in which functional relations are essentially instrumental in
nature and personal relations have no purpose other than to enable us to be ourselves. It is
recommended that principals should excel themselves in this direction professionally.
It is noted in the statistical findings that transformational leadership offers more promises
in the fostering of organisational learning than transactional leadership. As suggested by Dvir,
Eden, Avolio, and Shamir (2002) that the abilities and skills required to lead transformative
initiatives can be enhanced through formal training, it is recommended that more relevant
training programmes should be provided by the government, tertiary institutions or
professional communities to elevate aspiring or serving principals to transform schools in
accordance with the expectations of the general public.
Furthermore, it has to be emphasised that the open-mindedness and the capabilities of
principals in learning and in welcoming dynamic interactions with the subordinates is a key to
the success of organisational learning rather than solely participating in structured learning
programmes. Whilst the latter could be excellent in elevating ones professional capabilities, it
is the self-motivation and self-awareness that contribute to authentic learning. Also, a
principals capabilities of actualising her\his espoused values in practical performance should
never be undermined. Paying lip service cannot cultivate a climate for organisational learning.

170
8.5 Summary
Some kinds of relationship between variables of transactional leadership and
transformational leadership and those of organisational learning are spotted. The analysis has
been done and the recommendations are provided. Although the findings are not yet up to the
level of being conclusive, this preliminary study in the areas of leadership styles and
organisational learning provide implications for subsequent qualitative research, designated
population frame longitudinal research, school-level analysis, and the specific effects of certain
variables of transactional leadership on organisational leadership. This study lays the
foundation for further investigations.

171
References
2003
18 1
113-131
2006

1999
http://www.hkpera.org/forum/attachment.php?aid=149
2005
http://www.few.hk/serc/051130.pdf
2006a
http://www.few.hk/serc/web/d001.pdf
2006b
http://www.few.hk/sercd/web/press/20061012.pdf
2001
http://www.hkptu.org/educatio/newsdgrd/news39.htm
2003
http://www.hkptu.org/educatio/newsdgrd/2003stress.htm
2005
http://www.hkptu.org/mainindex.php?content=/anti-stress/index.htm
1999
http://www.e-c.edu.hk/online/on4_1st3.html
2007
http://hkjp.easyweb.hk/files/files/focus/people/teacher%20workload.doc
2006
http://www.emb.gov.hk/FileManager/TC/Common/ctw_final_report_c.pdf
http://www.emb.gov.hk/FileManager/TC/Common/annex_to_ctw_final_report_c.pdf
(2000). ? :
:
(2008). : :

ACER (2005). Secondary Teacher Workload Study Report. [Online] Available :
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/web/downloadable/dl10487_v1/sectchrworkloadstudy.pdf [2011, Sept.
15
th
].

172
Adnett, N. and Davies, P. (2002). Market for Schooling : An Economic Analysis. London and New
York: Routledge.
Advisory Committee on School-based Management. (2000). Transforming Schools into Dynamic
and Accountable Professional Learning Communities School-based Management Consultation
Document. HKSAR : Printing Department.
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. Calif. : SAGE.
Antonakis, J. (2001). The validity of the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership
model as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5X). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 62(01). 233 (UMI No. 3000380). 291pages. Winner of Walden University Frank
Dilley Best Dissertation award.
Antonakis, J. Avolio, B. J. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership : an
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly 14, 261-295.
Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2002). An analysis of the full-range leadership theory: The way
forward. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (eds.) Transformational and charismatic Leadership:
The road ahead, (pp. 3-33). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science/JAI
Apple, M.W. (1995). Education and power. New York : Routledge
Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning : creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge.
Boston : Kluwer Academic.
Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Argyris, C. (1978). Regulating Business: the Search for an Optimum. San Francisco: Institute for
Contemporary Studies
Argyris, C. (1979). How normal science methodology makes leadership research less additive and
less applicable. In Crosscurrents in Leadership, Hunt, J. G. and Larson, L.L.(eds). 47-63/
Carbondale : Southern Illinois University Press.
Argyris. C. (1996). Unrecognized Defense of Scholars : Impact on Theory and Research.
Organization Science 7(1), 79-87.
Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning. 2
nd
ed. Malden, Mass. : Blackwell Business.
Argyris, C. (2004). Reasons and rationalizations : the limits to organizational knowledge. New
York : Oxford University Press .
Argyris, C. and Schn, D. (1978). Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Asian Development Bank. (2002). Policy on education. Philippines : Asian Development Bank
Atwater, D. and Bass, B.M. (1994). Transformational leadership in teams, In Improving
Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership, Bass, B. and Avolio, B. (eds.).
Sage : Thousand Oaks, 48-83.
Auerbach, C. F and . Silverstein, L.B. (2003). Qualitative data : an introduction to coding and
analysis. New York : New York University Press.

173
Avolio, B. J. (1994). The natural : Some antecedents to transformational leadership. International
Journal of Public Administration 17, 1559-1581.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full Leadership Development : Building the Vital Forces in Organization.
Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications.
Avolio, B. J. and Bass, B.M. (1991). The full-range of leadership development. Binghamton, N.Y. :
State University of New York, Center for Leadership Studies.
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. ed. (2002). Developing potential across a full range of leaderships :
cases on transactional and transformational leadership. New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Third edition manual
and sampler set. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational
and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72,441462.
Baets, W. R. J. (1998). Organizational Learning and Knowledge Technologies in a Dynamic
Environment, Netherlands : Kluwer Academic.
Baets, W. R. J. (2006). Complexity, learning and organizations : a quantum interpretation of
business. New York : Routledge.
Ball, S. J. (1987). The micro-politics of the school : towards a theory of school organization.
London : Methuen.
Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform : a critical and post-structural approach. Philadelphia : Open
University Press.
Barnard, C. I. (1968). The function of the Executive. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Bass, B. M. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organizational behaviour. Harper : New York.
Bass, B. M. (1985a). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York : Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1990a). Bass & Stogdills handbook of leadership : theory, research and managerial
applications. New York : Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (2002). Cognitive, social and emotional intelligence of transformational leaders. In
Multiple intelligences and leadership. Riggio, R. E., Murphy, S. E. and Pirozzolo, F. J. (eds.)
Mahwah, NJ, 105-118.
Bass, B.M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership : theory, research, and managerial
applications. 4
th
ed. New York : Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990a). Training and development of transformational leadership for
individual, team, and organizational development. In Research in organizational change and
development. R. W. Woodman & W. A. Passmore (eds.). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire-Short form 6S.
Binghamton, NY: Center for Leadership Studies

174
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993a). Transformational leadership : A response to critiques. In
Leadership theory and research : Perspectives and Directions. M.M. Chemers & R. Ayman (ed.)
NY : Academic Press. 49-80.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993b). Transformational leadership and organizational culture.
Public Administration Quarterly, 19 (1), 112-118.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1999). Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire (form 5X).
Redwood City, CA : Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Multifactor leadership questionnaire feedback report. CA :
Mind Garden, Inc.
Bass, B. and Avolio, B (2004). [Online] Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 3
rd
ed. Manual and
Sampler Set. Published by Mind Garden, Inc.,Available : www.mindgarden.com (p.3) [2010, Aug.
14].
Bass, B.M. and Bass, R. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and
Managerial Applications. 4
th
ed. New York: Free Press. 618-648, 682-715.
Bass, B.M.; Drenth, P.J.D. and Weissenberg, P. eds.(1987). Advances in organizational psychology :
an international review. Newbury Park, Calif. : Sage Publications.
Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational leadership. 2
nd
ed. New Jersey : L. Erlbaum
Associates.
Bateson. G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco : Chandler.
Beitler, M.A. (2003). Strategic Organization Learning : A Practitioners Guide for Managers and
Consultants. USA : Practitioner Press International
Bernard, L. L. (1926). An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York : Henry Holt and Co.
Berube, M. R. (1994). American school reform : progressive, equity, and excellence movements, 1883-
1993. Westport, Conn. : Praeger.
Bennett, N., Crawford, M. and Cartwright, M., eds. (2003). Effective educational leadership.
London : Open University
Bennis, W. G. (1983). Transformative leadership. Harvard University Newsletter, April.
Bennis, W.G. (1984). Transformative Power and Leadership. In Leadership and Organizational
Culture: New perspectives on Administrative Theory and Practice, Sergiovanni, T.J. & J.E.
Corbally (eds.). Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 64-71.
Bennis, W.G. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, Ma : Addison-Wesley.
Bennis, W.G. and Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Harper
& Row.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonnet, D.C. (1980), Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of
Covariance Structures, Psychological Bulletin, 88 (3), 588-606.

