See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241675457

Principals' leadership style and school climate: teachers'

perspectives from Malaysia

Article  in  The International Journal of Leadership in Public Services · November 2011

DOI: 10.1108/17479881111194198

CITATIONS READS
36 7,147

2 authors:

Adel Tajasom Zainal Ahmad

Universiti Sains Malaysia Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN)
9 PUBLICATIONS   60 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   259 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Managing Soft Skills for Personality Development View project

Business Performance in Malaysian Hotel Industry: The Relationship between Top Management Emphasis, Organizational System, Market
Orientation and Business Performance" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adel Tajasom on 27 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1747-9886.htm

IJLPS
7,4 Principals’ leadership style and
school climate: teachers’
perspectives from Malaysia
314
Adel Tajasom
School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Pulau Penang, Malaysia, and
Zainal Ariffin Ahmad
College of Graduate Studies, Universiti Tenaga Nasional,
Selangor, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between secondary school
teachers’ perception of principal leadership style (specifically transformational and transactional
leadership styles) and school climate.
Design/methodology/approach – The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire was used to assess
the transformational and transactional leadership styles of principals. Climate data were obtained
using the School Level Environment Questionnaire. The theoretical framework of this study is derived
from Theory of Leadership Style. The authors surveyed 141 teachers from 17 urban secondary schools
in northern Malaysia.
Findings – It was found that transformational leadership has an effect on four aspects of school
climate (affiliation, innovation, professional interest, and resource adequacy) whereas transactional
leadership only effects participatory decision making.
Research limitations/implications – Whereas school climate impacts student achievement and
is an important element of effective schools, it was not the focus of this study. It is recommended to use
a larger sample using teachers and administrators from multiple school districts to see if similar
findings would occur.
Practical implications – Educational leaders must realize the impact of principal leadership
behaviour on teachers and students in their journey to improvement and create a school climate that is
conducive for students to achieve at expected levels.
Social implications – There is currently increased pressure at national, state, and local levels for all
students to perform at superior standards. Both teachers and school principals are under increasing
demands to improve their school’s climate.
Originality/value – This study offers school boards and superintendents some insight into how the
principal’s leadership style may enhance the school climate.
Keywords Malaysia, Secondary schools, Principals, Teachers, Transformational leadership,
Transactional leadership, School climate
Paper type Research paper

The International Journal of
Leadership in Public Services
Vol. 7 No. 4, 2011
pp. 314-333
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1747-9886
DOI 10.1108/17479881111194198
Introduction
Leadership has been one of the most reviewed and researched topics in business and
educational areas (Hersey and Blanchard, 1984). The importance of the principal’s
leadership in high schools has become one of the main concerns for many educational
systems such as those in developing and developed countries, and Malaysia is no
exception. Most educational researchers focus on school effectiveness or performance
and the design of school climate as one of the initial factors of achievement. With this in Principals’
mind, we would like to explore the relationship between high school principal’s leadership leadership style
style and school climate within the conceptual framework of the transformational and
transactional leadership model advanced by Bass (Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio, 1990,
1994). Bass’ model of transformational and transactional leadership has a number of
implications for the current educational reform movement in Malaysia.
According to the Bass’ model, principals exhibiting transformational leadership 315
behaviours will be effective in bringing about such desired outcomes as school
commitment, job satisfaction, faculty development, improved teaching and learning,
collaborative decision making, and responsive and innovative environments. Schools
with predominantly transformational leadership models are expected to be purposeful
and collaborative, with a greater number of staff and faculty operating in empowered
and leadership roles, than those with a more top-down model of leadership (Bass et al.,
1987). The purpose of this study is to better understand the relationship between the
principal’s leadership and school climate in secondary schools in northern Malaysia,
specifically in the state of Penang.

The Malaysian secondary education system

According to the Ministry of Education, the national education system in Malaysia
under the government education institution consists of four levels: pre-school
education, primary education, secondary education and post-secondary education. The
secondary education consists of lower and upper secondary education. And the
secondary education that is available consists of: academic schools, technical and
vocational schools, and religious national schools, secondary education in Malaysia is
conducted in secondary schools (Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan). Public secondary
schools are regarded as extensions of the national schools (www.moe.gov.my/?id¼ 85&
lang¼ en). Secondary students study in five forms and each form will take one year to
complete. At the end of Form 3, the Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR, formerly
known as Sijil Pelajaran Rendah or Lower Certificate of Education) is taken by
students. However, PMR is to be abolished by 2016. Based on choice, they will be
streamed into either the Science stream or Arts stream. The Science stream is generally
more desirable. Students are allowed to shift to the Arts stream from the Science
stream, but rarely vice-versa. At the end of Form 5, the students will sit for the Sijil
Pelajaran Malaysia or the Malaysian Certificate of Education.
Co-curricular activities are compulsory at the secondary level, where all students
must participate in at least two activities for most states, and three activities for the
Sarawak region. There are many co-curricular activities offered at the secondary level,
varying at each school and each student is judged based in these areas. Competitions and
performances are regularly organized. Co-curricular activities are often categorized
under the following: uniformed groups, performing arts, clubs and societies, sports and
games. Student may also participate in more than two co-curricular activities.

