Best Practices in Educational Management and Leadership:

Identifying High Impact Competencies for Malaysian School Principals

by
Dr. Sazali Yusoff
Abd Razak Manaf
Rosnarizah Abdul Halim

Abstract

Competency of a leader is vital in setting the direction of an

organization, especially when the organization is a school.
Competency is a measurable characteristic of a person that is
related to effective performance in a specific job, organization or
culture. Specific competencies of a school leader are needed in
ensuring that the school under his or her care is achieving and
continue to achieve. In this paper, the word ‘competency’ is defined
as a measurable characteristic of a person that is related to
effective performance in a specific job, organization or culture. In
this context, Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB), Ministry of Education,
Malaysia has developed a Growth-Oriented Training and
Development (GOTD) framework, High Impact Training Initiatives
(HITI) and Leadership Competency Assessment (LCA) in its attempt
to produce high impact school leaders. To operationalize these
frameworks, IAB has developed an instrument (KOMPAS©) to
evaluate headteachers’ competencies based on six domains namely;
Policy and Direction, Instructional and Achievement, Change and
Innovation, People and Relationship and Resources and Operation.
In this study, IAB administered the KOMPAS© instrument
throughout the country to 315 school principals and 140 Ministry
of Education Officers . The instrument used in this has a value of α-
Cronbach of 0.96 . The result of the research shows that the high
impact competencies for school principals in Malaysia are Quality
Focus,Curriculum Focus, Problem Solving, Decision Making,
Managing Change, Financial Management, ICT Management and
Performance Management.

1
1. Introduction

Institut Aminuddin Baki, the National Institute of Education Management and

Leadership, Ministry of Education (MOE), Malaysia was built under the proclamation of
the Cabinet Committee Report 1979 which stated that in view of the education expansion in
Malaysia, it is critically important that all professional and support staff under the MOE be
given training in order to produce quality output, and it is timely that the National Institute
of Educational Staff be developed (Perakuan 98:250). In line with the proclamation of the
Cabinet Committee 1979, the Malaysian Educational Staff Training (MESTI) came to its
existence and in operation in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. MESTI was operated from its
centre in Genting Highlands, which then changed its name to Institut Aminuddin Baki
(IAB) in 1998.
Specifically, IAB focuses on the professional development of educational leaders in
Malaysia. Nevertheless, as time progresses, its function and objectives have gone through
many transformations. Among the most important objectives of IAB is to develop and
upgrade the leadership and expertise of the educational managers to all educational leaders,
and at the same time to develop the body of knowledge in the field of educational
leadership and management.
In the span of nearly 30 years of its existence, IAB has gone through many changes in
line with the education advancement at the national and international levels. Changes in the
education policy, the development of new corpus of knowledge in the field of educational
leadership and management, social trends, politics, technology and economy are all current
demands which require IAB to reflect on its role, functions and the delivery system in its
program and training.

1. Training and Development in IAB

Sustained improvements in schools will not occur without changes in the

quality of learning experiences on the part of those who run the schools.
(Fullan, 1991: 344)

The above statement depicts the importance of educational leaders to fully-equip

themselves with up-to-date and relevant knowledge, skill and aptitude in order to lead and
2
manage schools effectively. Quality learning experiences as defined by Fullan (1991) do not
deviate from the definition of ‘competency’ by HayGroup (2001:1) which states, “a
competency is a measurable characteristic of a person that is related to effective
performance in a specific job, organization or culture”. In this context, school leaders’
competencies have always been associated with the training and development they receive
in preparing themselves to be better leaders. Training and development in educational
leadership needs a systematic planning in order to ensure excellence in education institution.
This aspiration is clearly defined through a lot of initiatives by the Ministry of Education,
Malaysia (MoE) as outlined in the New Educational Development Master Plan 2006 – 2010
(PIPP). In light of this, Institut Aminuddin Baki, MoE, as the sole institution which trains
educational leaders is taking its step ahead in the attempt to produce high impact school
leaders.

2. Growth Oriented Training and Development

Based on Figure 1 below, the concept of High Impact School Leaders aspired by IAB is
developed through the Growth-Oriented Training and Development (GOTD) framework
which operationalizes the High Impact Training and Development Initiatives (HITI) and
Leadership Competency Assessment.

Figure 1: Growth Oriented Training and Development (IAB)

3
3. Leadership Competency Assessment

The Leadership Competency Assessment (LCA) is established by IAB in order to

evaluate the competencies possessed and needed by school leaders in their capacity to lead
the education institutions towards excellence. The development of the LCA instrument is
based on research and references to the world literature available, as well as numerous
discussions with educational leaders and expertise in the field. In ensuring that an education
institution is excellently led by school leaders, they have to acquire competencies in six
domains illustrated in Figure 2.