175
Bjork, C., ed. (2006). Educational decentralization : Asian experiences and conceptual
contributions. Dordrecht : Springer.
Blackler, F. (2004). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations : An overview and
interpretation. In How organizations learn, Managing the search for knowledge,. K. Starkey, S.
Tempest and A. McKinlay (eds.). UK : Thomson Learning.
Blake, R. R. and McCanse, A. A. (1991). Leadership Dilemmas Grid Solutions. Houston : Gulf
Publishing.
Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964). The managerial grid : key orientations for achieving
production through people. Houston, Tex. : Gulf Pub Co.
Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J.S. (1978). The new managerial grid : strategic new insights into a
proven system for increasing organization productivity and individual effectiveness, plus a
revealing examination of how your managerial style can affect your mental and physical health.
Houston : Gulf Pub Co.
Blake, R. R.; Mouton, J.S. (1985). The Managerial Grid III: The Key to Leadership Excellence.
Houston: Gulf Publishing Co
Blake, R. R.; Shepard, H. A. and Mouton, J.S. (1964). Managing intergroup conflict in industry.
Houston, Tex : Gulf Pub Co.
Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, D. and Nelson, R. (1993). Situational Leadership after 25 years : A
Retrospective. Journal of Leadership Studies Vol. 8, No 1. 21-36.
Blanchard, K., and Zigarmi, P. & Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the One Minute Manager.
New York : William Morrow.
Blau, P.M. and Duncan, O.D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York : Wiley.
Blumberg, A., & Greenfield, W. (1980). The Effective Principal: Perspectives on school leadership.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Boal, K.B. and Hooijberg, R. (2001). Strategic Leadership : Moving On. Leadership Quarterly
11(4), 515-550.
Bottery, M. (2003). Uses and abuses of quality : the need for a civic version. In Strategic
Leadership And Educational Improvement UK : The Open University and Paul Chapman
Publishing, 60-74.
Bowman, C. (1998). Strategy in practice. London ; New York : Prentice Hall Europe.
Bowring-Carr, Christopher and West-Burham, J. (1997). Effective learning in schools. London:
Pearson Education.
Bromiley, P. (2005). The behavioural foundations of strategic management. Oxford : Blackwell
Pub.
Brown, M. L.; Kenney, M. and Zarkin, M. J. (2006). Organizational learning in the global context.
Burlington, VT : Ashgate.

176
Bray, M. & Tang, K. C. (2006): Building and Diversifying Education Systems: Evolving Patterns
and Contrasting Trends in Hong Kong and Macau. In Decentralization and Education: Asian
Experiences and Conceptual Contribution, Bjork, Chris (ed.),Springer, Dordrecht, pp.71-95.
Brookover, W. B., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J. and Wisenbaker, J. (1979). School social
systems and student achievement Schools can make a difference. New York: Praeger.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership organizations. London : Sage Publications.
Burbules, N. C. and Torres, C. A., eds. (2000). Globalization and education : critical perspectives.
New York : Routledge.
Burgelman, R. A., Grove, A. S. and Meza, P. E. (2006). Strategic dynamics : concepts and cases.
Boston : McGraw-Hill.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Macmillan.
Bush, T. (2003). Theories of educational leadership and management. London/Thousand Oaks,
CA/New Delhi : Sage.
Bush, T. and Glover, D. (2003). School leadership : concepts and evidence. Nottingham, NCSL.
Byrne, B.M. (1989). A primer of LISREL : basic applications and programming for confirmatory
factor analytic models. New York : Springer-Verlag.
Caldwell, B. (2003). A Blueprint for Successful Leadership in an Era of Globalization in Learning.
In Reshaping the landscape of school leadership development: A global perspective, .Hallinger
(ed.), Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. 23-40.
Caldwell, B. (2004). A strategic view of efforts to lead the transformation of schools. In School
Leadership & Management, USA : Carfax Publishing, 81 100.
Campbell, J.P. (1977). On the nature of organizational effectiveness. In New Perspectives on
Organizational Effectiveness,Goodman, P.S. and Pennings, J.M. (Eds), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
CA, 13-55.
Cangelosi, V. E., and Dill. W. R. (1965). Organizational Learning: Observations Toward a Theory.
Administrative Science Quarterly, (10:2), Sep., 175-203.
Carlson, R. (1975). Environmental constraints and organisational consequences: the public school
and its clients. In Managing Change in Educational Organisations: sociological perspectives,
strategies, and case studies, Baldridge, J. and Deal, T. (eds), McCutchan, Berkeley, CA
Carter, B.C. (1999). Infinite wealth : a new world of collaboration and abundance in the knowledge
era. Boston : Butterworth-Heinemann.
Carter, D.S.G. and O'Neill, M. eds. (1995). International perspectives on educational reform and
policy implementation. Washington : Falmer Press.
Catley, R. (1996). Globalising Australian capitalism. New York : Cambridge University Press.
Cawthon, D. (2002). Philosophical foundations of leadership. New Brunswick, N.J. : Transaction
Publishers.

177
Chapman, J. D., ed. (1996). The reconstruction of education : quality, equality and control. New
York : Cassell.
Charles, C. M. and Mertler, C. A. (2002). Introduction to educational research. 4
th
ed. Boston :
Allyn and Bacon,
Cheater, A. ed. (1999). The Anthropology of Power : Empowerment and Disempowerment in
Changing Structures. In Power in the Postmodern Era, Cheater, A., 1-12, New York : Routledge, 1-
27.
Cheng, T. C.; Chow, K. W. and Mo, C. M. (2004) Reform of teacher education amid paradigm shift
in school education. In Reform of teacher education in the Asia-Pacific in the new millennium :
trends and challenges. eds. The Netherlands : Kluwer Academic Pub.
Cheng, Y. C. (2002). Leadership and strategy. In The principles and practice of educational
management, Bush, T. and Bell, L. eds. London : PCP.
Chubb, J. E. and Moe, T. M. (1997). Politics, Markets and Equality in Schools. In Autonomy and
Choice in Context: An International Perspective, Shapira R. and Cookson P. (eds.), Great Britain:
Alden, 203-248.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power anaylsis for the behavioral sciences 2
nd
ed. Hillsdale, N.J. :
Erlbaum.
Cohen, W.M., and Levinthal, A. (1990). Absorptive capacity : A new perspective on learning and
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 13(1), 128-152.
Colebatch, H.K. (1998). Policy. Buckingham : Open University Press.
Coleman, P. and LaRocque, L. (1989). Loose coupling revisited. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Coleman, W. O. (1995). Rationalism and anti-rationalism in the origins of economics : the
philosophical roots of 18th century economic thought. Brookfield, Vt. : E. Elgar
Collins, H. (1993). The structure of knowledge. Social Research, 60. 95-116.
Collinson, V., & Cook, T. F. (2007). Organizational learning: Improving learning, teaching, and
leading in school systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Committee for the Review of Teaching and Teacher Education (2003). Australias Teachers :
Australias Future Advancing Innovation, Science, Technology and Mathematics, Main Report.
Australia : Commonwealth of Australia.
Cook, T. D and Campell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation : Design & analysis issues for field
settings. Chicago : Rand McNally.
Cook, T.F. (2007). Organizational Learning: Improving Learning, Teaching, and Leading in School
Systems. United States of America: Sage Publications.
Creemers, B. (1994). The Effective Classroom, London: Cassell.
Creemers, B. and Reezigt, G. J. (1996). School level conditions affecting the effectiveness of
instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 7(3), 197-228.

178
Crossan, M., Lane. H. and White, R. (1999). An organizational learning framework : From intuition
to institution. Academy of Management Review 24, 522-537.
Cuban, L. (2004). The blackboard and the bottom line : why schools cant be businesses.
Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press
Cunningham, W.G. & Cresso, D.W. (1993). Cultural Leadership: The Culture of Excellence in
Education. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon ,19-52.
Curphy, G. J. (1992). An empirical investigation of the effects of transformational and transactional
leadership on organizational climate, attrition, and performance. In Impact of leadership, K.E. Clark,
& D. R. Campbell (eds.). Greensboro, NC : The Center for Creative Leadership. 177-187.
Curriculum Development Council. (2000). Learning To Learn The Way Forward in Curriculum
Development (Consultation Document). HKSAR : Printing Department.
Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. and Ford J. K. (2005). Valuable Disconnects in Organizational learning
Systems: Integrating Bold Visions and Harsh Realities. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. (1963). A behavioural theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. :
Prentice Hall.
Daft, R and Huber. G. (1987). How organizations learn. In Research in Sociology of Organizations ,
N. DiTomaso & S. Bacharach (eds). Vol. 5. Greenwich : JAI.
Daft, R. L. and Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems.
Academy of Management Review. 9(2):284-295.
Davies, B. (2002). Integral transforms and their applications. New York : Springer.
Davies, B. (2004a). Developing in the strategically focused school. In School Leadership &
Management USA : Carfax Publishing, 11 28.
Davies, B. (2004b). Introduction to the Special Edition on Strategy and Strategic Leadership in
Schools. In School Leadership & Management, USA : Carfax Publishing, 7-10.
Davies, B. (2005). The essentials of school leadership. London : Paul Chapman.
Davies, B. (2006). Leading the Strategically Focused School: Success and Sustainability. London :
Paul Chapman Publishing.
Davies, B. and Davies, B. (2004). Strategic leadership. In School Leadership & Management, USA :
Carfax Publishing, 29-38.
Davies, B. and Ellison, L. (2003). Strategic analysis : obtaining the data and building a strategic
view. In Strategic Leadership And Educational Improvement, UK : The Open University and Paul
Chapman Publishing, 157-184.
Davies, B., Ellison, L. and Bowring-Carr C. (2005). School Leadership in the 21
st
Century:
Developing a Strategic approach. London & New York: Rouledge Falmer.
Day, C, Harris, A., Hadfield, M. Tolley H. and Beresford, J. (2000). Leading Schools in Times of
Change. Buckingham : Open University Press.