Leadership revisited
There are important differences between a transactional leader and a transformational
leader. Transactional leadership is “when one person takes the initiative in making
contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things” (Burns, 1978, p. 19).
Transactional leadership acts as a social exchange between people. Apps (1994, p. 45)
IJLPS writes, “Leaders give and leaders gain; followers give and followers gain. Leaders
7,4 influence those who follow and vice versa”. There is a mutual relationship and gain.
Foster (1989) defined a transactional leader as one who interacts with his or her
employees based on exchange relationships. Transformational leadership occurs “when
one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise
one another to higher levels of motivation and morality” (Burns, 1978, p. 20). Further,
316 transformational leadership is where “the leader recognizes and exploits an existing
need or demand of a potential follower” (Burns, 1978, p. 4). But, beyond that, the
transforming leader looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher
needs, and engages the full person of the follower. The result is mutual stimulation and
elevation that “converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral
agents” (Burns, 1978, p. 4).
On the other hand, Burns (1978, pp. 19-20) argues that transactional leadership
“takes place when one person takes the initiative in making contact with others for the
purpose of an exchange of valued things either economic or political leadership
behaviours or psychological in nature”. Each party to the bargain is conscious of the
power resources and attitudes of the other. Each person recognizes the other as a
person and that their purposes are related. Thus, they have to maintain the bargaining
process in order to achieve their purposes. Leithwood and Jantzi (1990) indicated that
one of the purposes of transformational leadership is to stimulate motivation in the
context of change. A review of the educational research on leadership germinates a
huge amount of theories and approaches to explain the leadership process in the
educational setting or school climate.
Based on Burns’ (1978) model, Bass (1985) further refined the theory of transactional
and transformational leadership. According to Bass (1985), transactional leaders
clarify their followers’ responsibilities, expectations the leaders have, tasks that must
be accomplished, and the benefits to the self-interests of the followers for compliance.
Transformational leaders, on the other hand, motivate their followers to perform
beyond expectations by activating followers’ higher order needs, fostering a climate of
trust, and inducing followers to transcend self-interest for the sake of the organization
(Bass and Avolio, 1993).
In other words, results of quantitative studies of transformational leadership
indicate that transformational leadership has a significant direct and indirect effect on
school restructuring, teacher perceived student outcomes, and teachers’ personal and
professional goals. Evans (1996) studied the relationship between elementary
principals’ use of transformational leadership behaviours and organizational
outcomes. Eighteen principals and their teachers participated, using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to measure leadership behaviours and the School
Organizational Factors Questionnaire to measure teachers’ perceptions of social
organization. Evans concluded that school improvement efforts associated with school
effectiveness was directly related to principal’s leadership style. Principals with high
transformational leadership behaviours had higher social organization than schools
whose principals had low transformational behaviours.

School climate and principal’s leadership

Miskel and Ogawa (1988, p. 291) assert that school climate is the quality of
faculty-principal relations and the relative presence of two organizational dimensions
of consideration and initiation of structure. In part, climate is the personal interactions Principals’
between members and the characteristics of an organization. Climate also comprises leadership style
the structure of the organization and the perceptions of those in that organization.
Halpin and Croft (1963) chose to focus on the social component of the organizational
climate. Their theory looked at the social interaction between the principals and
teachers and not to the organizational structure. This study uses social system theory
in education as an underlying theory. 317
During the 1960s and early 1970s, when school climate research was very active,
a number of climate instruments were developed that subsequently accounted for most
of the climate research to date (Nichols, 1991). Some of the more notable instruments
include the organizational climate index by Stem and Steinhoff (1965), the learning
environment inventory by Walberg and Anderson (1971), the Charles F. Kettering
Limited School Climate Profile by Kettering (1973), the profile of a school (Likert, 1967),
and the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) (Halpin and Croft,
1963). Of these, Halpin and Croft’s OCDQ has been used most frequently employed in
elementary school research (Hoy and Miskel, 1996; Nichols, 1991).
Depending on the study, school climate might be called school environment or
school-level learning environment. School climate could mean the social system of
shared norms and expectations (Brookover et al., 1978). Rentoul and Fraser (1983,
pp. 21-39) declared that their instrument, the School Level Environment Questionnaire
(SLEQ), measured teachers’ perceptions of eight psychosocial dimensions of the
environment of primary and secondary schools: affiliation, student supportiveness,
professional interest, achievement orientation, normalization, centralization,
innovativeness, and resource adequacy. Noteworthy features of the SLEQ include its
consistency with the literature, salience to practicing teachers, specific relevance to
schools, and minimal overlap with classroom environment scales and economy.
Preliminary use of the SLEQ provided evidence of its usefulness in research into the
effects of school-level environment on classroom-level and on teacher’s pedagogical
attitudes. Relevant literature was consulted and dimensions included in the SLEQ were
chosen to characterize important aspects in the school environment, such as
relationships among teachers and between teachers and students and the
organizational structure (e.g. decision making) (Rentoul and Fraser, 1983).