The six domains that constitute the main competencies for excellent school managers and
leaders are Policy and Direction, Instructional and Achievement, Change and Innovation,
People and Relationship, and Resources and Operation and Personal Effectiveness. The
competencies for each of these domains are depicted in Figure 3.

School
Leadership
School
Competency

Leadership
Competency

Figure 2: School Leadership Competency Model

4
4. Research and Instrumentation
In the attempt to find out the competencies acquired by primary and secondary school
leaders in Malaysia, IAB has embarked on a research project in which an instrument is
developed based on the six domains mentioned earlier. The instrument which is named
KOMPAS was developed internally based on the School Leadership Competency Model.
The instrument was administered to the sample group of secondary school leaders who have
been selected using the proportionate systematic random sampling. The method for data
collection was carried out by calling the respondents and administering the instrument at
selected venues throughout the country.
The research is designed to:
(1) evaluate the level of competencies possessed by school leaders,
(2) determine the competencies required by individual school leaders.
(3) obtain the information regarding the competencies which have forecast
growth value and strategically-important
(4) determine the high impact competencies for school leaders
High impact competency is determined through the combination of scoring given by
the principals, officers at District Education Department, State Education Department and
the Ministry of Education with predetermined weightage. The competencies that can be
categorized as high-impact when it meets the criteria described in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Determination of High Impact Competencies

5
5. Research Finding

5.1 Respondent
The instrument was administered to about 455 respondents throughout Malaysia including
Sabah and Sarawak. The breakdown of the respondents is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: No. of Respondents According to Gender and Post

Post Male Female Total

Principals 186 129 315

Officers in MoE/SEd/DEd 140

Total 455

The value of α-Cronbach for the instrument is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Values of α-Cronbach for Each Domain

Domain α-Cronbach

Policy and Direction 0.93

Instructional and Achievement 0.98

Managing Change and Innovation 0.96

Resource and Operation 0.96

People and Relationship 0.97

Personal Effectiveness 0.97

Overall Value 0.99

6
 5.3
5.2

Vision Building 3.30 Vision Building 3.81

3.67 Quality Focus 3.43

Quality Focus
3.54 Strategic Thinking 3.68
Strategic Thinking
Proactive 3.71
Proactive 3.42
Achievement Orientation 3.77
Achievement Orientation 3.52
Instructional Development 3.71
Instructional Development 3.59
Knowledge Sharing 3.70
Knowledge Sharing 3.62
Curriculum Focus 3.70
Curriculum Focus 3.63
Supervision 3.60
Supervision 3.55
Problem Solving 3.49
Problem Solving 3.67
Decision Making 3.39
Decision Making 3.68
Managing Change 3.30
Managing Change 3.73
School Improvement 3.56
School Improvement 3.67
Creativity & Innovation 3.62
Creativity & Innovation 3.62

Competencies required by school principals

Financial Management 3.70
Financial Management 3.70
Physical & Assets 3.68

N = 315, Mean = 3.57

N = 315, Mean = 3.63
Physical & Assets 3.49
ICT Management 3.48
ICT Management 3.74
Performance Management 3.51
Performance… 3.63
Capacity Building 3.58
Capacity Building 3.58
The level of competencies possessed by school principals.

Communication 3.70

The competencies required by school principals are shown in Figure 5.

Communication 3.50
External Relation 3.55
External Relation 3.44
Team Work 3.74
Team Work 3.60
Self Awareness 3.82

Figure 5: Min Score of Competencies Required by School Principal

Figure 4: Min Score of Competencies Possessed by School Principal

Self Awareness 3.47

Social Awareness 3.73
The level of competencies possessed by the school principals are shown in Figure 4.

Social Awareness 3.44

Self Management 3.69
Self Management 3.49 3.67
Social Management
Social Management 3.59

7
5.4 Score of Composite Competencies

By combining the score of school principals and superior officers at the district education,
state education department and at the ministry of education, the composite competencies
were calculated and shown in Figure 6.

