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

Framework
Figure 1 identifies the categories of variables and relationships used to explain
teachers' commitment to change in both studies, with the exception of out-of-
school conditions, included only in the Canadian study. Only alterable
variables are included in this framework and primary interest is in the
relationship between transformational school leadership and commitment.
However, the framework acknowledges that this relationship may be both
direct and indirect; it also acknowledges that alterable variables other than
leadership (school conditions) potentially mediate the effects of leadership and,
as well, have their own direct effects on teacher commitment. This framework
is an adaptation of the framework used by Leithwood et al. (1993). Evidence
from this study indicated: moderately strong relationships between out-of-
school conditions and leadership and between leadership and in-school
conditions (r = 0.52 and 0.53); moderate relationships between leadership and
teacher commitment (r = 0.29) and school conditions and teacher commitment
(r = 0.38).
Journal of
Educational
Administration
40,4

370

Figure 1.
A model for explaining
the development of
teachers' commitment to
change

Teachers' commitment to change

As in the Canadian studies out of which this one grew, commitment to change
was conceptualized as the functional equivalent of motivation, and theories of
motivation developed by Ford (1992) and Bandura (1986) were adapted to guide
the research. The explanation for variation in teachers' commitment to change,
according to this formulation, can be traced to four variables:
(1) Personal goals: desired future states that have been internalized by an
individual. They are an important source of teacher commitment and
must be perceived by teachers to possess certain qualities in order to
actually energize action.
(2) Capacity beliefs: psychological states such as self-efficacy, self-
confidence, academic self-concept, and aspects of self-esteem. Having
energizing goals in mind is not enough, teachers must believe
themselves capable of accomplishing these goals.
(3) Context beliefs: beliefs about whether the school environment, for
example, the school administration or the central office, will actually
provide the money, professional development or other resources that
 teachers require to successfully implement a change in their classroom Effects of
practices. transformational
(4) Emotional arousal process: its functions are to create a state of ``action leadership
readiness'' and to stimulate immediate or vigorous action and to serve to
maintain patterns of action. As teachers engage, from day to day, in
efforts to restructure, those effects will be sustained by a positive
emotional climate.
371

School conditions
Studies that inquire only about the direct effects of school leadership on student
outcomes tend to report weak or inconclusive outcomes, whereas studies that
include mediating and/or moderating variables in their designs tend to report
significant effects (Hallinger and Heck, 1996). It is also reasonable to expect
that leaders' effects on teacher commitment are indirect, as well as direct. The
indirect effects of leadership on teacher commitment may be mediated by some
of the same organizational variables shown to mediate student effects
(Donnetta, 1999).
Building directly on Hallinger and Heck's research (1998), as well as prior
work by Leithwood (1994) and Ogawa and Bossert (1995), the mediating
variables included in the Canadian study included school culture, strategies for
change, school structure, and the environment. Considerable support for the
importance of all of these variables in explaining school and leadership effects
can be found in recent reviews of the effective schools and effective leadership
literatures (e.g. Reynolds et al., 1996; Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Scheerens, 1992;
Creemers and Reetzig, 1996; Mortimore, 1993; Creemers, 1994; Leithwood and
Aitken, 1995). For measurement purposes, these variables were defined as
follows:
. School culture: the shared norms, values, beliefs, and assumptions that
shape members' decisions and practices. Norms of collaboration within
an organizational culture are likely to enhance teachers' capacity beliefs
since responsibility for accomplishing organizational goals is shared.
Widely shared beliefs about what is important in the school also may
enhance teachers' beliefs about the importance of organizational goals.
. Strategies for change: the uses made of school goals, encouragement for
teachers to develop improvement plans and to engage in professional
development, all likely to influence teachers' capacity beliefs.
. School structure: opportunities for teachers to participate in decision
making about both classroom and school-wide issues. School structure,
as defined and measured in this study, also encompasses a preference
for shared and distributed leadership, a potential influence on the extent
to which teachers believe that their school context will allow them the
power to shape change initiatives in directions they consider to be both
meaningful and feasible.
Journal of . The environment: teachers' perceptions that the school's efforts to
Educational manage the change process allows them to focus on a small number of
Administration priorities about which there is wide consensus, an important
contribution to their beliefs that the context in which they work will
40,4 support their efforts to implement change.