Linkage between principal’s leadership style and school climate

A principal with a strong belief and value system is more effective, exhibits a greater
longevity, and receives more valuable support from the community. On the other hand,
principals who lack integrity, avoid responsibility, and blame others lack acceptance
from their employees and the community and have no staying power. Poor leaders create
an environment of neglect, mismanagement, escalation of crises, and continuation of
unacceptable behaviours and relationships throughout the school. Poor leadership in
any field can lead to failed programs (Plummer, 1995).
The Ciruli Study (2002) findings stated that teachers uniformly believe the principal
is the most “important” person at the school. Principals are important in setting
expectations for teachers and in boosting morale through positive feedback. The main
complaint about less effective principals is that they offer no positive feedback.
Whether teachers get along with and/or respect their principal seems key whether the
IJLPS teacher will stay at the school. This factor overrides other issues such as teaching
7,4 environment and whether the school is rated satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
According to Winter and Sweeney (1994, p. 12), “administrators can improve school
climate and student achievement by understanding their role in the school environment
and working to improve them. Successful principals encourage risk-taking and support
good ties. When principals back teachers, are fair and trust-worthy, and are genuinely
318 concerned about teacher growth, teachers go the extra mile”.
Robbins (2002) felt that a great follower makes a great leader. If public school
teachers perceive their principals as having the effective traits of a successful leader,
they will model themselves after their principals. As a result, future leaders in the
public school system will have the ability to create a new environment for supporting
teachers, and in turn, the teachers will be empowered to take care of the student
population which is a mutually beneficial, symbiotic and elegant relationship.
Principals need dedicated cooperation and involvement by teachers, staff, parents,
and community to create a learning environment (Kimbrough and Burkett, 1990;
Ubben et al., 2003). Once principals have established their leadership status with
teachers, students, and parents, their influence is to inspire the direction of the school’s
educational purpose (Kimbrough and Burkett, 1990). Looking at how leaders
(principals) as well as followers (staff) behave in schools is not just a role of proper
expectations and individual incentive and cognition. There is an active relationship
among these elements, with participants bringing with them a wealth of exclusive
attributes, values, needs, sentiments, motives, and cognitive skills. These conditions
create a collective sense of identity and transform “a simple aggregate of individuals
into a distinct workplace ‘personality’ or culture” (Hoy and Miskel, 1996, p. 27).
Al-Gasim’s (1991) study that found a strong relationship between an open climate
and principals who were high in both consideration and initiating structure dimensions
( John and Taylor, 2002). Similarly, Bailey (1988) concluded that school principals who
desire to improve their school climate need to exhibit both high task-oriented
behaviours and high relationship behaviours with their teachers. Other studies have
likewise underscored the importance of the leadership style of principals to the
development of a positive school climate (Bancroft, 1986; Bishop and Dagley, 1991;
Chen, 1990; Hayes, 1994; Marschilok, 1993).
The challenges brought to educational institutions by reorganization have been
mentioned as grounds for promoting transformational leadership in schools. It is
asserted that transformational leadership is appropriate to the trials of current school
restructuring. Transformational leadership has the potential for constructing high
levels of commitment (in teachers) to the multifaceted and uncertain nature of the
school restructuring agenda and for nurturing growth in the aptitudes teachers must
build up to respond positively to this plan (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1997). In other words,
challenges brought to schools by restructuring have been cited as reasons for
advocating transformational leadership in schools (Barnett et al., 2000).
The transformational leader finds ways to be successful by collaboratively defining
the essential purpose of teaching and learning and then empowering the entire school
community to become energized and focused (Sagor, 1992). Prior studies have similarly
found significant relationships between leadership style and climate. Holley (1995), for
example, concluded from her study of high school administrators and staff members of
an urban school district that leadership style of the administrators can create a climate
that is conducive and supportive of the instructional emphases in the school. Bailey Principals’
(1988) found that high school teachers in West Virginia perceived a positive
relationship between their principals’ leadership styles and the school climate. The
leadership style
findings indicated that high school principals who desire to improve their school
climate need to exhibit high task and high relationship behaviours with their teachers.
Research has been done on the principal’s effect on school climate and the ways a
principal can enhance school climate. Madison (2002) argues that there is a positive school 319
climate under the principal who perceived transformational leadership, and also finding
has been indicated that collegial leadership was strongest in line/transformational
supervisors and weakest in line/transactional supervisors However, only limited research
shows the effect principals have on the climate in small rural schools. Thus, we
hypothesized the following relationships with regards to the principal’s leadership and
school climate:
H1. Principal leadership style is positively related to school climate.
H1a. Principal transactional leadership style is positively related to school climate.
H1b. Principal transformational leadership style is positively related to school
climate.

Methods
This study is exploratory in nature as it examined the teachers’ perceived principal
leadership style and school climate in the Malaysian public secondary schools in
northern Malaysia. The population of this study consisted of teachers who were
teaching in the Malaysian public secondary schools in the urban area of Penang. The
population frame was drawn from 46 secondary schools located in Penang as listed by
Penang State Department of Education in 2005. Out of the 46 secondary schools listed,
17 targeted urban secondary schools were carefully chosen based on their addresses
listed as urban schools in Penang. The sample was seventeen (n ¼ 17) schools that
included ten (10) teachers per school. The unit of analysis was the individual teachers.
The instrument used in this research measured leadership style using the MLQ on a
five-point scale (1 ¼ not at all to 5 ¼ frequently). The MLQ was chosen as it has been
validated in numerous studies in identifying transformational and transactional
leadership of principals in school setting (Evans, 1996).
The second section measured organizational climate using the SLEQ on a four-point
scale (1 ¼ strongly agree to 4 ¼ strongly disagree). The SLEQ comprised affiliation,
work pressure, professional interest, participatory decision making, innovation, and
resource adequacy. The SLEQ was chosen as it measures teachers’ perceptions on
these eight psychosocial dimensions of primary and secondary schools (Rentoul and
Fraser, 1983). The demographic measures were listed in the third section.
Factor analysis was performed on the two scales used in this research, which were
measured perceived principal leadership style and school climate. Factor analysis
provided the structure of a set of variables and facilitated the process of data reduction
(Hair et al., 1998). In this study, firstly correlation matrix of all the variables were
computed, and then principal components analysis with Varimax rotation was used to
extract factors based on the criterion of eigenvalue equal or greater than 1.00. The
critical assumption underlying factors analysis was verified by examining anti-image
correlation, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy, and Bartlett
IJLPS test of sphericity. After conducting factor analysis, the factors identified were renamed
7,4 accordingly based on the items selected for each factor. In order to estimate the
reliability of the two scales for each factor identified, the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha
was computed on all. The Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.60-0.70 were to be used as the
lower limits of acceptability (Hair et al., 1998). Descriptive statistics of the study was
generated to provide an overview of the distribution of respondents. Regression
320 analysis was used to examine the relationship between the variables since its results
include equations that represent the best prediction of dependent variables from
independent variables.