64.99

64.67
64.61

64.45
63.93

63.58
63.33
63.18

63.03
62.99

62.87
62.86
62.83
62.76
62.74

62.41
62.13
62.12

61.93
61.87

61.80
61.72

61.48

61.35

61.36
60.24

Performance…
Creativity & Innovation

Physical & Assets

Achievement Orientation

Knowledge Sharing

Managing Change
Instructional Development

Self Awareness
Strategic Thinking

Social Management
Social Awareness
Financial Management
Quality Focus

Problem Solving
Vision Building

Curriculum Focus

ICT Management

Capacity Building

Team Work
Decision Making

School Improvement

External Relation

Self Management
Supervision

Communication
Proactive

Figure 6: Score of Composite Competencies of School Principal

N = 315, Mean = 62.74

6. Discussion

In general, the competencies possessed by the Malaysian school principals are at average
level, that is between 3.3 to 3.8 (1 is the lowest and 5 is the highest). Figure 4 clearly shows
that Quality Focus, Problem Solving, Decision Making, Managing Change and ICT
Management are among the lowest mean scores.
Similarly, in term of the competencies required by them are also at average level
(between 3.3 and 3.74) as shown in Figure 5. Competencies related to the Managing Change
and Innovation domain showed a higher mean scores compared to others. Quality Focus,
Problem Solving, Decision Making, Managing Change, School Improvement, Financial
Management and ICT Management are among the highest mean scores given by the
principals.

8
 Figure 7 shows the scores obtained by combining responses from school principals
and by their superiors.

64.99

64.67
64.61

64.45
63.93

63.58
63.33
63.18

63.03
62.99

62.87
62.86
62.83
62.76
62.74

62.41
62.13
62.12

61.93
61.87

61.80
61.72

61.48

61.36
61.35
60.24

Physical & Assets

Performance Management
Creativity & Innovation

Social Awareness
Financial Management
Quality Focus

Achievement Orientation

Knowledge Sharing

Managing Change
Curriculum Focus

ICT Management

Capacity Building
Instructional Development

Decision Making

External Relation

Self Management
Self Awareness
Strategic Thinking

Social Management
Problem Solving
Vision Building

Team Work
School Improvement
Proactive

Supervision

Communication
Figure 7: Composite Scores of School Leadership Competency,
(Mean=62.74, SD= 1.17, x + 0.5σ = 63.32)

To determine the high impact competency, we define it as the competency which has
composite score higher than 0.5 standard deviation above mean score (x + 0.5σ). As a
results, high impact competencies for the school principals are Quality Focus, Problem
Solving, Decision Making, Managing Change, Financial Management, ICT Management and
Performance Management.

7. Implication

7.1 The research conducted by IAB has successfully identified the high impact
competencies for the school principals based on input from various respondents. The
knowledge is now utilized by IAB by designing new training program which we call high
impact training program to school principals.

9
7.2 KOMPAS is now available online at http://www.iab.edu.my. Up till 1st June 2008,
there are 3,530 school leaders already using the instrument for the purpose of identifying
their training needs and competency profiles. This information is being used by school
leaders for the purpose of applying for courses at IAB through Online Course Registration
System (SPK Online) since the principals now have the advantage of knowing the exact
training that they required. The combinations of KOMPAS and SPK Online have made the
task of choosing the right courses for school principals much easier and more accurate. In the
near future, both systems will be integrated so that it can automatically suggest the most
suitable course/training for the school principal to apply.

7.3 KOMPAS system enables IAB to published the national/state training and
development index for school leaders starting from 2008. This index serves as the indicator
of the training and development needs for school leaders. The information also gives IAB an
annual training needs assessment (TNA) and can be used to plan the most needed training
and development initiatives in the future.

7.4 For the individual school leaders, KOMPAS can help them to plan and manage their
own continuous professional development and to create professional learning community to
enhance their knowledge and skills. IAB will publish a Manual of Resources for Malaysia
School Leaders as a guide later in the year.

8. Conclusion

The IAB initiatives in developing the Growth Oriented Training and Development
which is operationalized through School Leadership Competency Assessment, High Impact
Leadership Training Initiatives and School Leadership Competency Model as well as
Competency Profiling using KOMPAS enables IAB to design and develop training and
development program school leaders in our country in more effective and efficient way.

10
References:
Amin, S. and Abdul Razak, M. (2008). ‘Competency based training and development’, Paper
presented in Oman – Malaysia Educational Seminar, Muscat, Oman.

Anderson, M. E. (1991). How to train, recruit, select, induct, and evaluate leaders for
American Schools. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management College of
Education University of Oregon

Bonder, A. (2003). A blueprint for the future: Competency-based management in HRDC.

Unpublished presentation, HRDC Canada. [on-line] : Retrieved on Dec. 12, 2007 at
http://web.ebscohost.com.

Boyatzis, R. (1982). The competent manager. New York :Wiley.

Bush, T. (1998). The national professional qualification for headship: the key to effective
school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 18(3): 321- 333.

Bush, T. and Glover, G. (2004). Leadership Development: Evidence and beliefs. Nottingham,
UK: National College for School Leadership.

Collarbone, P. (2005) “Touching tomorrow: remodelling in English Schools” The Australian

Economic Review. 38 (1): 75-82.

Collarbone, P. (2005b). Remodelling leadership, North of England Speech. Retrieved Mei 10,
2008, from http://www.tda.gov.uk/upload/ resources/doc/n/ neec_conf_collarbone2.doc.