372 Transformational school leadership

Part of a cluster of related approaches termed ``new leadership'' by Bryman
(1992), transformational forms of leadership only recently have become the
subject of systematic empirical inquiry in school contexts. These approaches to
leadership fundamentally aim to make events meaningful, foster capacity
development and higher levels of personal commitment to organizational goals
on the part of leaders' colleagues (Yukl, 1999). Increased capacities and
commitment are assumed to result in extra effort and greater productivity
(Burns, 1978; Bass, 1995). Gronn (1996) notes the close relationship, in much
current writing, between views of transformational and charismatic leadership,
as well as the explicit omission of charisma from some current conceptions of
transformational leadership.
According to Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) ``. . . the literature on
transformational leadership is linked to the long-standing literature on virtue
and moral character, as exemplified by Socratic and Confucian typologies''
(1999, p. 181). Authority and influence associated with this form of leadership
are not necessarily allocated to those occupying formal administrative
positions, although much of the literature adopts their perspectives. Rather,
power is attributed by organization members to whomever is able to inspire
their commitment to collective aspirations, and the desire for personal and
collective mastery over the capacities needed to accomplish such aspirations.
There is considerable variation in how transformational school leadership is
conceptualized. Kowalski and Oates (1993), for instance, accept Burns' (1978)
original claim that transformational leadership represents the transcendence of
self-interest by both leader and led. Dillard (1993, p. 560) prefers Bennis' (1959)
modified notion of ``transformative leadership ± the ability of a person to reach
the souls of others in a fashion which raises human consciousness, builds
meanings and inspires human intent that is the source of power''. Leithwood's
original, six-dimensional conception (1994), reduced to five by Hipp and
Bredeson (1995), was based on Bass' (1995) two-factor theory in which
transactional and transformational leadership represent opposite ends of the
leadership continuum. Bass maintained that the two actually can be
complementary.
The most recent model of transformational leadership developed from
Leithwood's research in schools (e.g. Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood et al., 1999)
was adopted for the studies reported in this paper. This model describes three
broad clusters of leadership practices, each of which includes several more
specific dimensions:
 . Setting directions includes building a shared vision, developing Effects of
consensus about goals and priorities, and creating high performance transformational
expectations. leadership
. Developing people includes providing individualized support, offering
intellectual stimulation, and modeling important values and practices.
. Redesigning the organization includes building a collaborative culture, 373
creating and maintaining shared decision-making structures and
processes, and building relationships with parents and the wider
community.
In addition, this model of transformational leadership: illustrates how each of
these practices have been carried out in some school settings (Leithwood et al.,
1999); describes the thinking and problem-solving processes used by
transformational school leaders (e.g. Leithwood and Steinbach, 1995); and
reports the effects of this form of leadership on a wide array of organizational
and student outcomes when exercised by principals (Leithwood et al., 1996;
Leithwood et al., 1999).
This study included all dimensions of practices specified in the model except
building relationships with parents and the wider community. A more specific
definition of these leadership dimensions, along with their theoretical
contribution to teacher commitment, is as follows:
. Identifying and articulating a vision: practices aimed at identifying new
opportunities for the school, and developing, articulating, and inspiring
others with a vision of the future. When visions are value laden, they
lead to unconditional commitment; they also provide compelling
purposes for continual professional growth.
. Fostering the acceptance of group goals: practices aimed at promoting
cooperation among staff and assisting them to work together toward
common goals. Group goals that are ideological in nature are especially
helpful in developing group identity.
These first two dimensions of transformational leadership theoretically foster
teachers' commitment, primarily through their influence on personal goals: for
example, encouraging the personal adoption of organizational goals, increasing
goal clarity and the perception of such goals as challenging but achievable. The
inspirational nature of vision may also foster emotional arousal processes,
whereas the promotion of cooperative goals may positively influence teachers'
context beliefs.
. Creating high performance expectations: behaviors that demonstrate
leaders' expectations for excellence, quality, and high performance on
the part of staff (e.g. verbal persuasion). Expectations of this sort help
teachers see the challenging nature of the goals being pursued in their
school. They may also sharpen teachers' perceptions of the gap between
what the school aspires to and what is presently being accomplished.
Journal of Done well, expressions of high expectations also result in perceptions
Educational among teachers that what is being expected is also feasible.
Administration . Providing individualized support: indications of respect for staff and
40,4 concern about their personal feelings and needs (e.g. verbal persuasion).
This dimension is likely to influence context beliefs by assuring teachers
that the problems likely to be encountered while changing their
374 practices will be taken seriously by those in leadership roles and efforts
will be made to help them through those problems.
. Offering intellectual stimulation: challenges to staff to reexamine some of
the assumptions about their work and to rethink how it can be
performed (a type of feedback associated with verbal persuasion). Such
stimulation seems likely to draw teachers' attention to discrepancies
between current and desired practices and to understand the truly
challenging nature of school change goals. To the extent that such
stimulation creates perceptions of a dynamic and changing job for
teachers, it should enhance emotional arousal processes, also.
. Providing an appropriate model: setting examples for staff to follow that
are consistent with the values leaders espouse. This leadership
dimension is aimed at enhancing teachers' beliefs about their own
capacities, their sense of self-efficacy. Secondarily, such modeling may
contribute to emotional arousal processes by creating perceptions of a
dynamic and changing job.
. Strengthening school culture: behavior on the part of leaders aimed at
developing shared norms, values, beliefs, and attitudes among staff, and
promoting mutual caring and trust among staff. These behaviors
contribute to teacher commitment through their influence on teachers'
understanding of the goals being pursued by the school, and the
importance of those goals, by virtue of them being widely shared.
. Building collaborative structures: providing opportunities for staff to
participate in decision making about issues that affect them and for
which their knowledge is crucial. Such involvement contributes to
teachers' beliefs that they are able to shape the context for change to
meet their own needs.

Method
Instrument
Data were collected using a two-part, 113 item survey, each part administered
randomly to one half of the teachers in each sample school. These items were
distributed among variables in the framework as follows: transformational
leadership ± 42 items; school conditions ± 18 items; and teacher commitment ±
34 items. The independent (leadership) variables and the dependent
(commitment to change) variables were measured separately on the two
different parts of the survey to keep the independent and dependent variables
methodologically independent. The appendix includes the four highest rated Effects of
items for each variable. transformational
Using four to six-point Likert scales, this instrument asked teachers to leadership
indicate the intensity of their agreement (strongly disagree to strongly agree)
with items phrased as claims. Initially developed for use in the Canadian
studies, this instrument was modestly adapted for use in this study, for
example: 375
. For the item ``Helps us understand the relationship between our school's
vision and board or ministry initiatives'', the phrase ``board or Ministry
initiatives'' was changed to ``school sponsoring body or education
department initiatives''.
. The phrase ``implementation of new programs such as SMI, TOC, PTA,
or SAMS, etc.'' was added to the introductory part of the questionnaire.
The survey was translated from English into Chinese using the ``back
translation'' method to assure the quality of the Chinese version. Four fluent
bilingual educators were invited to check the accuracy of the translation and to
see if the wording was easily understandable by local principals and teachers.
The English version of the instrument was first translated into Chinese by an
interpreter who was formerly an experienced English teacher in a secondary
school. Based on the Chinese version, another experienced secondary school
administrator, who had his bachelor degree in translation, translated the
instrument from Chinese to English. Then the original English version and the
translated English version were compared and refinements made to the
Chinese version by two people. One of these persons was an experienced
primary school language teacher who had university training in the translation
of both Chinese and English; the other was a senior lecturer teaching
educational administration in the Hong Kong Institute of Education. Based on
their comments, modifications were made and the final Chinese version was
produced.
The survey was pilot tested for further refinement by having local
elementary school teachers complete the questionnaires individually, while
providing suggestions for how the instruments could be made clearer.