Findings
Data were gathered through questionnaire distributed to teachers from urban secondary
public schools in Penang. As shown in Table I, of the teachers who responded to this
survey, 23.4 percent were male and 76.6 percent were female. About 66.6 percent (64) of
the respondents were between 31 and 50 years old, 18.4 percent (26) were 30 years or less,
and 14.9 percent (21) were 50 and above. In terms of ethnicity, 65.2 percent
(92 respondents) were Chinese, 22 percent (31) were Malay and just 12.8 percent (18) were
Indian, reflective of the national population. With regards to the teachers’ education
level, 81.6 percent (115 respondents) had a Bachelors degree, 17.0 percent (24) had
graduated with a Masters degree or higher, while only 1.4 percent (2) had a Diploma. The
responses also indicated that 56 percent (79 respondents) were teaching forms 3 and 4,

Variables Description Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 33 23.4

Female 108 76.6
Age 30 and less 26 18.4
31-40 57 40.4
41-50 37 26.2
Above 50 21 14.9
Ethnicity Malay 31 22
Chinese 92 65.2
Indian 18 12.8
Education Diploma 2 1.4
Bachelor 115 81.6
Master and above 24 17.0
I primarily teach___ Form 1 16 11.3
Form 2 18 12.8
Form 3 33 23.4
Form 4 46 32.6
Form 5 19 13.5
Form 6 9 6.4
Number of years as a teacher in this school 10 and less 90 63.8
11-15 25 17.7
16-20 21 14.9
21-25 1 0.7
Above 25 4 2.8
Number of years working with the current principal ,5 119 84.4
Table I. 6-10 19 13.5
Sample profile (school) 11-15 3 2.1
13.5 percent (19) teaching Form 5, 12.8 percent (18) teaching Form 2, 11.3 percent (16) Principals’
teaching Form 1, and only 6.4 percent (9) teaching Form 6. leadership style
In addition, 63.8 percent (90 respondents) had been working for ten years or less with
their current school, 17.7 percent (25) had been teaching for 11-15 years, 14.9 percent (21)
were in the range of 16-20 years, 2.8 percent (4) had been teaching for more than 25 years,
and just 0.7 percent (1) was in the 21-25 years category. About 84.4 percent
(119 respondents) had worked five years or less with the current principal, 13.5 percent 321
(19) had worked between six and ten years with the current principal, and only
2.1 percent (3) were in the 11-15 years category. The study’s sample fulfilled the
composition in terms of public secondary schools in urban Penang.
The factor analyses were diagnosed and found to have met the necessary statistical
assumptions as indicated by their high KMO measure in conjunction with the
diagonals of the anti-image correlation matrix possessing values above 0.50. Sufficient
unique loadings (for more than one extracted factor) and ability for each item to
account for a minimum of 50 percent of its variation were conditions set in retaining
the items. The examination of the three-factor solution of the principal leadership style
variables revealed a combined total variance explained of 56.85 percent (Table II).
Majority of the variation was taken up by transformational (46.95 percent), followed
by transactional (9.91 percent). The six (6) items representing the dependent variable of
school climate was also subjected to factor analysis. The factor analysis run revealed a
total variance of 67.32 percent as shown in Table III.
The items that represented each individual factor were subjected to reliability
analysis. The computation of the Cronbach’s alpha would determine the extent of
agreement between respondents for each dimension. A higher score will indicate a
higher reliability, with a range from 0 to 1. All dimensions in this study have high levels
of reliability and are well above the cut-off value of 0.70 as suggested by Nunnally and
Bernstein (1994) with the lowest registering a value of 0.69 (innovation) and the highest
0.95 (transformational). The rest of the variables transactional (0.7960), work pressure
(0.7149), professional interest (0.7834), participatory decision making (0.8812), affiliation
(0.7869), and resource adequacy (0.8066) have satisfactory alpha values. The alpha
coefficients are reported in the similar tables of factor analyses to ease the comparison
between the representative extracted factors and their reliability scores.
After passing the validity and reliability analyses, the items representing their
respective factors were then averaged. The mean was applied as a measure of central
tendency, which indicated that all variables were above their midpoint level as
indicated in Table IV. Out of the two independent dimensions, transformational was
the highest in rating (M ¼ 3.41), followed by transactional (3.36). In addition, affiliation
had the highest rating among of dependent variables (M ¼ 3.21), followed by
professional interest (M ¼ 3.05), participatory decision making (2.86), resource
adequacy (2.80), work pressure (2.68), and finally innovation (2.55). In terms of
standard deviation, all variables exhibited satisfactory deviations from the mean
values. This indicates that there is sufficient variability captured in the variables.
One-tailed Pearson correlation tests were employed to assess discriminant validity
of the posited variables. All independent variables were found not to be too highly
correlated among each other, which is the prerequisite condition for removing concerns
about multicollinearity problems prior to conducting multiple regression analysis in
the subsequent section. Staff freedom and student support did not significantly
IJLPS
Independent variable Factors
7,4
Transformational 1 2
Helps me to develop my strengths 0.818 0.155
Instills pride in me for being associated with him/her 0.815 0.146
Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission 0.806 0.217
322 Gets me to look at problems from many different angles 0.744 0.186
Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems 0.741 0.123
Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved 0.727 0.361
Articulates a compelling vision for the future 0.724 0.317
Spends time teaching and coaching 0.724 0.204
Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assigned tasks 0.717 0.274
Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose 0.698 0.166
Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others 0.696 0.242
Talks optimistically about the future 0.678 0.164
Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group 0.676 0.57
Treats me as an individual rather than just a member of the group 0.670 0.214
Talks about their most important values and beliefs regarding education 0.647 0.178
Transactional
Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations
from standards 0.251 0.792
Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts 0.388 0.740
Fails to interfere until problems become serious 20.148 0.670
Concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints
and failures 0.315 0.648
Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals
are achieved 0.095 0.646
Directs my attention toward failures to meet standards 0.316 0.631
Keeps track of all mistakes 0.490 0.593
Variance (56.86%) 46.95 9.91
Eigenvalue 10.329 2.179
Reliability 0.9456 0.8036
Table II. KMO 0.915
Factor loadings x 2(df), p , 0.01 2,163.321(0.000)
for principal
leadership style Note: Item removed as it was loaded on a different factor other than the hypothesized construct