179
Day, C. and Leithwood, K. eds. (2007). Successful Principal Leadership in Times of Change ; An
International Perspective. Dordrecht : Springer Science.
Deal, T.E. (1987). The Culture of Schools. In Leadership: Examining the Elusive, L.T. Sheive &
M.B. Schoenheit (eds.). Reston, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 3-
15.
Dee, J and Henkin, A. (2001). Smart school teams : Strengthening skills for collaboration. Lanham,
MD : University Press of America.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education.
New York : The Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and Education - An introduction to the philosophy of education. New
York : Free Press.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J. (2000). Introducing Lisrel : a guide for the uninitiated. London :
SAGE.
Dimmock, C. and ODonoghue T.A. (1997). Innovative School Principals and Restructuring: Life
History Portraits of Successful Managers of Change. London and New York: Routledge, 1-23.
Dimmock, C. and Walker, A. (2003). Developing comparative and international educational
leadership and management : a cross-cultural model. In Strategic Leadership And Educational
Improvement, UK : The Open University and Paul Chapman Publishing, 77-92.
Dimmock, C. and Walker, B. (2004). A new approach to strategic leadership : learning-centredness,
connectivity and cultural context in school design. In School Leadership & Management, USA :
Carfax Publishing, 39-56.
Dinham, S. (2005). Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes. Journal of
Educational Administration 43(4), 338-356.
Dixon, N. (1994). The Organizational Learning Cycle. How we can learn collectively. McGraw-
Hill, Maidenhead
Dixon, N. (1999). The Organizational Learning Cycle : How we can learn collectively. 2
nd
ed.
Aldershot ; Brookfield.
Dominowski, R. L. (1980). Research methods. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice Hall.
Drath, W. H. and Palus, C. J. (1994). Making common sense : leadership as meaning-making in a
community of practice. Greensboro, N.C. : Center for Creative Leadership.
Drucker, P.F. (1959). Landmarks of tomorrow. Harper : New York.
Drucker, P.F. (1988) The coming of the new organization. Harvard Business Review. Vol 66, No. 1,
45-53.
Drucker, P.F. (1994). The Age of Social Transformation. The Atlantic Monthly. 274(5), 53-80.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. and Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on
follower development and performance: a field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.
45 No. 4, 735-44.

180
Easterby-Smith, M. and Araujo, L. (1999). Organizational learning : Current Debates and
Opportunities. In Organizational learning and the learning organization : developments in theory
and practice, M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo & J. Burgoyne Calif. : Sage Publications.1-21
Easterby-Smith, M. and Burgoyne, J., eds. (1999). Organizational learning and the learning
organization : developments in theory and practice. Calif. : Sage Publications.
Edmonds, R. R. (1979). A discussion of the literature and issues related to effective schooling.
Cambridge, MA: Center for Urban Studies, Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Education Commission. (1990). Education Commission Report No. 4. The Curriculum and
Behavioural Problems in Schools. Hong Kong Government : Printing Department.
Education Commission. (1996). Education Commission Report No. 6 Enhancing Language
Proficiency : A Comprehensive Strategy. Hong Kong Government : Printing Department.
Education Commission. (1997). Education Commission Report No. 7 Quality School Education.
HKSAR : Printing Department.
Education Commission. (1999). Education Blueprint for the 21
st
Century : Review of Academic
System Aims of Education Consultation Document. HKSAR : Printing Department.
Education Commission. (2000). Learning for Life Learning through Life: Reform Proposals for the
Education System in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Education Commission, 2000.
Education Commission. (2002). Progress Report on the Education Reform (1) Learning for Life,
Learning Through Life. HKSAR : Printing Department.
Education Commission (2003). Progress Report on the Education Reform (2) Learning for Life,
Learning Through Life. HKSAR : Printing Department.
Education Commission (2004). Progress Report on the Education Reform (3) Learning for Life,
Learning Through Life. HKSAR : Printing Department.
Education Commission (2006a). Progress Report on the Education Reform (4) Learning for Life,
Learning Through Life. HKSAR : Printing Department.
Education Commission. (2006b). Report on Review of Medium of Instruction for Secondary Schools
and Secondary School Places Allocation. HKSAR : Printing Department.
Education and Manpower Bureau. (1998). Review of the Education Department Final Report.
HKSAR : Printing Department.
Education and Manpower Bureau. (2000). [Online]. Curriculum Development. Education Bureau.
Available : http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeid=2365. [2010, June 13].
Elmore. R. F. (1997). [Online] The Politics of Education Reform. Issues in Science and Technology.
Available : http://www.issues.org/14.1/elmore.htm [2010, June 13].
Eye, A.von. and Clogg, C. C. eds. (1994). Latent variables analysis : applications for
developmental research. Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage.
Fairhurst, G. T. (2007). Discursive leadership : in conversation with leadership psychology. Los
Angeles : SAGE Publications.

181
Fernandez, C. F. and Vecchio, R. P. Situational Leadership Theory Revisited: A Test of an Across-
Jobs Perspective, Leadership Quarterly 8(1), p. 67 1997.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York : McGraw-Hill.
Fiedler, F. E. and Gracia, J. E. (1987). New approaches to effective leadership : cognitive resources
and organizational performance. New York : Wiley.
Fielding, M. (2001) Taking education really seriously: four years hard labour. In Taking education
really seriously: four years hard labour, M. Fielding (ed.) London : RoutledgeFalmer. 1-14.
Edmonds, R. R. (1979). A discussion of the literature and issues related to effective schooling.
Cambridge, MA: Center for Urban Studies, Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Fiske, E.B. (1996). Decentralization of education : politics and consensus. Washington, D.C. :
World Bank
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York : McGraw-Hill.
Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M. (1985). Organizational Learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4)
803-813.
Foskett, N. (1999). Strategic, External Relations and Marketing. In Managing External Relations in
Schools and Colleges J. Lumby, & N. Foskett (eds.), London:Paul Chapman
Foskett, N. (2003). Strategy, external relations and marketing. In Strategic Leadership And
Educational Improvement , UK : The Open University and Paul Chapman Publishing, 125-141.
Foskett, N. and Lumby, J. eds. (1999). Managing external relations in schools and colleges.
London : Paul Chapman.
Freedman, M. and Tregoe, B.B. (2003). The art and discipline of strategic leadership. New York :
McGraw-Hill.
Friedman, E. (1982). Ascent and decline in the world system. Beverly Hills : Sage Publications
Fullan, M. (1992). Successful school improvement : the implementation perspective and beyond.
Bucjingham : Open University Press.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces : probing the depths of educational reform. New York : Falmer
Press.
Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform. In The
Governance of Curriculum, 1994 ASCD Yearbook. R. Elmore and S. Fuhrman (Eds.), Alexandria,
VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. 3
rd
ed. New York : Teachers College
Press.
Fullan, M. (2003a). Change forces with a vengeance. New York : RoutledgeFalmer.
Fullan, M. (2003b). Planning, doing and coping with change. In Strategic Leadership And
Educational Improvement, UK : The Open University and Paul Chapman Publishing, 185-197.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & sustainability : system thinkers in action. Calif. : Corwin Press.

182
Fullan, M. (2006). Turnaround Leadership. United States of America: Ontario Principals Council.
Fullan, M. (2009). The challenge of change : start school improvement now!. 2
nd
ed. Calif. : Corwin.
Fullan, M.; Hill, P. and Crevola C. (2006). Breakthrough. United States of America: Corwin Press.
Gall, J.P.; Gall, M. D. and Org, W. R. (2005). Applying educational research : a practical guide. 5
th

ed. Boston : Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Gallagher, K. et al. (1997). People in organizations : an active learning approach. Malden, Mass. :
Blackwell Business
Garratt. B. (1995). An old idea that has come of age. People Management. 19(25).
Garvin, D.A. (2000). Learning in action : a guide to putting the learning organization to work.
Boston, Mass. : Harvard Business School Press.
Gay, L.R. and Airasian, P. (2003). Educational Research: Competences for Analysis and
Applications. 7
th
ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 322.
George, D. and Mallery, P. (2001). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference
10.0 Update. 3
rd
. ed. Boston, Allyn and Bacon, 355.
Geppert, M. (2000). Beyond the learning organization : paths of organizational learning in the East
German context. Aldershot : Gower.
Gewirtz, S., Ball. J. S. and Bowe, R. (1995). Markets, choice and equity in education. Philadelphia :
Open University Press.
Gillery, J. W., Dean, P. and Bierema, L. (2001). Philosophy and Practice of Organizational
Learning, Performance and Change. USA : Perseus Publishing
Glatter, R. (2003). Governance, autonomy and accountability in education. In Strategic Leadership
And Educational Improvement, UK : The Open University and Paul Chapman Publishing, 44-59.
Glatter, R., Woods, P. and Bagley, C., eds. (1997). Choice and diversity in schooling : perspectives
and prospects. New York : Routledge.
Goddard D., and Leask M., (1992). The Search for Quality: Planning for Improvement and
Managing Change. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd. pp.69-110, 138-153.
Gorard, S. (1997). School Choice in an Established Market. Great Britain: Ipswich
Gratton, L. (2000). Living strategy : putting people at the heart of corporate purpose. London :
Financial Times.
Graeff, C.L. (1983). The situational leadership theory : a critical view. Academy of Management
Review 8. 285-291.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure : the Problem of Embeddedness.
American Journal of Sociology 91, 481-493.
Gratton, L. (2000). Living strategy : Putting people at the heart of corporate purpose. London :
Prentice-Hall.