Sample
Survey responses were received from teachers in all 111 ``ordinary'' (typical
staff structure) aided primary schools invited to participate in the research.
This amounted to 2,941 teachers, 1,498 for part one and 1,443 for part two of the
survey, a response rate of 90.78 per cent. Responses from four of the 111
schools were eliminated from analysis because of low teacher response rate
(less than 60 per cent) or inadequate survey completion. The final achieved
sample included 107 schools, 1,140 teachers for part one of the survey, and 952
teachers for part two. The sum of the two valid samples was 2,092, with no
teacher answering both parts of the survey by design, or 66.9 per cent of the
total population of 3,125 teachers in the 107 schools.
Journal of The school sample (107 primary schools) was 14 per cent of the whole of the
Educational primary school population (745 primary schools) in Hong Kong and the teacher
Administration sample (2,092 primary teachers) was 10 per cent of the whole of the primary
teacher population (20,428 primary teachers). The majority of the teachers were
40,4 female (male teachers: 23.0 per cent; female teachers: 77.0 per cent) with a
median age range of 35-39 years. They had a wide range of teaching
376 experience: 6.4 per cent with 16-19 years to 33.9 per cent with 20 years or over;
27.9 per cent of junior teachers had less than six years' experience. These
characteristics of the teachers, on the whole, resembled the population as a
whole, albeit the sample consisted of a slightly greater proportion of trained
teachers and slightly smaller proportion of senior teachers. According to the
1998 teacher survey statistics (Education Department, Hong Kong, 1999) for
primary school teachers, the male to female ratio was 22.7:77.3; the average age
was 36; 86.6 per cent were trained (aided school: 89.9 per cent); 22.1 per cent
were senior teachers (aided schools: 21.9 per cent). In sum, the sample of
teachers in this study was very similar to the population of Hong Kong primary
teachers.

Data analysis
Following date entry and cleaning, a single data file was compiled for each set
of data. SPSSX was then used to calculate means, standard deviations,
percentages and correlation coefficients. The reliabilities (Cronbach's alpha) of
the scales measuring all variables in the framework were calculated. Although
not reported in this paper, construct validity was assessed by carrying out both
exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses on items included in scales
measuring all variables (for a detailed report of these results, see Yu (2000)).
While our method of allocating half of the survey questions to 50 percent of
the teachers in each school allowed for responses to a much larger set of survey
items than would have been the case otherwise, it also means that relationships
among variables in the study could only be analyzed at the school level. This,
in turn, limits the sample to 107, a number too small for the application of more
sophisticated path modeling techniques such as LISREL. So all relationships
among variables were examined using simple Pearson product correlations and
linear regression analysis.

Results
This section reports results of the survey relevant to each of four specific
research questions.

Extent of transformational leadership

Table I (first nine rows) reports the mean ratings and standard deviations of
responses for each set of items measuring transformational leadership on the
survey. See appendix for examples of individual item results as well as
reliabilities (Cronbach's alpha) for each of the scales measuring variables
included in the framework.
 Conceptual Actual Standard School Standard Effects of
Variables Responses mean mean deviations level mean deviations transformational
leadership
Transformational
leadership
Overall mean 1,140 3.5 3.74 0.88 3.75 0.48
Vision 1,140 3.5 3.73 0.98 3.74 0.53
Goal 1,140 3.5 3.68 0.99 3.69 0.52
377
Expectation 1,140 3.5 4.19 0.89 4.21 0.46
Model 1,140 3.5 3.77 0.99 3.77 0.55
Support 1,140 3.5 3.64 1.00 3.65 0.50
Stimulation 1,140 3.5 3.65 0.92 3.66 0.48
Culture 1,140 3.5 3.67 1.00 3.68 0.54
Structure 1,140 3.5 3.60 1.00 3.62 0.50
Teachers' commitment
Overall mean 952 2.5 2.78 0.31 2.79 0.14
Personal goals 952 2.5 2.77 0.32 2.78 0.13
Capacity beliefs 952 2.5 2.85 0.41 2.85 0.19
Context beliefs 952 2.5 2.64 0.39 2.64 0.18
Emotional arousal 952 2.5 2.88 0.36 2.88 0.14
In-school conditions
Overall mean 952 2.5 2.74 0.38 2.74 0.19
Culture 952 2.5 2.77 0.35 2.78 0.17
Strategies 952 2.5 2.89 0.47 2.89 0.23
Structure 952 2.5 2.64 0.50 2.64 0.24
Environment 952 2.5 2.64 0.54 2.64 0.25
Notes: Variables of transformational leadership: vision = developing a widely shared vision
for the school; goal = building consensus about school goals and priorities; expectation = Table I.
holding high performance expectations; model = modeling behaviour; support = providing Means and standard
individualized support; stimulation = providing intellectual stimulation; culture = deviations of survey
strengthening school culture; structure = building collaborative structures responses