correlate with the two independent variables of transformational and transactional

leadership. In terms of predictive validity, the matrix in Table V shows that there are a
number of significant variables which can warrant further multiple regression
analyses. Out of the two independent variables, transformational has significant
correlations across school climate factors.
In this study, multiple regression analysis was conducted on independent variables,
transformational and transactional leadership, as well as the study’s dependent
variables, school climate factors. Staff freedom and student support, both are school
climate dimensions, were tested in this analysis, but results show no significant effects
in both these independent dimensions. Owing to this, they were excluded from further
testing.
This study found transformational leadership to be positively related to school
climate dimensions except in participatory decision making and work pressure,
whereas transactional leadership (except in participatory decision making) was not
 1 2 3 4 5 6

Participatory decision making

I am encouraged to make decisions without reference to a senior staff member 0.838 0.041 20.089 20.005 0.075 0.133
Teachers are frequently asked to participate in decisions concerning
administrative policies and procedure 0.837 0.023 20.052 20.079 0.098 20.033
I have to refer even small matters to a senior staff member for a final answer 0.828 0.004 20.036 0.032 20.024 0.115
Decisions are usually made by the principal or a small group of teachers 0.798 0.009 20.107 0.005 0.014 0.041
I have very little say in the running of the school 0.758 2 0.006 0.024 0.007 0.176 20.266
Affiliation
I do not feel accepted by other teachers 0.129 0.770 0.112 0.091 0.040 0.089
I have many friends among my colleagues at this school 2 0.134 0.760 0.053 0.131 0.091 20.150
I often feel lonely and left out of things in the staff room 2 0.032 0.696 0.045 0.111 0.079 0.202
I am ignored by other teachers 0.150 0.662 20.001 0.198 20.139 0.020
I feel that I could rely on my colleagues for assistance if I should need it 2 0.002 0.607 0.071 0.334 20.029 0.066
Resource adequacy
Projectors for filmstrips, transparencies, video cassettes, and films are usually
available when needed 2 0.181 0.063 0.764 0.097 20.022 0.049
Filmstrips, transparencies, video cassettes, and films are readily available and
accessible 2 0.165 2 0.089 0.761 0.155 20.113 0.070
The school or department library has an adequate selection of books and
periodicals 0.078 0.099 0.752 0.016 0.053 0.081
The supply of equipment and resources is a adequate 2 0.040 0.012 0.721 0.005 0.054 20.019
Facilities are inadequate for catering for a variety of classroom activities and
different size learning groups 2 0.093 0.192 0.622 20.084 20.199 0.086
Professional interest
Teachers are keen to learn from their colleagues 2 0.016 0.0289 0.156 0.818 0.060 0.055
Teachers avoid talking with each other about teaching and learning 0.012 0.209 20.029 0.787 20.092 20.019
Many teachers attend in-service and other professional development courses 2 0.053 0.132 0.019 0.739 0.130 0.130
(continued)
Principals’

Factor loadings
for school climate
leadership style

Table III.
323
 7,4

324
IJLPS

Table III.
1 2 3 4 5 6

Work pressure
It is very hard to keep up with your workload 0.177 0.014 2 0.073 2 0.017 0.820 0.044
There is constant pressure to keep working 0.165 2 0.063 2 0.027 0.069 0.718 20.298
You can take it easy ands still get your work done 0.090 2 0.074 0.096 0.226 0.654 0.156
Teachers often have to work long hours to get their work done 2 0.159 0.281 2 0.129 2 0.194 0.647 20.238
Innovation
It is very difficult to change anything in this school 0.078 0.010 0.084 0.060 20.112 0.825
There is a great deal of resistance to proposals for curriculum change 2 0.018 0.108 0.096 0.083 20.051 0.821
Variance (67.320%) 15.649 11.779 8.498 5.289 4.321 3.875
Eigenvalue 5.164 3.887 2.804 1.745 1.426 1.279
Reliability 0.8812 0.7869 0.8066 0.7834 0.7149 0.6869
KMO 528
x 2(df), p , 0.01 1,969.209 (0.000)
Note: Item removed as it was loaded on a different factor other than the hypothesized construct
related to the six school climate dimensions. Hence, this study finds that transactional Principals’
leadership does not influence school climate. leadership style
Discussion
The purpose of this research study was to determine if a relationship exists between
teachers’ perceptions of their principal’s leadership style (MLQ) and school climate
(SLEQ) in selected urban secondary schools in Penang in the northern part of Malaysia. 325
The findings show that transformational leadership style has a positive effect on four
school climate dimensions, whereas transactional leadership style has no positive
effect on the school climate dimensions except in participatory decision making.
A positive relationship indicates that transactional leadership may be used to enforce a
particular teaching style via participatory decision making to ensure strict control of
classroom behaviour and the need for adherence to the prescribed curriculum that their
district has adopted.

Implication for practice

This study is able to highlight four dimensions of school climate that are positively
related to the principal’s transformational leadership style as perceived by the teachers.