183
Greenfield, T., ed. (1996). Research methods : guidance for postgraduates. New York : J. Wiley,
Greve, H. R. (2003). Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback : A Behavioral
Perspective on Innovation and Change. United Kingdom : Cambridge University Press.
Grundy, T. (1998). Strategy as simplicity rediscovering the essence of strategic management.
Strategic Change, 7 (8), 459-468.
Habermas, J. (1970). Technology and Science as Ideology. Toward a Rational Society.
Translated by Jeremy J. Shapir. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hackman, M.Z. and Johnson, C.E. (2009). Leadership : a communication perspective. 5
th
ed. Long
Grove, Ill. : Waveland Press.
Haddad, W. D., Carnoy, M.; Rinaldi, R. and Regel, O. (1990). World Bank Discussion Papers:
Education and Development: Evidence for New Priorities. Washington: The World Bank.
Hall, R. H. and Tolbert, P. S. (2005). Organizations : structures, processes and outcomes. 9
th
ed.
Upper Saddle River, N. J. : Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hallinger, P. (2010). A review of three decades of doctoral studies using the Principal Instructional
Management Rating Scale : A lens on methodological progress in educational leadership and
management. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the University Council of
Educational Administration, New Orleans.
Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principals contribution to school effectiveness:
1980-1995). School Effectiveness and School Improvement 9(2), 157-191.
Hallinger, P.; Leithwood, K. and Murphy, J. eds. (1993) Cognitive Perspectives on Educational
Leadership. New York: Teachers College Press.
Halpin, A. W. and Winer, B. J. (1952). A factorial study of leader behavior description. In Leader
behavior: Its description and measurement. R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (eds.). Columbus, OH:
Ohio State University, Bureau of Business.
Hamel, G. (1997) Reinventing the basis for competition, in Gibson, R. (ed.) Rethinking the Future,
London:Nicholas Brealey Publising, 76-91.
Hannan, M. T. and Freeman, J. (1977). Obstacles to comparative studies New perspectives on
organizational effectiveness. P.S. Goodman, J.M. Pennings and Assoicates. San Francosco
London, Jossey-Bass Publisher, 106-131.
Hanson, M. (2007). Economic development, education and transnational corporations. New York :
Routledge.
Hargreaves, D. (2003). Practitioners explore their schools culture. In Strategic Leadership And
Educational Improvement, UK : The Open University and Paul Chapman Publishing, 109-122.
Harris, A. (2004). Editorial : School leadership and school improvement : a simple and complex
relationship. In School Leadership & Management ,USA : Carfax Publishing, 3- 6.
Harris, A. ed. (2004). School Leadership & Management. USA : Carfax Publishing.
Harris, J. (2001). The Learning Paradox. Canada : Macmillan

184
Harter, N. (2006). Clearings in the forest : on the study of leadership. West Lafayayette, Ind. :
Purdue University Press.
Harvard business review (2001). Harvard business review on organizational learning. Boston, MA :
Harvard Business School Press.
Hayduk, L.A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL : essentials and advances.
Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hayduk, L.A. (1996). LISREL issues, debates, and strategies. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Hayes, J. (2007). The theory and practice of change management. 2
nd
ed. New York : Palgrave
Macmillan
Hedberg, B. (1981) How Organizations Learn and Unlearn. In Handbook of Organizational Design,
Nystrorm, P & Starbuck, W (eds.) Vol. 1, New York :3-27
Hemphill, J. and Coons, A. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire.
In Leader behavior: Its description and measurement, R. Stogdill & A. Coons (Eds.), Columbus:
Bureau for Business Research, Ohio State University.
Henson, K T. (1995). Curriculum development for education reform. New York : HarperCollins
College Publishers.
Hepburn, C.R. ed. (2001). Can the market save our schools? Vancouver : Fraser Institute.
Hersey, P. (1984). The situational leader. Center for Leadership Studies : Escondido, Calidf.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior : utilizing human
resources. New Jersey : Prentice Hall.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1988). Management of organizational behavior : utilizing human
resources. New Jersey : Prentice Hall.
Hirschhorn, L., (1984). Beyond Mechanization: Work and Technology In A Post-Industrial Age.
Cambridge, MA : The MIT Press .
Hirschhorn, L. (1997). Reworking Authority : Leading and Following in a Post-Modern
Organization. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
Hite, J. (1999). Learning in Chaos, Texas : Gulf.
Hitt, M.A.; Freeman, R. and Harrison, J.S., eds. (2001). The Blackwell handbook of strategic
management. Malden, MA : Blackwell Business.
Holmes, G. (1993). Essential School Leadership: Developing vision and purpose in management.
London, Philadelphia: Kogan Page.
Hood, C. (1994). Explaining economic policy reversals. Philadelphia : Open University Press.
Hoog, J, Johansson, O. & Olofsson, A. (2007). Successful Principalship The Swedish Case. In
Successful Principal Leadership in Times of Change. An International Perspective, Day, C. &
Leithwood, K. (eds.). Dordrecht: Springer. 87-103.

185
Horner, M. (2003) Leadership Theory Reviewed. In Effective Educational Leadership N. Bennett,
M. Crawford and M. Cartwright (eds), London: PaulChapman. 2743.
Hosking, D. M. and Morley, I. E. (1988). The skills of leadership. In Emerging leadership vistas, J.
G. Hung, B, R. Balifa, H.P. Dachler, and C. A. Schriesheim, (eds). Lexington, MA : Lexington
Books. 89-106.
Hoy, W. K. and Miskel, C. G. (1982). Educational administration : theory, research, and practice.
4
th
ed. Boston : McGaw-Hill.
Hoy, W. K. and Miskel, C. G. (2001). Educational administration : theory, research, and practice.
6
th
ed. Boston : McGraw-Hill.
Hoy, W. K. and Miskel, C. G. (2005). Educational administration : theory, research, and practice.
7
th
ed. Boston : McGraw-Hill.
Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis :
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling 6(1), 1-55.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning : the contributing processes and the literatures.
Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115.
Huber, G. P. (1989) Organisational Learning: An Examination of The Contributing Processes And
A review of the Literature, prepared for the NSF-Sponsored Conference on Organisational
Learning, Carnegie-Mellon University, May 18-20, In On Organisational Learning, Argyris, C.
(1999) Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Masschusetts.
Huber, J. (2004). New Technologies and Environmental Innovation, Cheltenham, UK : Edward
Elgar.
Huber, S. G. et al. (2004). Preparing school leaders for the 21st century : an international
comparison of development programs in 15 countries. New York : RoutledgeFalmer.
International Labour Organization (2006). [Online]. Working time and work organization (WTWO):
International labour standards. Available :
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/condtrav/time/time_standards.htm. [2011, Jan. 12].
Jackson, S. L. (2003). Research methods and statistics : a critical thinking approach. Belmont, CA :
Thomson/Wadsworth.
Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership : Perspectives in theory and research. Management Science, 28(3),
315-336.
James, C.; Jones, C. and Norton, A., eds. (1993). A defence of economic rationalism. Australia :
Allen & Unwin.
Johnson, B. (2000). Educational research : quantitative and qualitative approaches. Boston : Allyn
and Bacon.
Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (2003). Understanding strategy development. In Strategic Leadership
And Educational Improvement, UK : The Open University and Paul Chapman Publishing, 142-156.
Johnson, T. W. and Reed, R. F. (2008). Philosophical Documents in Education. 3
rd
.ed. USA :
Pearson Education.

186
Johnston, B. and Wartel, C. (1998). Leadership Style, School Culture and Programmatic Vision.
Educational Foundations 12, 3(Summer), 55-66.
Jones, S. O. (1998). Cases on issues and problems in educational management. Jamaica : Canoe
Press.
Kakabadse, A. and Kakabadse, N. (1999). Essence of leadership. London; New York: International
Thomson Business Press.
Karpicke, H. and Murphy, M. E. (1996). Productive school culture : Principals working from the
inside. NASSP Bulletin, 26-34.
Kanigel, R. (1997). The One Best Way : Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency.
UK: Viking
Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review 33(1), 33-42.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1979). Behavioral research : a conceptual approach. New York : Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston.
Kerlinger, F. N. (2000). Foundations of behavioural research. 4
th
ed. Fort Worth, TX : Harcourt
College Publishers.
Kets de Vries, M. (1995). Life and Death in the Executive Fast Lane : Essays on Irrational
Organizations and Their Leaders. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
Kets de Vries M., and Manfred, F. R. (2006). The leadership mystique : leading behavior in the
human enterprise. 2
nd
ed. New York : Prentice Hall/Financial Times.
Kikoski, C. K. and Kikoski, J. F. (2004). The inquiring organization tacit knowledge, conversation,
and knowledge creation : skills for 21
st
century organizations. London : Praeger.
Kim, S. K. (2004). Building a knowledge : A Decision-making approach. Journal of Knowledge
Management Practice.
Knippenberg, Daan van. and Hogg, M. A., eds. (2003). Leadership and power : identity processes
in groups and organizations. London ; Thousand Oaks.
Kofman, F., and Senge P. M. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning
organizations. Organizational Dynamics 22(2), 5-23.
Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge : how to get extraordinary things
done in organizations. San Francisco : Jossey Bass.
Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco : Jossey Bass.
Kowalski, T. J.; Reitzug U. C. (1993). Contemporary School Administration: An Introduction. New
York: Longman, 199-244.
Krejcie, R. V. and Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement 30, 607-610.
Kuhnert, K. W. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational
leadership. Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications.