As a composite variable, transformational leadership received a mean rating of

3.74 (on a six-point scale). All but one of the eight dimensions of
transformational leadership received very similar mean ratings (in the 3.60-3.77
range). High performance expectations, however, received a mean rating of
4.19; teachers more strongly perceived this set of leadership practices to be in
evidence than any of the others. Nevertheless, the standard deviations
associated with all eight leadership dimensions were relatively large, ranging
from 0.89 to 1.00. This indicates at least moderate variation in the perceptions
of respondents.
Among the 42 individual items measuring transformational leadership, six
received a mean rating above 4.0. These items were part of three scales
measuring holding high performance expectation, modeling behavior and
strengthening school culture. The item with the highest mean rating was:
expects us to engage in ongoing professional growth (mean = 4.36, SD = 1.13).
The remaining five items included:
Journal of . displays energy and enthusiasm for own work (M = 4.30, SD = 1.20);
Educational . holds high expectations for students (M = 4.25, SD = 1.12);
Administration . has high expectations for us as professionals (M = 4.23, SD = 1.09);
40,4 . sets a respectful tone for interaction with students (M = 4.10, SD = 1.12);
. encourages ongoing teacher collaboration for implementing new
378 programs and practices (M = 4.03, SD = 1.15).
Four items had mean ratings lower than the scale mid-point. These items
appeared in three dimensions: providing individualized support; modeling
behavior; and strengthening school culture. The lowest mean rating reported
was; is a source of new ideas for my professional learning (Mean = 3.23, SD =
1.20). Other low rated items were:
. symbolizes success and accomplishment within our profession (M =
3.39, SD = 1.29);
. models problem-solving techniques that I can readily adapt for my work
with colleagues and students (M = 3.44, SD = 1.22);
. gives high priority to developing within the school a shared set of
values, beliefs and attitudes related to teaching and learning (M = 3.44,
SD = 1.20).
While the eight dimensions of transformational leadership seem conceptually
distinct, our quantitative test of such distinctiveness suggested otherwise.
Factor analysis using principal components extraction with varimax rotation
was used in order to analyze the individual items rating transformational
leadership to estimate the number of factors measured by the specific items. As
a result of this analysis, two factors explaining 77.3 percent of the variance
were extracted. Factor 1 had an eigenvalue of 30.11 and explained 41.6 percent
of the variance. Factor 2 had an eigenvalue of 2.35 and explained a further 35.7
percent of the variance. Eighteen of the items loaded on Factor 1 with loading
ranging from moderate to high (0.68 ± 0.89), similar to the 0.68 to 0.83 loadings
of the 13 items on Factor 2. The remaining 11 items loaded almost equally on
both factors, with moderate strengths at approximately 0.60.
Factor 1 attracted most of its items from three dimensions of
transformational leadership that focus on modeling behavior, providing
indiviualized support, and building collaborative structures. All holding high
expectation items and the majority of providing intellectual stimulation and
developing a shared vision items loaded on Factor 2. Items in the strengthening
school culture dimension tended somewhat more toward Factor 1, whereas
fostering acceptance of school goals dimensions loaded almost equally on both
factors.

Teachers' commitment to change

Table I (rows 10-14) indicates a mean rating of 2.78 for the composite teacher
commitment variable, higher than the 2.5 mid-point on the four-point scale, and
a relatively small standard deviation (0.31). Among the four components of Effects of
teacher commitment, overall mean ratings were highest for emotional arousal transformational
(M = 2.88), followed by capacity beliefs (M = 2.85), personal goals (M = 2.77) leadership
and context beliefs (M = 2.64). All composite mean ratings are above the scale
mid-point.
Three individual items had mean ratings above 3.0:
(1) I expect to have opportunities to acquire more concrete knowledge about 379
how to implement new initiatives in my school and classroom (M = 3.18,
SD = 0.52);
(2) I sometimes learn new strategies by observing what colleagues do in
their work (M = 3.08, SD = 0.54);
(3) I enjoy the challenge of being an educator (M = 3.08, SD = 0.5);
Two items had mean ratings below the scale mid-point:
(1) I have adequate release time for planning and/or professional
development related to new initiatives (M = 2.20, SD = 0.70);
(2) I have access to appropriate support personnel (e.g. aids, substitutes) for
implementation of new initiatives (M = 2.48, SD = 0.70).

Teachers' perceptions of school conditions

A four-point scale was used for items measuring school conditions (1 =
strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree, along with a ``not applicable'' option).
Eighteen individual items measured the four sets of conditions described in
Table I (rows 15-18). The overall mean of school conditions was 2.74, higher
than the mid-point 2.5 on the four-point scale, and its standard deviation was
0.38. Among the four conditions, overall mean ratings were highest for
Strategies (M = 2.89), followed by culture (M = 2.77). Structure and
Environment have the same overall mean ratings (M = 2.64). All ratings were
above the mid-point of the response scale.
One individual item was rated above 3.0 (teachers in this school are willing
to help their colleagues, M = 3.17, SD = 0.59). Two individual items had mean
ratings below 2.5:
(1) In this school we often challenge one another's beliefs about education
(e.g. about teaching, learning, school work) (M = 2.27, SD = 0.58);
(2) All staff members have an opportunity to be involved in making
decisions that affect their work (M = 2.36, SD = 0.69).

Explaining variations in teachers' commitment to change

Table II reports relationships among all variables included in the study. With
respect to teachers commitment and transformational leadership, the
correlation coefficient between these composite variables was 0.328 (p < 0.01,
two-tailed). Most of the correlations between the components of these two
composite variables also were significant. The teacher commitment composite
Journal of Dependent variables
Educational Independent
variables Mean Vision
Dimensions of transformational leadership
Goal Expectation Model Support Stimulation Culture Structure
Administration
40,4 Teachers'
commitment 0.328** 0.337** 0.341** 0.276** 0.278** 0.334** 0.296** 0.310** 0.290**
Personal goals 0.273** 0.315** 0.270** 0.265** 0.239** 0.269** 0.240* 0.250* 0.200*
380 Capacity beliefs 0.309** 0.286** 0.316** 0.266** 0.274** 0.318** 0.281** 0.292** 0.290**
Context beliefs 0.337** 0.336** 0.353** 0.215* 0.304** 0.352** 0.284** 0.335** 0.345**
Emotional arousal 0.202* 0.231* 0.228* 0.214* 0.128 0.198* 0.211* 0.177 0.141
In-school conditions 0.563** 0.567** 0.562** 0.414** 0.528** 0.555** 0.502** 0.549** 0.540**
Culture 0.360** 0.362** 0.356** 0.298** 0.306** 0.361** 0.342** 0.359** 0.321**
Strategies 0.549** 0.613** 0.554** 0.552** 0.489** 0.489** 0.539** 0.473** 0.425**
Structure 0.580** 0.559** 0.581** 0.406** 0.560** 0.567** 0.525** 0.579** 0.563**
Environment 0.385** 0.357** 0.381** 0.145 0.391** 0.430** 0.278** 0.416** 0.469**
Table II.
Correlation matrix: Notes: *Pearson correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); **Pearson correlation is significant
all variables at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); Listwise N = 107