Mean SD

Transformational leadership 3.41 0.76

Transactional leadership 3.36 0.65
Affiliation 3.21 0.49
Professional interest 3.05 0.50
Innovation 2.55 0.62 Table IV.
Resource adequacy 2.80 0.53 Description
Work pressure 2.68 0.44 of aggregated
Participatory decision making 2.86 0.44 variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Affiliation 1
2. Professional
interest 0.449 * * 1
3. Participatory
decision making 2 0.042 20.020 1
4. Innovation 0.171 * 0.145 * 0.024 1
5. Resource adequacy 0.220 * * 0.152 * 20.180 * 0.166 * 1
6. Work pressure 0.093 0.059 0.155 * 20.183 * 20.103 1
7. Transactional
leadership 0.120 0.274 * * 20.006 0.211 * * 20.034 2 0.099 1
8. Transformational
leadership 0.243 * * 0.324 * * 20.070 0.269 * * 0.169 * 2 0.101 0.556 * * 1
Table V.
Note: Correlation is significant at: *0.05 and * *0.01 levels Intercorrelations
IJLPS First, affiliation is the SLEQ scale that measures perceptions of close association with
7,4 fellow teachers in numerous collegial activities. These activities may include seeking
professional assistance, encouragement and acceptance, along with frequent
opportunities for sharing ideas and engaging in deep discussion. Teachers are
realizing that other teachers are a very good resource for instructional strategies and
ideas, therefore, the role of principal as a transformational leaders is to foster and
326 enhance the school climate by encouraging collegial affiliation among teachers.
Second, innovation is the SLEQ scale that measures perceptions of change.
Teachers and principals may perceive opportunities to make changes, implement new
courses and curriculum materials, and to use new and different teacher approaches
designed to encourage active involvement of student participation. Conversely,
teachers and principals may also perceive maintenance of the current situation and
historically traditional methodology. The study findings suggest that principals as
transformational leaders affect innovation by encouraging teachers to be willing to try
new instructional strategies as well as employ new educational resources other than
those supplied by the school.
Third, professional interest is the SLEQ scale that measures perceptions of
opportunities to discuss teaching methods and strategies, to attend in-service and
professional development courses, to participate in professional dialogue, and to share
an interest in the professional activities of their colleagues. Besides, expectations that
the principal not only manage daily operations of the school and the responsibilities
involved with those duties, the principal is also expected to be a transformational
leader and a resource for teachers to improve their teaching. Teachers may be secure
enough in their teaching abilities to recognize when outside resources are needed;
whereas principals may be insecure enough not to realize they do not possess effective
ideas and appropriate instructional strategies to help increase achievement with some
students. Hence, the onus is on the principal to improve their professional development
in order to assist in developing their fellow teachers.
Fourth, resource adequacy is the SLEQ scale that measures perception of support
personnel, facilities, finance, equipment, and resources that are suitable and adequate.
Principals would be able to conduct a survey of resources in the school to develop a
plan of attack; it could be immediate, intermediary, and long-term. Principals may
consider those the issues and attempt to check and repair already existing equipment.
Furthermore, after assessment of the resources principals may decide to develop a plan
for increased sharing of resources. Hence, principals as transformational leaders
perceive the need to change the method of instruction, as well as draw in outside
instructional resources, to meet the academic needs of the students.

Limitations and future research

This study is not without limitations. Whereas it is clear that school climate impacts
student achievement and is an important element of effective schools, it was not the
focus of this study. There is currently increased pressure at national, state, and local
levels for all students to perform at superior standards. Both teachers and school
principals are under increasing demands to improve their school’s climate. It is
recommended that this study be performed with a larger sample using teachers and
administrators from multiple school districts to see if similar findings would occur.
 To further understand the quantitative data, it is also suggested that a qualitative Principals’
research component be added to include the teachers’ and principals’ perspectives and leadership style
feelings about the relationship of students on school climate. Interviews with
principals, teachers, students, and students’ parents, observations of the interaction
between principals and teachers, teachers and students, and students and principals, as
well as long life studies all would provide more depth and width of understanding
about the behaviours and natures of principals and teachers that are identifiable in 327
their work to help school climate. Further research could be concentrating on private
schools in this region, because it seems that the structure of private schools in Malaysia
is commonly determined by the school principal.
The implications for educational leaders are strong. Unless school leaders employ
what research has identified in the McREL research, a meta-analysis of 30 years of
research by Marzano et al. (2005) about the responsibilities of leaders in working with
teachers and students, it is not likely that the school climate will represent all that will
be needed for students to achieve at expected levels at school. One of the most
important factors in supporting school improvement is the principal leadership
behaviour and the competency to demonstrate the critical responsibilities that will
assist teachers and students in their journey to improvement.
Whereas this study focused on transformational and transactional leadership, it is
recommended that future studies look beyond leadership styles such as distributed
leadership which is more relevant to the school setting. Distributive leadership is a new
conceptual frame of understanding leadership practice and how leadership practices
might work more effectively in the context of schools. The distributive perspective of
leadership focuses on leadership activity and draws from activity theory and
distributive cognition. Rather than trying to understand leadership through the actions
and beliefs of single leaders, distributed leadership looks at the interaction of leaders,
teachers and the situation as they influence instructional practice (www.uknow.gse.
harvard.edu/leadership/leadership002a.html).

Conclusion
This study investigated the relationship between the principal’s leadership style and
school climate in the urban secondary schools located in northern Malaysia. The
findings suggest that principals’ transformational leadership style is perceived to have
a positive effect on four dimensions of school climate, namely affiliation, innovation,
professional interest and resource adequacy whereas transactional leadership has an
effect on participatory decision making. Hence, the results of this study have shown
that transformational leadership is perceived to be more effective in enhancing the
school climate of urban secondary schools in Penang. Understanding how principals
can practice transformational leadership style is vital in fostering the proper school
climate which will contribute to improving the teachers’ quality of teaching and
students’ learning and achievement, and in turn the school performance.