187
Kuhnert, R. and Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership : A
constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12, 648-657.
Kurland, H., Peretz, H., and Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2010). Leadership style and organizational
learning: the mediate effect of school vision. Journal of Educational Administration Vol.48 No. 1,
7-30.
Lam, Y. L. J. (2000). Economic rationalism and school reforms in developed countries. Journal of
Educational Administration Vol. 39, No.4 346-358. UK : Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Lam, Y. L. J. (2001). Toward reconceptualizing organizational learning: a multimedia interpretation,
International Journal of Educational Management Vol.15 No.5,212-19.
Lam, Y. L. J. (2002a). Balancing stability and change: Implications for professional preparation and
development of principals in Hong Kong. In Reshaping the landscape of school leadership
development: A global perspective, Hallinger (ed.), Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. 175-190
Lam, Y. L. J. (2002b). Defining the effects of transformational leaderships on organizational
learning cross-cultural comparison, School Leadership & Management Vol.22 No.4, 439-452.
Lam, Y. L. J. (2004). Factors for different developments in organizational learning : a case for
Hong Kong schools. International Journal of Educational Development Vol.24 (2004), 155-166.
Lam, Y. L. J. (2004). Reconceptualizing a dynamic model of Organizational learning for school.
Journal of Educational Administration 42 (3), 297-311
Lam, Y. L. J. (2005). School organizational structures: effects on teacher and student learning.
Journal of Educational Administration 43, (4/5), 387-401.
Lam, Y. L. J. and Pang, S. K. N. (2003). The relative effects of external environment, internal
conditions and the contextual factors on organizational learning, the case of Hong Kong schools
under reform. The Learning Organization: An International Journal Vol.10 No.2, 83-97.
Lam, Y. L. J. and Punch, K. (2001). External environment and school organizational learning:
conceptualizing the empirically neglected. International Studies in Educational Administration,
Vol.29 No.3, 28-39.7
Lambert, L. (1998). Building Leadership Capacity in School. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lassey, P. (1999). Developing a Learning Organization, London : Kogan Page.
Latham, M. (1998). Civilising global capital : new thinking for Australian labor. Australia : Allen
& Unwin.
Lauder, H., ed. (2006). Education, globalization, and social change. New York : Oxford University
Press.
Lawless, J. F. (1982). Statistical models and methods for lifetime data. New York : Wiley.
Legislative Council. (2000). Item for Finance Committee. HKSAR : Legislative Council.
Legislative Council. (2004a) Official Record of Proceedings Thursday, 8 July 2004 The Council
continued to meet at Nine oclock. HKSAR : Legislative Council

188
Legislative Council. (2004b). [Online] LC Paper No.CB(2)2505/04-05(01). Legislative Council
Panel on Education Transitional Subsidy for Caput Schools to Join the Direct Subsidy Scheme
Information Note. Available : http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr04-05/english/panels/ed/papers/edcb2-
2505-1e.pdf. [2011, Sept. 11]
Legislative Council. (2006). [Online] Official Record of Proceedings Wednesday, 17 Mayy 2006
The Council continued to meet at Eleven oclock. HKSAR : Legislative Council. Available :
www.legco.gov.hk/yr05-06/english/counmtg/hansard/cm0517ti-translate-e.pdf [2010, Feb 10]
Leithwood, K.A. (1989). School system policies for effective school administration. In Educational
policy for effective schools, M. Holmes, K.A. Leithwood, & D.F. Musella (eds.), Toronto: The
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education 73-92.
Leithwood, K.A. (1992). The move towards transformational leadership. Educational Leadership,
49 (5),. 8-12.
Leithwood, K. A. (1992). The socialisation of school leaders. In Developing Expert Leadership for
Future Schools. Leithwood, K. Begley, P. and Cousins, B. (eds.) London: Falmer Press.
Leithwood, K. A. (2003). School leadership standards : An International perspective. Leadership
and Policy in Schools. 2, (1).
Leithwood, K. A. and Aitken, R. (1995). Marking school smarter. Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin,
Leithwood, K. A., Aitken, R., & Jantzi, D. (2001). Making schools smarter: A system for
monitoring school and district progress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Leithwood, K. A., Begley, P. T. and Cousins, J. B. (1994). Developing Expert Leadership for
Future Schools, London: The Falmer Press.
Leithwood, K. A. and Day, C. (2007a). Building and sustaining successful prinicipalship : key
themes. In Successful Principal Leadership in Tines of Change An International Perspective, The
Netherlands : Springer. 171-188
Leithwood, K. A. and Day, C. (2007b). Starting with what we know. In Successful Principal
Leadership in Tines of Change An International Perspectiv, The Netherlands : Springer. 1-17.
Leithwood, K. A. and Day, C. (2007c). What we Learned : A Broad View In Successful Principal
Leadership in Tines of Change An International Perspective,. The Netherlands : Springer. 189-
203
Leithwood, K. A. and Jantzi, D. (1990). Transformational leadership : how principals can help
reform school cultures. School Effectiveness and School Improvement I (4), 249-280.
Leithwood, K. A. and Jantzi, D. (1998, April). Distributed leadership and student engagement in
school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
San Diego, CA.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational
conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 112-
129

189
Leithwood, K. A., Jantzi, D., Earl, L., Watson, N, Levis, B and Fullan, M. (2004). Strategic
leadership for large-scale reform : the case of Englands National Literacy and Numeracy Strategy.
School Leadership & Management USA : Carfax Publishing, 57 80.
Leithwood, K. A., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1995). An organizational learning perspective on
schools response to external policy initiatives. School Organization, 15(3), 229-252.
Leithwood, K. A., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1998). Leadership and other conditions which foster
organizational learning in schools. In K. Leithwood & K. S. Louis (eds.), Organizational learning
in schools Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. 67-92.
Leithwood, K. A.; Jantzi, D. and Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times.
Philadelphia : Open University Press.
Leithwood, K. A., Jantzi, D. and Steinbach, R. (2003). Future schools and leaders values. In
Strategic Leadership And Educational Improvemen,t UK : The Open University and Paul Chapman
Publishing, 17-32.
Leithwood, K. A. and Louis, K.S. (1998). Organizational learning in schools. Exton, PA : Swets &
Zeitlinger Publishers.
Leithwood, K. A., and Stager, M. (1989). Expertise in principals' problem solving.
Educational Administration Quarterly 25 (2), 126 - 161
Levin, B. (2003). Conceptualizing educational reform. In Strategic Leadership And Educational
Improvement UK : The Open University and Paul Chapman Publishing, 33-43.
Levine, D. U. and Lezotte, L. W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of
research and analysis of research and practice. Madison, WI: National Center for Effective
Schools Research and Development.
Levitt, B. and March, J. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319-340.
Likert, R. (1967). The Human Organization: Its Management and Value. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education : inequality, globalization, and urban school reform.
London : RoutledgeFalmer.
Lipshitz R., Friedman V. L. and Popper M. (2007). Demystifying Organizational Learning. United
States of America: Sage Publications.
Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent variable models : an introduction to factor, path, and structural
equation analysis. 4
th
ed. Mahwah, N.J. : L. Erlbaum Associates.
Lomax, R. G. (2001). Statistical concepts : a second course for education and the behavioural
sciences. Mahwah, N.J. : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Louis, K. S. (1994). Beyond managed change : Rethinking how schools improve. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement. 5(1), 2-24
Louis, K. S. and Kruse, S .D. (1998). Creating Community in Reform : Images of Organizational
Learning in Inner-City Schools. In Organizational learning in schools. eds. Leithwood, K. and
Louis, K.S. 17-46

190
Louis, K. S. and Miles, M. B. (1990). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.
Organizational Science. 2(1), 71-87.
Lowe, K. B. and Gardner, W. L. (2001). Ten years of The Leadership Quarterly : Contributions and
challenges for the future. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 648-657.
Lundberg, C. C. (1989). On organizational learning : Implications and opportunities for expanding
organizational development. In Research in organizational change and development, R. W.
Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (eds.), 3, 61-82.
Lyons, G.; Moore, E. and Smith, J.W. (1995). Is the end nigh? : internationalism, global chaos and
the destruction of the earth. Brookfield, Vt. : Avebury.
Mabey, C. and Iles, P., eds. (1994). Managing learning. London ; New York : Routledge in
association with the Open University.
MacBeath, J., Schratz, M., Meuret, D. and Jakobsen, L. (2003). Self-evaluation in European
schools : case examples. In Strategic Leadership And Educational Improvement, UK : The Open
University and Paul Chapman Publishing, 287-300.
MacCallum, R.C., Roznowski, M, and Necowitz, L. (1992). Model modifications in covariance
structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance, Psychological Bulletin, 111(3), 490-
504.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination
of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149
MacRae, D. (1985). Policy analysis for public decisions. Lanham, Md. : University Press of
America.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science,
2(1)., 71-87.
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1976) Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen :
Universitesforlaget.
March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York : Wiley.
Marcoulides, G. A. and Moustaki, I., eds. (2002). Latent variable and latent structure models.
Mahwah, N.J. : Lawrence Earlbaum Publishers.
Marks, H. M. and Printy, S. M. (2002). Organizational learning in high-stakes accountability
environments: lessons from an urban school district. In Theory and Research in Educational
Administration, Hoy, W. K. and Miskel, C. G. (eds), Vol. 1, 1-36.
Marks, H.M. and Printy, S.M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance : An integration
of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 370-
397.
Marginson, S. (1993). Education and public policy in Australia. England : Cambridge University
Press
Marshall, J. and Peters, M., eds. (1999). Education policy. Northampton, MA : Edward Elgar Pub.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. Haper : New York.