variable is significantly (0.01 level) related to all eight dimensions of

transformational leadership, correlations ranging from 0.276 to 0.341. Building
a widely shared vision and building consensus about school goals and
priorities had the strongest relationships with the composite teachers'
commitment (0.337 and 0.341). The transformational leadership composite
variable was significantly related to all four teachers' commitment components,
the strongest relationship with context beliefs and the weakest with emotional
arousal processes.
As Table II indicates, almost all relationships between transformational
leadership and school conditions are significant. Three school conditions,
culture, strategies and structure are related to all transformational leadership
variables. Correlation coefficients, ranged from 0.298 to 0.362, 0.425 to 0.613,
0.406 to 0.581 respectively (p < 0.01). Correlations between transformational
leadership and environment ranged from 0.278 to 0.469 (p < 0.01), except in the
case of the non-significant relationship with high expectations.
Relationships among the components of each composite variable were
calculated. Correlations among the eight dimensions of transformational
leadership range from 0.586 to 0.908. Correlations among the four dimensions
of teacher commitment range from 0.581 to 0.849. And correlations among the
four school conditions range from 0.507 to 0.687. These moderate to quite high
correlations create a potential problem of multicollinearity and jeopardise the
linear regression analysis to be used in explaining variation in teachers'
commitment to change. According to Tacq, ``as the correlations between
independent variables become stronger, the estimations of the partial
regression coefficients become less precise'' (Tacq, 1997, pp. 128-9). Forming a
composite index to use as the independent variable solves this problem of
multicollinearity (Steven, 1992; Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996).
Different treatments were used with the three sets of variables. First, since
the highly correlated leadership variables were used in some measurements as
independent variables, a composite score was created at the school level. Effects of
Second, since commitment variables were used as dependent not independent transformational
variables, the problem of mulitcollinearity did not exist. A composite score was leadership
created at the school level for calculations related to the teacher commitment
composite variable. Third, while school conditions were treated as independent
variables, they were only moderately correlated; most correlation coefficients at
the teacher level were below 0.60. For this reason, a composite score was only 381
created at the school level.
Linear regression analyses were used to explain variation in teacher
commitment to change. Focusing on composite variables only, results indicated
that:
. transformational leadership predicts 10.7 per cent of the variance in
teachers' commitment (F = 12.646, p < 0.001);
. school conditions predict 61.5 per cent of the variance in teachers'
commitment (F = 167.534, p < 0.001); and
. transformational leadership predicts 31.7 per cent of the variance in
school conditions (F = 48.650, p < 0.001).
When the four components of teacher commitment are treated as dependent
measures, transformational leadership (composite) explains:
. 7.4 per cent of the variance in personal goals (F = 8.434, p < 0.01);
. 9.6 per cent of the variance in capacity beliefs (F = 11.087, p < 0.001);
. 11.4 per cent of the variance in context beliefs (F = 13.464, p < 0.000) and;
. 4.1 per cent of the variance in emotional arousal (F = 4.479, p < 0.05).
When the composite index of school conditions is treated as the independent
variable, it explains:
. 36.6 per cent of the variance in personal goals (F = 60.700, p < 0.001);
. 43.0 per cent of the variance in capacity beliefs (F = 79.066, p < 0.001);
. 72.4 per cent of the variance in context beliefs (F = 275.153, p < 0.001);
. 33.6 per cent of the variance in emotional arousal (F = 53.237, p < 0.001).
Although there may be a problem in interpreting the results because of
multicollinearity, linear regression analyses were conducted with individual
transformational leadership dimensions treated as independent variables and
the composite index of teachers' commitment treated as the dependent variable.
These results indicate that the eight dimensions of transformational leadership
explained between 11.6 per cent (goals) and 7.6 per cent (holding high
performance expectations) of teacher commitment.