Dalin, P. (1998). School development: Theories and strategies. London: Cassel.

Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their
organizations survive and thrive. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. 4th edition. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Fullan, M. (2007). Leading in a system of change, Paper prepared for conference on systems
thinking and sustainable school development, Utrecht, February, OISE/University of
Toronto

Fullan, M., Miles, M., and Taylor, G. (1980). Organisational development in schools: the
state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 50: 121-183.

Hughes, R., Ginnet, R. C., and Curphy, G. (1993). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of
experience. NY: Irwin.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. California: Corwin Press

Incorporated.

11
Hallinger, P. (2004). Meeting the challenges of cultural leadership: The changing role of
principals in Thailand. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 25(1):
61-73.

Hallinger, P, & Bridges, E. (1997). Problem-based leadership development: Preparing

educational leaders for changing times. Journal of School Leadership. 7: 1 – 15

Hanapiah. (1980). Developing a strategy for training programmes of school principals in

Malaysia: What can be learned from American experience. Unpublished Dissertation
(Ph.D.), University of California, Santa Barbara.

Hargreaves, A. and Fink, D. (2005). Sustainable leadership. New York: Jossey-Bass

Hierbert, M. and Klatt, B. (2001). The encyclopedia of leadership. New York : McGraw-Hill.

Hodgkinson, C. (1996). Administrative philosophy: Values and motivations in administrative

life. New York: Elsevier Science.

Hughes, Richard L; Ginnett, Robert C.; and Curphy, Gordon J. (1993). Assessing leadership
and measuring its effects. In Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience.
Homewood, III: Irwin.

Hussein Ahmad. (2007). Towards world class leadership model of principals for schools in
the future. Kertas Kerja dibentangkan di Seminar Nasional Pengurusan dan Kepimpinan
Pendidikan Kali Ke-14. Institut Aminuddin Baki. Genting Highlands.

Ibrahim, A. B. (2007). Not Scions of Lesser Heritage and Ancestry: The reawakening of
educational leadership in the emerging world order and the reshaping of educational
landscapes. Kertas Ucap Utama The 5th Asean/Asian Symposium On Educational
Management And Leadership. Kuala Lumpur.

Krejcie, R.V. and Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational & Psychological Measurement, 30: 607-610.

Khair, M. Y. (2007). Latihan berorientasikan pertumbuhan untuk pemimpin pendidikan.

Pahang: Institut Aminuddin Baki.

Leithwood, K. (1995). Preparing school leaders: What works? Connections! .3(3): 1-8.

Leithwood, K., Chapman, J., Corson, D., Hallinger, P. and Hart, A. (1996). International
handbook on educational leadership and administration. London. Kluwer

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson S. and Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied Research and
Educational Improvement.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED485932).

Leithwood, K., Begley, P. T. and Cousins, J. B. (1994). Performance appraisal and selection
of school leaders: Selection processes and measurement issues. In Developing Expert
Leadership for Future Schools. London: Falmer Press.
12
MacBeath, J. (2004). The leadership file. Glasgow: Learning Files Scotland.

Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and
management development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

Murphy, J. and Louis, K.A. (1994) Reshaping the principalship insights from
transformational reform efforts, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Murphy, J. and Beck, L. (1995) School-based management as school reform: Taking stock.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Northouse, P. (2001). Leadership: Theory and practice (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory, 2 nd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nur Anuar, A. M., Faridah, A. H., Rohana, Z., Monoto, M. K. and Nur Fakhriyyah, E. M.
(2006). Kajian penilaian graduan NPQH. Kertas kerja dibentangkan di Seminar Nasional
Pengurusan dan Kepimpinan Pendidikan Kali ke-13. Institut Aminuddin Baki. Genting
Highlands.

OFSTED. (2000). Improving city schools. London: Office for Standards in Education.

Olson, O. (2007). Getting serious about preparation. Education Week. V27 (3) [on-line]:
http://web.ebscohost.com, Retrieved on the 12th June 2008.

Ruhaya, H., Rosnarizah, A. H. and Shariffah, S. J. (2006). Penilaian program latihan IAB:
Satu tinjauan terhadap program NPQH Kohort 9/2005. Kertas Kerja dibentangkan di
Seminar Nasional Pengurusan dan Kepimpinan Pendidikan Kali ke-13. Institut
Aminuddin Baki. Genting Highlands.

Sekaran, U. (2000). Research methods for business, 3 rd Ed. New York : John Wiley

Spencer, L., McClelland, D., and Spencer, S. (1990). Competency Assessment Methods.
Hay/McBer Research. Boston.

Swanson, R.A. and Holton III, E.F. (2001). Foundations of human resource development.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

13