191
Martinez, P. (2003). Effectiveness and improvement : school and college research compared. In
Strategic Leadership And Educational Improvement, UK : The Open University and Paul Chapman
Publishing, 265-286.
Mazzoni, T. (1991). Analyzing state school policy making : An arena model. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 115-138.
McBurney, D. and Middleton, P. (1994). Research methods. 3
rd
ed. Pacific Grove, Calif. :
Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.
McCarthy, T. (1978). The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
McCleary, L. E. and Hencley S. P. (1965). Secondary School Administration : Theoretical Bases of
Professional Practice. New York : Mead Co.
McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McMahon, A. (2003). Fair Furlong Primary School. In Strategic Leadership And Educational
Improvemen,t UK : The Open University and Paul Chapman Publishing, 198-212.
Miles, R. E. (1965). Human Relations or Human Resources? Harvard Business Review 43(4), 148-
56.
Miner, A. S. and Mezias, S. J. (1996). Ugly-duckling no more : Pasts and futures of organizational
learning research. Organization Science, 7(1), 88-99.
Mintzberg, H. (2005). Culture and climate in school. In Educational Administration: Theory,
Research and Practice, ed. Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C.G. eds. , 7
th
ed. USA: McGraw-Hill, 163-201
Miron, L .F. and St. John, E. P. eds. (2003). Reinterpreting urban school reform : have urban
schools failed, or has the reform movement failed urban schools? Albany : State University of New
York Press.
Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., and Mohrman, A. M. (1995). Designing Team-Based Organizations:
New Forms for Knowledge Work. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Mok, K. H. (2006). Education Reform and Education Policy in East Asia. London & New York:
Routledge.
Mok, K. H. and Chan, D., eds. (2002). Globalization and education : the quest for quality education
in Hong Kong. Hong Kong : Hong Kong University Press.
Mok, K. H. and Currie, J. (2002). Reflections on the Impact of Globalization on Educational
Restructuring in Hong Kong. In Globalization and education : the quest for quality education in
Hong Kong, ed. Mok, K.H. and Chan, D. Hong Kong : Hong Kong University Press, 259-278.
Mok, K. H. and Welch. A. R. (2002). Economic Rationalism, Managerialism and Structural Reform
in Education. In Globalization and education : the quest for quality education in Hong Kong, ed.
Mok, K. H. and Chan, D. Hong Kong : Hong Kong University Press, 23-40.
Mortimore, P. and MacBeath, J. (2003). School effectiveness and improvement : the story so far. In
Strategic Leadership And Educational Improvement, UK : The Open University and Paul Chapman
Publishing, 233-251.

192
Mortimore, P.,Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D. and Ecob, R. (1988) School Matters: The Junior
School Years, Open Books, London.
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Connelly, M.S. & Marks, M. A. (2000). Leadership skills :
Conclusions and future directions. Leadership Quarterly 11(1), 155-170.
Murphy, J. ed.(2002). The educational leadership challenge : redefining leadership for the 21st
century. Chicago, Ill. : NSSE : Distributed by University of Chicago Press.
Nagel, S. S. (1990). Policy theory and policy evaluation : concepts, knowledge, causes, and norms.
New York : Greenwood Press.
Neave, G. (1988). On the cultivation of quality, efficiency and enterprise : an overview of recent
trends in higher education in western Europe, 1986-1988. European Journal of Education Vol. 23
Nos.1/2, 7-23/
Newton, C., Tarrant, T. (1992). Managing Change in School: A practical handbook. London and
New York: Routledge. pp. 189-212.
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review. November, 96-104.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organizational Science,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp.14-37.
Northhouse, P.G. (2001). Leadership: Theory and Practice. 2
nd
ed. California: Sage Publication, Inc.
131-160.
Northhouse, P.G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice. 4
th
ed. California: Sage Publication, Inc.
pp. 131-160.
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: theory and practice. 5
th
ed. Sage: California.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
OECD (2005). PISA 2003 Technical Report. Paris: Author.
OECD (2009). PISA 2006 Technical Report. Paris: Author.
OECD (2012). PISA 2009 Technical Report. Paris: Author.
Orr. J. (1990). Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity : community memory in a service culture. In
Collective Remembering, D. Middleton and D. Edwards (eds.). London : Sage. 169-189.
Ouston, J. (2003). School effectiveness and school improvement : critique of a movement. In
Strategic Leadership And Educational Improvement, UK : The Open University and Paul Chapman
Publishing, 252-264.
Pang, S. K. N., ed. (2006). Globalization : education research, change and reform. Hong Kong :
Chinese University Press.
Patrick, D. (2010). Strategies to Approximate Random Sampling and Assignment. Oxford, New
York : Oxford University Press.
Pedhazur, E. J. and Schemlkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, Design, and Analysis an Integrated
Approach. New Jeresy : Lawrence Erlbaum.

193
Pennings. J. M. and Goodman, P. S. (1977). New perspectives on organizational effectiveness. San
Franciso : Jossey-Bass.
Peoples Republic of China. (1990). The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region of the Peoples Republic of China. HKSAR: Constitutional Affairs Bureau
Peters, L. H., Hartke, D. D. & Pohlman, J. T. (1985). Fiedlers contingency theory of leadership :
An application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter. Psychological Bulletin, 97,
274-285.
Phillips, D. T. and Loy, J. M. (2008). The architecture of leadership : preparation equals
performance. Annapolis, Md. : Naval Institute Press.
Phillips, R. and Furlong, J. eds.(2001). Education, reform, and the state : twenty-five years of
politics, policy and practice. New York : Routledge/Falmer.
Pierce, J. L. and Newstrom, J. W., (1995). eds. Leaders & the leadership process : readings, self-
assessments & applications. 5
th
ed. Boston : McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Pietersen, W. (2002). Reinventing strategy : using strategic learning to create and sustain
breakthrough performance. New York : J. Wiley and Sons.
Pong, T. L. (1983). [Online] Caput schools into aided schools : perceptions of Hong Kong
principals on the transition. Available from : http://hdl.handle.net/10722/51259 [2011, Sept. 11].
Popkewitz, T.S. (1991). A political sociology of educational reform : power / knowledge in
teaching, teacher education, and research. New York : Teachers College Press.
Porter, M. E. (1997). New Strategies for Inner-City Economic Development. Economic
Development Quarterly, 11(1).
Preedy, M.; Glatter, R. and Wise, C., eds. (2003). Strategic leadership and educational
improvement. Milton Keynes : Open University in association with Paul Chapman Pub.
Puncj, K. F. (2005). Developing Effective Research Proposals. Great Britain : Cromwell Press.
Quality Education Fund. [Online]. Quality Education Fund. Available from :
http://qef.org.hk/eng/index.htm. [2010, June 13].
Ranson, S., Hinings, B. and Greenwood, R. (1980). Structuring of organizational structures.
Administrative Science Quarterly. (March, 1980), 1-17.
Raudenbush, S.W. (2002). Hierarchical linear models : applications and data analysis methods.
Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications.
Reay, D. , David, M. E. and Ball, S. (2005). Degrees of choice : class, race, gender and higher
education. Stoke-on-Trent : Trentham.
Retherford, R. D. and Choe, M. K. (1993). Statistical models for causal analysis. New York : Wiley.
Reynolds, D. (1976). The delinquent school. In The process of schooling, Woods P. (ed.),. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Reynolds, D., Creemers, B. P. M., Hopkins, D. Stoll, L. and Bollen, R. (1996). Making Good
Schools. London : Routledge.