References
Algasim, S.S. (1991), “The relationship between principal leader behaviour and middle school
climate in Hail District, Saudi Arabia [CD-ROM]”, Abstract from: ProQuest: Dissertation
Abstract International Item: 53/01, State University of New York, Albany, NY.
IJLPS Apps, J.W. (1994), Leadership for the Emerging Age: Transforming Practice in Adult and
Continuing Education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
7,4 Bailey, S.S. (1988), “The relationship between leadership styles of high school principals and
school climate as perceived by teachers”, Dissertation Abstracts International 50 (09),
2713A (UMI No. 9001086).
Bancroft, R.M. (1986), “Principal’s leadership style and school climate [CD-ROM]”, Abstract from:
328 ProQuest, Dissertation Abstracts International Item, 47(07).
Barnett, K., McCormick, J. and Conners, R. (2000), “A study of the leadership behaviour of school
principals and school learning culture in selected New South Wales State secondary
schools”, paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Annual
Conference, Melbourne.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990), Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Transformational leadership: a response to critiques”, in
Chemers, M.M. and Ayrnan, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives and
Directions, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, p. 480.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through
Transformational Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bass, B.M., Waldman, D., Avolio, B.J. and Bebb, M. (1987), “Transformational leadership and the
falling dominoes effect”, Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 73-87.
Bishop, H. and Dagley, D. (1991), “The relationship between leadership or principals
and organizational climate within selected middle school [CDROM]”, Abstract from:
ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts International Item 52 (03).
Brookover, W.B., Schweitzer, J.H., Schneider, J.M., Beady, C.H., Flood, P.K. and Wisenbaker, J.M.
(1978), “Elementary school social climate and school achievement”, American Educational
Research Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 301-18.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Chen, M.T. (1990), “Relationship between principals’ leadership styles and school climate in
senior industrial high schools in Taiwan, the Republic of China [CD-ROM]”, Abstract from:
ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts International Item, 51(07).
Ciruli Associates (2002), Recruitment and Retention of New Teachers: Focus Groups and Surveys
of Current and Retired Teachers, Ciruli Associates, Denver, CO.
Evans, T.J. (1996), “Elementary teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of principal leadership style
and school social organization”, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 463637,
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI.
Foster, W. (1989), “Toward a critical practice of leadership”, in Smyth, J. (Ed.), Critical
Perspectives on Educational Leadership, Falmer Press, New York, NY, pp. 39-62.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Halpin, A.W. and Croft, D.B. (1963), The Organizational Climate of Schools, Midwest
Administrative Center, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Hayes, C.A. (1994), “An analysis of the relationship between participative decision making
practice and school climates in elementary schools of the Elk Grove Unified School District
[CD ROM]”, Abstract from: Proquest File: Dissertation Abstracts International/item,
57(02).
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1984), The Management of Organizational Behaviour, 4th ed., Principals’
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
leadership style
Holley, V.I. (1995), “Relationship of administrative style toward attitudes and implementation of
arts education [CD-ROM]”, Abstract from: ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts
international item, 57(01).
Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C.J. (1996), Educational Administration: Theory Research and Practice,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 329
John, C.M. and Taylor, J.W. (2002), Leadership Style, School Climate, and the Institutional
Commitment of Teachers, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, Silang,
available at: www.aiias.edu/academics/sgs/info/v2n1/johninstitutional commitment.html
(accessed July 9, 2004).
Kettering, C.F. (1973), School Climate Imporvement: A Challenge to the School Administrator,
Englewood, CO: CFK, Ltd.
Kimbrough, R. and Burkett, C.W. (1990), The Principal Ship: Concepts and Practices,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (1997), “Explaining variation in teachers’ perceptions of principals’
leadership: a replication”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 35, pp. 312-31.
Leithwood, K.A. and Jantzi, D. (1990), “Transformational leadership: how principals can help
reform school cultures”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 1 No. 4,
pp. 249-80.
Likert, R. (1967), The Human Organization: Its Management and Value, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Madison, L.A. (2002), “The effect of supervisor level of authority and leadership style on
elementary school climate and teacher job satisfaction”, ProQuest Information and
Learning, January, p. 90.
Marschilok, E.S. (1993), “A study of relationship between leadership behaviour of high school
principals and selected areas of educational achievement [CD-ROM]”, Abstract from:
ProQuestFile: Dissertation Abstracts International Item, 54(06).
Marzano, R.J., Waters, T. and McNulty, B.A. (2005), School Leadership That Works: From
Research to Results, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
Alexandria, VA.
Miskel, C. and Ogawa, R. (1988), “Work motivation, job satisfaction, and climate”, in Boyan, N.J.
(Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Administration, Longman, New York, NY.
Nichols, R.T.W. (1991), “An analysis of organizational climate and student achievement within a
collaborative administrative model at an urban academy”, unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Plummer, L.C. (1995), “In pursuit of honest leadership”, The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,
Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 16-18.
Rentoul, A.J. and Fraser, B.J. (1983), “Development of a school-level questionnaire”, The Journal
of Educational Administration, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 21-39.
Robbins, S. (2002), The Truth About Managing People and Nothing but the Truth, Prentice-Hall
PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Sagor, R.D. (1992), “Three principals who make a difference”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 49
No. 5, pp. 13-18.
IJLPS Stem, G.G. and Steinhoff, C.R. (1965), Organizational Climate in a Public School System,
Psychological Research Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
7,4
Ubben, G.C., Hughes, L.W. and Norris, C.J. (2003), The Principal: Creative Leadership for
Excellence in Schools, 5th ed., Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
Walberg, H.J. and Anderson, G.J. (1971), “Classroom climate and individual learning”, Journal of
Educational Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 414-9.
330 Winter, J.S. and Sweeney, J. (1994), “Improving school climate: administrators are key”, NASSP
Bulletin, Vol. 78 No. 564, pp. 68-9.