Summary and discussion

This study aimed to assess the contribution of transformational leadership
practices to teachers' commitment to change in primary schools in Hong Kong.
Journal of Specifically, this study asked: To what extent do Hong Kong elementary school
Educational teachers perceive their principals to be exercising transformational leadership?
Administration What is the nature and extent of teachers' commitment to change? To what
extent do teachers' perceptions of principals' transformational leadership
40,4 explain variation in teachers' professional commitments?
A representative sample of Hong Kong elementary teachers moderately
382 agreed that their principals were providing some elements of transformational
leadership. These teachers most strongly agreed that principals had high
expectations for teachers' professional growth and students' performance. But
they disagreed that principals could provide appropriate models or set good
examples for staff to follow.
There was a low level of agreement that principals made much effort to
clarify school vision or to build consensus about school goals. Teachers
disagreed that principals had a high priority to change teachers' values,
although they invited teachers' collaboration in the implementation of change.
Although teachers agreed that principals intended to provide intellectual
stimulation, they disagreed that principals were professional enough to help
teachers further develop themselves professionally. There was a low level of
agreement that their support for teachers was strong and extensive enough, the
support mainly being confined to the area of teachers' professional
development. Teachers only slightly agreed that their principals provided
leadership in building collaborative structures in schools.
All eight dimensions of transformational leadership were highly correlated
with each other, suggesting that strengthening one dimension might help
strengthen other dimensions.
There were school conditions contributing to, and detracting from, Hong
Kong teachers' commitment to change. A positive atmosphere among teachers
was created by frequent feedback from students, colleagues and parents, and
this fostered teachers' commitment. Being influenced by the strong
encouragement from colleagues, teachers were in moderate agreement that
they had confidence in implementing new initiatives. Although there was little
consensus about whether their personal goals were consistent with school
goals, teachers agreed to equip themselves by learning more about how to
implement new initiatives. In spite of the disagreement about having adequate
release time and personnel assistance, teachers moderately agreed that they
received support from their colleagues.
Results of linear regression analysis indicated that transformational
leadership explained only about 11 per cent of the variance in Hong Kong
teachers' commitment to change, whereas school conditions explained about 62
per cent. This is in contrast with results of Leithwood et al. (1993) in which
transformational leadership explained 46 per cent of the variation in teachers'
commitment and school conditions explained 39 per cent. Results of Fiol et al.'s
North American study (Fiol et al., 1999, p. 451) are closer to those of Leithwood
et al., with transformational leadership explaining 40-80 per cent of variation in
dependent variables. However, consistent with other recent evidence, the
greatest effect of transformational leadership was on teachers' context beliefs Effects of
(Earl et al., 2001; Leithwood, Jantzi and Fernandez, 1994). transformational
Among the eight dimensions of transformational leadership, two of the three leadership
direction-setting dimensions contributed most to explaining variation in
teachers' commitments, developing a widely shared vision for the school, and
building consensus about school goals and priorities. This result also replicates
evidence reported by Leithwood, Jantzi and Fernandez (1994). But the effects on 383
teacher commitment of even these sets of leadership practices were not strong.
As a whole, these results lead us to speculate that the nature of transformational
leadership's influence on teachers' commitment to change is very similar across
studies, and perhaps across cultural contexts, but the magnitude of its effects
may be quite different. Of course, this could be an artifact of sampling or other
methodological differences among studies. But it is also possible that teachers in
the Hong Kong Chinese culture are much less sensitive than their North
American counterparts to variation in principals' leadership, and much more
sensitive to organizational conditions within their schools.

Conclusion
Evidence from this study prompts two observations about how well
transformational school leadership practices travel across contexts. First,
should our results be widely replicated, they suggest that this approach to
leadership may be (to use Hartog et al.'s (1999) distinction) a ``functionally''
universal form of school leadership. That is, while the magnitude of its effects
may vary across cultures, the same patterns and relationships (e.g. among
leadership practices, between leaders and followers) tend to remain stable.
Further exploration of this suggestion seems a useful focus for future research.
Our second observation starts from descriptions, in some government
documents (e.g. Education and Manpower Branch and Education Department,
1991), of dictatorial leadership practices on the part of Hong Kong principals.
While our study did not directly test this claim, it did provide evidence of
principals engaging in at least moderate levels of (non-dictatorial)
transformational leadership. This suggests that either the government's claim
in 1991 was incorrect, or there may have been some movement in the direction
of transformational practices over the past eight years. After reviewing studies
of principals' leadership in Hong Kong, Cheng (1997) concluded the latter. This
modest shift in leadership practices may be explained by the significant
changes now challenging Hong Kong schools. As Cheng (1997) explains:
The challenges from the changing education environment, the implementation of educational
reforms, and the pursuit of new school functions and effectiveness demand our school leaders
to have a new set of leadership beliefs and competence that can transform the old and
traditional constraints, facilitate educational changes, and develop appropriate school
environment for teachers and students to work, learn, and develop effectively (p. 90).

Concerned more generally with the context in which newer forms of leadership
emerge, Shamir and Howell (1999) have proposed nine ``areas'' and 15
``conditions'' favourable to the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic
Journal of leadership, part of transformational leadership according to some formulations.
Educational Among those conditions likely to favor the emergence of transformational
Administration leadership in Hong Kong are: high demand and opportunities for change,
principal status at the top of the organization, and school goals consistent with
40,4 social values.
As compared with the influence of these specific organizational variables on
384 either the emergence of transformational leadership or its acceptance by
teachers, we speculate that the more general values associated with national
culture are a relatively weak, or quite indirect, influence. National culture might
best be viewed as a distal, indirect, influence on leadership through its
manifestation in more proximate organizational influences. That said, many of
the qualities historically valued in Chinese leaders resonate with qualities
typically attributed transformational leaders (Hartog et al., 1999; Bass and
Steidlmeier, 1999; Cleary, 1998), qualities such as kindness, benevolence, and
trustworthiness. This suggests that while leadership itself may be less
important to Hong Kong than North American teachers, transformational
forms of leadership may be equally suitable for schools in both contexts.