194
Riley, K. A. and Louis, K. S., eds. (2000). Leadership for change and school reform : international
perspectives. New York : Routledge/Falmer.
Rost, J.C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York ; London : Praeger.
Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63, 581-592.
Rutter, M., Maughan. B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J. with Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen Thousand Hours:
Secondary Schools and their Effects on Children, London : Open Books.
Salacuse, J. W. (2006). Leading leaders : how to manage smart, talented, rich, and powerful people.
New York : AMACOM.
Salganik, L. H. and Karweit, N. (1982). Voluntarism and Governance in Education, Sociology of
Education 55( 2), 152-161.
Salisbury, J. and Riddell, S., eds. (2000). Gender, policy and educational change : shifting agendas
in the UK and Europe. New York : Routledge.
Saloner, G.; Shepard, A. and Podolny, J.M. (2001). Strategic management. New York : John Wiley
Sammons, P., Hillman, J. and Mortimore, P. (1995). Key Characteristics of Effective Schools: A
Review of School Effectiveness, Research of the Office of Standards in Education, London
Sanchez, R. and Heene, A. (2004). The New Strategic Management : Organization, Competition,
and Competence. New York : John Wiley & Sons, 1-42.
Saphier, J. and King, M. (1985). Good Seeds Grow in Strong Cultures. Educational Leadership
Mar. 1985, 67-74.
Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R.J. (1997). The Foundations of Educational Effectiveness. Oxford:
Elsevier Science Ltd
Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
Schon, D. A. (1975). Deutero-learning in organizations : Learning for increased effectiveness.
Organization Dynamics, 4, 2-16.
Scribner, S. (1986). Thinking in action : some characteristics of practical thought. In Practical
Intelligence. Nature and Origins of Competence in the Everyday World, Sternberg, R. J. and
Wagner, R.K. (eds). Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press, 13-30.
Schriesheim, J. F. (1980). The social context of leader-subordinate relations : An investigation of
the effects of group cohesion. Journal of Applied Psychology 65(2), 183-194.
Schwandt, D. R. and Marquardt, M. J. (2000). Organizational learning : from world-class theories
to global best practices. Boca Raton, Fla. : St. Lucie Press.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline : the art and practice of the learning organization. New York :
Doubleday/Currency.
Senge, P. (2000). Schools that Learn : A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and
Everyone Who Cares About Education. USA : Doubleday.

195
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral Leadership : Getting to the heart of school improvement. San
Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T. J. and Corbally, J. E. (1984). Leadership and organizational culture : new
perspectives on administrative theory and practice. Urbana and Chicago : University of Illinois
Press.
Shapira, R. and Cookson, P. W., eds. (1997). Autonomy and choice in context : an international
perspective. New York : Pergamon.
Shapiro, S. B. (1999). Pedagogy and the politics of the body : a critical praxis. New York : Garland
Pub.
Shrivastava, O.S. (1983). A textbook of demography : with economics of manpower supply and
mampower demand. New Delhi : Vikas Pub. House.
Silins, H., Zarins, S., Mulford, W. & Bishop, P. (1999). Leadership for organisational learning and
student outcomes: The LOLSO Project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Smith, P. B. and Peterson, M. F. (1988). Leadership, organizations and culture : an event
management model. London : SAGE.
Smylie, M, Lazarus, V and Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional outcomes of school-based
participative decision-making, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(3), 181-198.
Smyth, P. and Cass, B., eds. (1998). Contesting the Australian way : states, markets and civil
society. New York : Cambridge University Press.
Snyder, W. and Nason, S. (1992). Organizational learning disabilities, working paper. School of
Business Administration, Los Angles : University of Southern California
Srivastua, S. and Assoicates (eds.) (1986). Executive Power. San Franscip :Jossey-Bass.
Sorensen, R. (2003). A Brief History of the Paradox : Philosophy and the Labyrinths of the Mind.
New York : Oxford University Press, 1-70.
Sosik, J.J. and Jung, D.I. (2010). Full Range Leadership Development Pathways for People,
Profit, and Planet. New York : Routledge
Speck, M. (1999). The principalship : building a learning community. Upper Saddle River, N.J. :
Merrill.
Starkey, K. ; Tempest, S. and McKinlay, A., ed. (2004). How organizations learn : managing the
search for knowledge. London : Thomson.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership : a survey of theory and research. New York : Free
Press.
Stone, B. (1988). Policy Paradox : The Art of Political Decision Making. New York : W. W. Norton
& Company.
St. Pierre, R. G. & Cook, T. D. Sampling strategy in the design of program evaluations.( 1984).
Evaluation Studies Review Annual, 9, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 459-484

196
St. John, E.P., Hu, S. , Simmons, A.B., Carter, D. F. and Weber, J. (2001). What difference does a
major male : The influence of college major filed on persistency by African American and White
Students. Policy Research Report 01-07. Bloomington : Indiana Education Policy Centre.
Strube, M. J. and Gracia. J. E. (1981). A meta-analytic investigation of Fiedlers contingency model
of leadership effectiveness. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 307-321.
Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. 5
th
ed. Boston :
Pearson/Allyn & Bacon
Tam, E.T.W. (1995). A comparative study on the contributions of missionaries to the formative
years of colonial education in Hong Kong and Macau'', MA dissertation, Hong Kong : The
University of Hong Kong.
Teddie, C. and Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools make a difference: Lessons learned from a 10 year
study of school effects. New York: Teachers College Press.
Thompson, K. (2003). (ed.) The Early Sociology of Management and Organizations byTaylor, F. W.
New York : Taylor & Francis.
Tsang, W. K. (2008) [Online]. The Effect of Medium-of-Instruction Policy on Education
Advancement. Available : http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/cpr/pressrelease/080314e.htm [2011,Sept. 1].
The Price Waterhouse Change Integration Team. (1996). The Paradox Principles : How High-
Performance Companies Manage Chaos, Complexity, and Contradiction to Achieve Superior
Results. USA : Irwin.
The World Bank. (1998). The World Bank Annual Report 1998. Washington, D.C. : Stephanie
Gerard.
Tichy, N. M. and Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York : Wiley.
Tinsley, H. E. A. and Brown, S. D. eds. (2000). Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and
mathematical modeling. San Diego : Academic Press.
Toffler, A and Toffler, H. (1997). Foreword. In Rethinking the future : rethinking business,
principles, competition, control & complexity, leadership, markets and the world. Gibson, R (ed.)
London : Nicholas Breadley Publishing.
Townsend, T. and Cheng, Y.C. eds. (2000). Educational change and development in the Asia-Pacific
region : challenges for the future. Exton, PA : Swets & Zeitlinger.
Tschannen-Moran, M. Uline, C., Woolfolk Hoy, A. and Mackley, T. (2000). Creating smarter
schools through collaboration, Journal of Educational Administration, 38(3), 247-271.
Van Der Heijiden, K. (1996). Scenarios : the art of strategic conversation. New Jersey : John Wiley
& Sons.
Vecchio, R. P. & Boatwright, K. J. (2002). Preferences for idealized styles of supervision.
Leadership Quarterly, 168, 1-16.
Wallin, J. (2006). Business Orchestration Strategic Leadership in the Era of Digital Convergence.
England : John Wiley & Sons, 81-88.

197
Walsh, J.P. and Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory, Academy of Management Review
16, 116-124.
Wartgow, J. (2008). Why school reform is failing and what we need to do about it : 10 lessons from
the trenches. Lanham, Md. : Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Weimer, D.L. and Vining, A.R. (1989). Policy analysis : concepts and practice. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J. : Prentice Hall.
Welch, A. R. (1996). Australian education : reform or crisis? St Leonards, NSW : Allen & Unwin
Wendt, R. F. (2001). The Paradox of Empowerment : Suspended Power and the Possibility of
Resistance. Westport : Praeger.
West, A. and Pennell, H. (2000). Publishing school examination results in England : Incentives and
consequences. Educational Studides, Vol. 26, No.4, 423-436.
Wheatley, M. J. (2005). Finding our way : leadership for an uncertain time. San Francisco, CA :
Berrett-Koehler.
Whittington, R. (2001). What is strategy, and does it matter? 2
nd
ed. London : Thomson Learning
Whitty, G.; Power, S. and Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution and choice in education : the school, the
state and the market. Philadelphia : Open University Press.
Williams. B. (1978). A sampler on sampling. New York : John Wiley & Sons.
Wofford, J. C. and Liska, L. Z. (1993). Path-goal theories of leadership : A meta-analysis. Journal
of Management, 19, 857-876.
Wong, K and Cheng, J., eds. (1995). Educational leadership and change : an international
perspective. Hong Kong : Hong Kong University Press.
Wong, P. M. (2011). The village school context and principalship in Hong Kong : what do they
contribute to leadership studies? School Leadership and Management. 31(5). 517-543.
Woods, P.A.; Bagley, C. and Glatter, R. (1998). School choice and competition : markets in the
public interest. New York : Routledge.
Wren, J.T.; Hicks, D.A.; Thomas, J, and Price, T.L., eds. (2004). The international library of
leadership. Northampton, Mass. : E. Elgar
Wylie, C. (1995). Learning to learn : childrens progress through the first 3 years of school.
Wellington : New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Yammarino. F. J. (1993). Transformational leadership studies : Bernard Basss leadership and
performance beyond expectations. Leadership Quarterly 4(3). 379-382.
Yeung, A.K.; Ulrich, D.O.; Nason, S.W. and Glinow, M.A. (1999). Organizational learning
capability. New York : Oxford University Press.
Yukl, G.A. (1998). Leadership in organizations. 4
th
ed. New Jersey : Prentice Hall
Zajda, J., ed. (2006). Decentralisation and privatisation in education : the role of the state.
Dordrecht : Springer.

198
Zhang, Z. (2007). Research on the learning organization of secondary schools in the Chinese
mainland---Shenzhen teachers' perspectives on organizational learning. Doctoral Thesis . Hong
Kong : The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the Age of the Smart Machine. New York : Basic Books.




199
Appendix 1 - Research Instruments : Reference table
I. The leadership style of my school principal as I perceive him/her:
(The numbers on the third column are those indicated on the questionnaire)
T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p

I
d
e
a
l
i
s
e
d

i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e

(
A
t
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s
)

B1
Instills pride in me for being associated with him/her.