References
Ball, D.L. and Rundquist, S.S. (1993), ``Collaboration as a context for joining teacher learning with
learning about teaching'', in Cohen, D., Mclaughlin, M.W. and Talbert, J. (Eds), Teaching for
Understanding: Challenges for Policy and Practice, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 13-42.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bass, B.M. (1995), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York,
NY.
Bass, B.M. (1997), ``Does the transactional/transformational leadership transcend organizational
and national boundaries?'', American Psychologist, Vol. 52, pp. 130-9.
Bass, B.M. and Steidlmeier, P. (1999), ``Ethics, character, and authentic transformational
leadership behavior'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 181-217.
Bennis, W. (1959), ``Leadership theory and administrative behaviour: the problem of authority'',
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 259-60.
Bryman, A. (1992), Charisma and Leadership in Organizations, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Cheng, Y.C. (1997), ``School re-engineering in the new century: an organizational perspective'',
Educational Research Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 73-95.
Cleary, T. (1998), The Illustrated Art of War: Sun Tzu, Shambhala Publication, Boston, MA.
Creemers, B.P.M. (1994), The Effective Classroom, Cassell, London.
Creemers, B.P.M. and Reetzig, G.J. (1996), ``School level conditions affecting the effectiveness of
instruction'', School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 197-228.
Dillard, C.B. (1993), ``Leading with her life: an African-American feminist (re)interpretation of
leadership for an urban high school principal'', Educational Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 539-63.
Donnetta, V. (1999), ``Factor influencing secondary teachers' commitment to the academic welfare
of their students'', mimeo, OISE/UT, Toronto.
Earl, L., Fullan, M., Leithwood, K. and Watson, N. (2001), ``Watching and learning 2: OISE/UT Effects of
evaluation of the implementation of the national literacy and national numeracy strategies,
second annual report'', OISE/UT, Toronto. transformational
Education and Manpower Branch and Education Department (1991), ``The school management leadership
initiative: setting the framework for quality in Hong Kong schools'', The Government
Printer, Hong Kong.
Fiol, C.M., Harris, D. and House, R. (1999), ``Charismatic leadership: strategies for effecting social
change'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 449-82. 385
Fu, P.P. and Yukl, G. (2000), ``Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the United States and
China'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 251-66.
Ford, M.E. (1992), Motivating Humans: Goals, Emotions and Personal Agency Beliefs, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Gronn, P. (1996), ``From transactions to transformations: a new world order in the study of
leadership'', Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 7-30.
Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. (1996), ``Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: a
review of empirical research 1980-1995'', Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 5-44.
Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. (1998), ``Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness:
1980-1995'', School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 157-91.
Hallinger, P. and Leithwood, K. (1996), ``Culture and educational administration: a case of finding
out what you don't know you don't know'', Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 34
No. 5, pp. 98-116.
Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla and Dorfman, P.W. (1999), ``Culture
specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are the attitudes of
charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?'', Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 219-56.
Hipp, K.A. and Bredeson, P.A. (1995), ``Exploring connections between teacher efficacy and
principals' leadership behaviors'', Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 136-50.
Kowalski, J. and Oates, A. (1993), ``The evolving role of superintendents in school-based
management'', Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 380-90.
Kushman, J.W. (1992), ``The organizational dynamics of teacher workplace commitment: a study
of urban elementary and middle school'', Education Administration Quarterly, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 5-42.
Leithwood, K. (1994), ``Leadership for school restructuring'', Educational Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 498-518.
Leithwood, K. and Aitken, R. (1995), Making Schools Smarter: A System for Monitoring School
and District Progress, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Leithwood, K. and Steinbach, R. (1995), Expert Problem Ssolving: Evidence from School and
District Leaders, SUNY Press, Albany, NY.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Fernandez, A. (1993), ``Secondary school teachers' commitment to
change: the contributions of transformational leadership'', paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA, April.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Fernandez, A. (1994), ``Transformational leadership and teachers'
commitment to change'', in Murphy, J. and Louis, K.S. (Eds), Reshaping the Principalship:
Insights from Transformational Reform Efforts, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 77-98.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Steinbach, R. (1999), Changing Leadership for Changing Times,
Open University Press, Buckingham.
Journal of Leithwood, K., Menzies, T. and Jantzi, D. (1994), ``Earning teachers' commitment to curriculum
reform'', Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 38-61.
Educational Leithwood, K., Tomlinson, D. and Genge, M. (1996), ``Transformational school leadership'', in
Administration Leithwood, K., Chapman, J., Corson, D., Hallinger, P. and Hart, A. (Eds), International
40,4 Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Mortimore, P. (1993), ``School effectiveness and the management of effective learning and
teaching'', School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 290-310.
386 Ogawa, R. and Bossert, S. (1995), ``Leadership as an organizational quality'', Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 224-43.
Putnam, R.T. and Borko, H. (1997), ``Teacher learning: implications of new views of cognition'', in
Biddle, B.J., Good, T.L. and Goodson, I.F. (Eds), International Handbook of Teachers and
Teaching, Kluwer, Dordrecht, Vol. 2, pp. 1223-96.
Reynolds, D., Bollen, R., Creemers, B.P.M., Hopkins, D., Stoll, L. and Lagerweij, N.A.J. (1996),
Making Good Schools: Linking School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Routledge,
London.
Sapre, P.M. (2000), ``Realizing the potential of management and leadership: toward a synthesis of
western and indigenous perspectives in the modernization of non-western societies'',
International Journal of Leadership in Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 293-305.
Scheerens, J. (1992), Effective Schooling: Research, Theory and Practice, Cassell, London.
Sieber, S.S. (1981), Fatal Remedies: The Ironies of Social Intervention, Plenum, New York, NY.
Shamir, B. and Howell, J.M. (1999), ``Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence
and effectiveness of charismatic leadership'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 257-83.
Steven, J. (1992), Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (1996), Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd ed., Harper Collins,
New York, NY.
Tacq, J. (1997), Multivariate Analysis Techniques in Social Science Research: From Problem to
Analysis, Sage, London.
Walker, A. and Dimmock, C. (1999), ``A cross-cultural approach to the study of educational
leadership: an emerging framework'', Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 321-48.
Yukl, G. (1999), ``An evaluation of conceptual weakness in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 285-305.