B4
Displays a sense of power and confidence.

B7
Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group.

I
d
e
a
l
i
s
e
d

i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e

(
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
r
s
)
B10
Talks about his/her most important values and beliefs.

B14
Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions.

B16
Emphasises the importance of having a collective sense of mission.

I
n
s
p
i
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

m
o
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n

B11
Talks optimistically about the future.

B17
Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished.

B20
Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved.

I
n
t
e
l
l
e
c
t
u
a
l

s
t
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

B22
Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate.

B24
Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems.

B29
Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments.

I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
i
s
e
d

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
B2
Spends time teaching and coaching.

B5
Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others.

B8
Helps me to develop my strengths.

T
r
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p

C
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
t

r
e
w
a
r
d

B12
Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts.

B13
Makes it clear that bypassing channels is not permitted.

B15
Indicates that decisions often require several levels of authorisation before
action can be taken.

B18
Makes it clear that agreements determine exactly what I will receive.

B27
Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance
targets.


200
B23
Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are
achieved.

B25
Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations.

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
-
b
y
-

e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n

(
A
c
t
i
v
e
)

B3
Directs my attention toward failures to meet standards.

B19
Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from
standard.

B26
Concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints, and
failures.

B30
Keeps track of all mistakes.

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
-
b
y
-

e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n

(
P
a
s
s
i
v
e
)

B6
Fails to interfere until problems become serious.

B9
Waits for things to go wrong before taking action.

B21
Shows that he/she is a firm believer in If it aint broke, dont fix it.

B28
Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking action.


II. The organisational learning of my school as I perceive it:
C
o
n
t
e
x
t
u
a
l

O
L
P

C1
Teachers are delighted and have a sense of pride whenever our colleague(s)
attain(s) remarkable achievement.

C2
Colleagues in general have adventurous and risk-taking spirit.

C8
Our school is immersed in a benevolent kind of atmosphere.

C9
The schools policy is conservative in managing change.

C14
Generally speaking, the goals of our colleagues are in the opposite direction of our
school.

C15
Teachers are disappointed because the school fails to handle the challenges brought
by the change effectively.

C20
It is usual practice for colleagues to share professional knowledge, skills, and
experiences with one another.

C21
There exists genuine mutual support among colleagues.


201
C26
Our colleagues share the common concern with the needs and accomplishments of
our students.

C27
Our school principal is responsive to teachers concern.

C32
The teacher community as a whole regards the fostering of students learning
capability as their collective responsibility.

C33
Our teachers in general work in isolation and do not practice mutual support.

S
t
a
t
i
c

O
L
P

C3
The timetable is arranged so that teachers have opportunities to share their
professional expertise.

C10
The present school structure offers no opportunities for colleagues to practise
collegial collaboration.

C16
We have inter-departmental collegial collaboration.

C22
The school calendar is designed to make room for the introduction of external
expertise to foster school development.

C28
We have opportunities to have inter-school collegial professional dialogue.
(opportunities for introduction of external ideas)

C34
To meet with the demand of environmental change, the continued establishment of
new committees has become a usual practice in our school.

D
y
n
a
m
i
c

O
L
P

C4
We have small group learning opportunities to strengthen our capability in
collective problem solving.

C5
In the past few years, the time we spent on the process of decision-making was far
more than that spent on the discussion of the actual substance of decision.

C11
The school provides opportunities for teachers to participate in the process of
problem solving. (opportunity to solve problem)

C12
I have the feeling that most colleagues have lost the enthusiasm they had in
participating in the dialogue of decision-making.

C17
The school provides opportunities for teachers to participate in the decision-making
process of group/school planning.

C18
Most of the collective decisions have been executed.

C23
The school provides opportunities for teachers as group-members to reflect upon
the belief behind established policies.


202
C24
I benefit from teamwork in terms of the enrichment of personal perspectives and
experiences.

C29
The school provides opportunities for teachers to question underlying assumptions
and practices that inform core school policies.

C35
The opportunity to participate in group decision-making can facilitate the
commitment of teachers.

E
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

O
L
O

C6
The educational policies and administrative procedures of our school are subject to
professional adjustment in accordance with environmental changes.

C13
Our school has undertaken many novel attempts in the domain of teaching and
learning in order to cater for the needs of our students in recent years.

C19
It is not difficult to spot out creative ideas, which is a reflection of its
responsiveness to the changing environment, in school plans and the school annual
report.

C30
Most teachers renew their pedagogies according to their professional judgment.

C36
Most teachers renew curriculum planning according to their professional
judgment.

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
s
e
d

O
L
O

C7
Our schools daily operations have become institutionalised routines.

C25
The manual of school administrative procedure has been completed and is now
serving as administrative operational guideline.

C31
The school managed to crystallise and document the professional knowledge and
experience that has been accumulated for years in the form of policies for teachers
reference.

C37
The school plan and school annual report can concretely reflect teachers
accumulative professional knowledge and experience with clarity.


203
Appendix 2 The Sample of the Invitation Letter
5
th
November, 2011

Dear Principal,
I am Christina Cheung Suk Yuen, a candidate of the doctoral degree programme of Education in
The Chinese University of Hong Kong under the supervision of Professor Tsang Wing Kwong. In
view of the prominent role that principals play in shaping the destiny of their schools, I am writing
to solicit the support of your school in the participation of a survey regarding the relationship
between leadership styles and organisational learning in Hong Kong secondary schools. The study
will yield invaluable information for decision makers in the government in the formulation of
training programmes that can adequately prepare the aspiring principals as well as newly appointed
principals to be leaders of educational institutions; and will provide constructive materials for
educational practitioners in the development of their respected schools.
In order to accomplish these goals, I need the support of your school in this endeavour. Your school
is among one of the Aided and CAPUT Schools in Hong Kong (a 10% school sample) selected
randomly by the sampling procedure. Therefore, I would like to earnestly solicit your support by: (1)
requesting the cooperation of a clerical clerk to help deliver and collect the questionnaire to and
from the target teachers in a given stamped envelope to ensure confidentiality within the time
schedule; and (2) allowing me to invite all teachers, except the NET, to complete a questionnaire
plotting the leadership styles of either current or former principal. The questionnaire can be finished
in approximately 10 minutes. The survey procedure is easy to follow and the arrangement is flexible
to minimise the teachers nuisance which may thus caused.
A high response rate is crucial to coagulate reliable data that can truly reflect the perceptions of
teachers on the leadership styles of the school principals and the current practices pertaining to
organisational learning. I am looking for your favourable response to my invitation to participate in
this survey. To facilitate the survey implementation, I would appreciate if you could send the
Reply Slip attached to this letter either by the returned envelop or fax (XXXX XXXX) on or
before 12
th
November 2011.
Should you have any enquiry, you are welcome to contact me by telephone (XXXX XXXX) or fax
(XXXX XXXX). Thank you in advance!

Yours sincerely,

____________________
Sr. Christina Cheung Suk Yuen
Candidature for an EdD in Education


204
Appendix 3 A Note of Thanks with An Itinerary

To : Mr. XXXXXX (Principal), XXXXXXXX Secondary School

From : Sr. Christina Cheung Suk Yuen

Please accept my token of thanks for helping with the survey.

The schedule of conducting the survey is as follows:
1. The 2
nd
week of November (November 6 November 12) : the mailing of questionnaires.
2. The 2
nd
week of November to the 3
rd
week of December (November 6 December 17) :
My helper or I contact your liaison clerk or whoever in-charge at school.
The liaison clerk distribute and collect the questionnaires and then put them in a prepared
envelop. All questionnaires must be kept confidential by both parties.
3. The 3
rd
week of December (December 11 December 17) : the delivery of a small gift to every
participant as a token of thanks.
4. July 2012 (to be confirmed): the sharing of the research findings with each principal of
participating schools upon the approval of the thesis.

Should there be any queries, please contact me by fax (XXXX XXXX). Many thanks.

May the love and peace of God be with you always.


Signature : _________________________________
Date : _________________________________






205
Appendix 4 Leadership Styles and Organisational Learning questionnaire

10
















206



1. (
)
50
51 65
65

5.
0 5
5 10
10 15
15 20
20 25
25

2.
0 20
20 40
41

3.





6.
0 1
1 2
2 5
5 10
10 15
15 20
20 25
25

4.










..

0 1 2 3 4
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
..

207
0 1 2 3 4
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.





..

0 1 2 3 4
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
..

208
0 1 2 3 4
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.

~ ~

209
Appendix 5 The Reply Slip

Reply Slip

To : Sr. Christina Cheung Suk Yuen

From : Mr. XXXX (Principal), XXXXXX Secondary School

Please note that I have already received XX copies of the questionnaires, and also XX bookmarks
for all respondents of the survey as a token of thanks.


Principals Signature : _____________________
Date : __________________________________

Please kindly return this reply slip by fax at XXXX XXXX upon receiving the questionnaires.



********************************************************************************

To : Sr. Christina Cheung Suk Yuen

From : Mr. Mr. XXXX (Principal), XXXXXX Secondary School

Please note that the questionnaires are ready for collection.
The exact number of survey respondents is ______.



Principals Signature : _____________________
Date : __________________________________

Please kindly return this reply slip by fax at XXXX XXXX whenever the questionnaires are ready
for collection.