Further reading
Dimmock, C. and Walker, A. (1998), ``Transforming Hong Kong's schools: trends and emerging
issues'', Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 476-91.
Yu, H. (2000), ``Transformational leadership and Hong Kong teachers' commitment to change'',
unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto.
Appendix Effects of
transformational
Mean SD Alpha
leadership
Transformational leadership (1-6)
Nature of school leadership (n = 1,140) 3.74 0.88 0.97
Developing a widely shared vision for the school 3.73 0.98 0.89
Excites us with visions of what we may be able to accomplish if we
387
work together to change our practices/programs 3.66 1.24
Gives us a sense of overall purpose 3.84 1.13
Communicates school mission to staff and students 3.86 1.16
Helps us understand the relationship between our school's vision and
school sponsoring body or education department 3.67 1.13
Building consensus about school goals and priorities 3.68 0.99 0.89
Regularly encourages us to evaluate our progress toward achieving
school goals 3.84 1.20
Provides staff with a process through which we generate school
goals 3.61 1.19
Encourages us to develop/review individual professional goals
consistent with school goals and priorities 3.71 1.13
Works toward whole staff consensus in establishing priorities for
school goals 3.57 1.28
Holding high performance expectations 4.19 0.89 0.79
Has high expectations for us as professionals 4.23 1.09
Holds high expectations for students 4.25 1.12
Expects us to engage in ongoing professional growth 4.36 1.13
Expects us to be effective innovators 3.94 1.19
Modeling behavior 3.77 0.99 0.90
Sets a respectful tone for interaction with students 4.10 1.12
Displays energy and enthusiasm for own work 4.30 1.20
Demonstrates a willingness to change own practices in light of new
understandings 3.79 1.19
Is open and genuine in dealings with staff and students 3.71 1.33
Providing individualized support 3.64 1.00 0.84
Provides resources to support my professional development 3.76 1.22
Takes my opinion into consideration when initiating actions that
affect my work 3.50 1.23
Encourages me to try new practices consistent with my own interests 3.67 1.13
Provides moral support by making me feel appreciated for my
contribution to the school 3.62 1.27
Providing intellectual stimulation 3.64 1.00 0.84
Stimulates me to think about what I am doing for my students 3.69 1.14
Encourages me to pursue my own goals for professional learning 3.80 1.19
Encourages us to evaluate our practices and refine them as needed 3.81 1.08 Table AI.
Facilitates opportunities for staff to learn from each other 3.81 1.12 Examples of highest
rated items for
Strengthening school culture 3.67 1.00 0.91 transformational
Shows respect for staff by treating us as professionals 3.77 1.33 leadership, teachers'
(continued) commitment to change
and school conditions
Journal of Mean SD Alpha
Educational
Administration Makes an effort to know students (e.g. visits classrooms,
acknowledges their efforts) 3.61 1.35
40,4 Encourages ongoing teacher collaboration for implementing new
programs and practices 4.03 1.15
Encourages the development of school norms supporting openness to
388 change 3.66 1.17
Building collaborative structures 3.60 1.00 0.83
Distributes leadership broadly among the staff, representing various
viewpoints in leadership positions 3.57 1.24
Ensures that we have adequate involvement in decision making
related to programs and instruction 3.59 1.18
Supports an effective committee structure for decision making 3.53 1.26
Provides an appropriate level of autonomy for us in our own decision
making 3.72 1.21
School conditions (1-4)
School conditions (n = 952) 2.74 0.38 0.84
Culture 2.77 0.35 0.71
Teachers in this school are willing to help their colleagues 3.17 0.59
Teachers here are not afraid to ask for help when they need it 2.83 0.61
Our discussions about implementing new programs include
consideration not just of ``how'' to implement but also ``why'' we
might move in particular directions 2.79 0.60
Written or taped records of what we learn from implementing new
practices are kept as a resource for future implementation efforts
by ourselves or our colleagues 2.90 0.59
Strategies 2.89 0.47 0.60
Our school goals and priorities are intended to encourage continuous
improvement of our programs and instruction 2.85 0.60
We are encouraged to develop action plans for improving our own
programs 2.89 0.60
Professional development is given a high priority within our school 2.93 0.66
Structure 2.64 0.50 0.68
Decision making in our school usually allows for significant
participation by teachers as well as administrators 2.55 0.76
Extensive staff participation in school-wide matters (e.g. councils,
committees) helps to reduce overload for individuals 2.72 0.68
Leadership is distributed broadly among the staff with teachers
taking responsibility for various functions within our school 2.93 0.59
All staff members have an opportunity to be involved in making
decisions that affect their work 2.36 0.69
Environment 2.64 0.54 0.73
We have reduced the potential for confusion and excessive demands
from the new policy by setting school goals that focus our efforts
on manageable changes 2.72 0.68
We work toward consensus in determining which initiatives we can
reasonably implement 2.63 0.67

(continued)
Table AI.
 Mean SD Alpha Effects of
transformational
Our school usually strikes the right balance between attempting too leadership
much and too little change. 2.56 0.63
Teachers' commitment to change (1-4)
Teachers' commitment to change (n = 952) 2.78 0.31 0.86
Personal goals 2.77 0.32 0.78 389
Implementing the new programs requires making significant changes
in how I go about doing my work 2.85 0.62
I expect to have opportunities to acquire more concrete knowledge
about how to implement new initiatives in my school and classroom 3.18 0.52
We regularly review and clarify our school goals as part of an
ongoing goal-setting process 2.79 0.59
My repertoire of teaching strategies is expanding to help implement
new programs 2.93 0.50
Capacity beliefs 2.85 0.41 0.65
Strong encouragement from colleagues and administrators whose
expertise I respect enhances my confidence for implementing the
new policy 2.96 0.61 2
My initial efforts to implement new programs have encouraged me to
continue with further implementation efforts 2.64 0.62 4
I sometimes learn new strategies by observing what colleagues do in
their work 3.08 0.54 1
Frequent and stimulating interactions with my teaching colleagues
provide encouragement to implement new initiatives 2.67 0.58 3
Context beliefs 2.64 0.39 0.84
The policies and regulations of our school facilitate implementation of
new initiatives 2.81 0.63
Our timetables/schedules facilitate accomplishment of new goals 2.85 0.56
My colleagues and I always support and encourage each other 2.92 0.57
The school administrators respect the expertise of teachers 2.81 0.62
Emotional arousal 2.88 0.36 0.77
Other teachers in my school recognize my teaching competence 2.93 0.49
I enjoy the challenge of being an educator 3.08 0.50
My students show that they appreciate me 2.99 0.52
I enjoy my job 2.95 0.61 Table AI.