Further reading
Anderson, C.S. (1982), “The search for school climate: a review of the research”, Review of
Educational Research, Vol. 52, pp. 368-420.
Anwar, Z. (1987), Islamic Revivalism in Malaysia, Pelanduk Publications, Petaling Jaya.
Azzara, J.R. (2001), “The heart of school leadership”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 58 No. 4,
pp. 62-4.
Bajunid, I.A. (1999), “Megashifts in the training of educational administrators managers:
strategic plans for the realization of Malaysia’s Vision 2020”, in Bajunid, I.A. (Ed.), Looking
at the Practices of Educational Management & Administration, Institut Aminuddin Baki,
Genting Highlands.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (2000), Technical Report, Leader Form, Rater Form, and Scoring Key
for the MLQ form 5X-Short, Center for Leadership Studies, Binghamton University,
Binghamton, NY.
Bennis, W.G. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper & Row,
New York, NY.
Bishop, H. and Dagley, D. (1991), “The relationship between leadership or principals and
organizational climate within selected middle schools [CDROM]”, Abstract from: ProQuest
File: Dissertation Abstracts International Item 52(03).
Bulach, C., Malone, B. and Castleman, C. (1994), “The influence of the principal’s leadership style,
school climate, and student achievement”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED374506).
Chemers, M.M. (1984), “The social, organizational, and cultural context of effective leadership”,
in Kellerman, B. (Ed.), Leadership: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, pp. 93-108.
Chirichello, M.P. (1997), “A study of the preferred leadership styles of principals and the
organizational climates in successful public elementary schools in New Jersey (Public
Schools) [Abstract]”, Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(3), 659).
Davis, S. and Davidson, B. (1991), 2020 Vision, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
Deal, T.E. and Peterson, K.D. (1990), The Principal’s Role in Shaping School Culture,
US Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Deal, T.E. and Peterson, K.D. (1999), Shaping School Culture: The Heart of School Leadership,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, MIT CABS, Cambridge, MA.
Deming, W.E. (1994), The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education, 2nd ed., MIT
Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA.
Denver Public Schools-Denver Classroom Teacher Association (2003), “Report on taskforce on Principals’
school and district climate”, available at: file://C:\DOCUME-1 mletiLOCALS1
TempNG6WDVUG.htm (accessed December 1, 2004). leadership style
Drake, L.A. (1997), “Perceptions of school leadership and its effect on climate in a suburban
school system”, Dissertation Abstracts International, 58-08A, 2921. Abstract from: First
Search File: Dissertation Abstracts Online.
Dyer, K.M. and Carothers, J. (2000), The Intuitive Principal, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA. 331
Edmonds, R. (1979a), “Effective schools for the urban poor”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 37,
pp. 15-27.
Edmonds, R. (1979b), “Some schools work and more can”, Social Policy, Vol. 9, pp. 28-32.
Edmonds, R. (1982), “Program of school improvement: a 1982 overview”, paper presented at the
National Institute of Education for Presentation at the Conference, The Implications of
Research for Practice, Airlie House, Warrenton, VA, February 25-27.
Emery, R. (1994), Renegotiating Family Relationships: Divorce, Child Custody, and Mediation,
Guilford, New York, NY.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967), A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Floyd, J.E. (1999), “An investigation of the leadership style of principals and its relation to
teachers’ perceptions of school mission and student achievement”, doctoral dissertation,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Fraser, B.J., Docker, J.G. and Fisher, D.L. (1989), “Differences in the psychosocial work
environment of different types of schools”, Journal of Research in Childhood Education,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5-17.
Freiberg, J.H. (1983), “Improving school climate: a facilitative process”, paper presented at the
Seminar in Organizational Development in Schools, University of La Verne, La Verne, CA.
Haynes, K.M. (1996), Positive School Climate is More Than Feel Good News Line, School
Development Programmes, American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC,
Spring (adopted from a web site).
Hendershot, D.C. (1995), “Conflicts and decisions in the search for inherently safer process
options”, Process Safety Progress, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 52-6.
House, R.J. and Mitchell, R.R. (1974), “Path-goal theory of leadership”, Journal of Contemporary
Business, Vol. 3, pp. 81-97.
Hoy, W.K. and Clover, S. (1986), Effective Supervision: Theory into Practice, Random House,
New York, NY.
Hoy, W.K. and Forsyth, P.B. (1986), Effective Supervision: Theory into Practice, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C.J. (1991), Educational Administration, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Hoy, W.K., Tarter, C.J. and Kottkamp, R.B. (1991), Open Schools Healthy Schools: Measuring
Organizational Climate, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hoy, W.K., Hoffman, J., Sabo, D. and Bliss, J. (1996), “The organizational climate of middle
schools”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 34, pp. 41-59.
Keith, S. and Girling, R.N. (1991), Education, Management, and Participation: New Direction in
Educational Administration, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Kelley, E.A. (1980), Improving School Climate: Leadership Techniques for Principals, The National
Association of Secondary School Principals, Reston, VA.
Kelner, S., Rivers, C. and O’Connell, K. (1996), Managerial Style as a Behavioural Predictor of
Organizational Climate, McBer, Boston, MA.
IJLPS Khoo, K.K. (2001), Malay Society: Transformation and Democratization, Pelanduk Publications,
Kelana Jaya.
7,4
Krause, D.G. (1997), The Way of the Leader, The Berkley Publishing Group, New York, NY.
Leithwood, K.A. (1994), “Leadership for school restructuring”, Educational Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 498-518.
Liontos, L.B. (1992), “Transformational leadership”, ERIC Digest Series No. 72, ERIC
332 Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, ED
347636.
Litwin, G.H. and Stringer, R.A. Jr (1968), Motivation and Organizational Climate, Graduate
School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston, MA.
Logan, T.P. (1998), “School leadership of the 90s and beyond: a window of opportunity for
women educators”, Educators, available at: www.advancingwomen.
comlawVsummer98ILOGAN.html (accessed July 18, 2003).
McCay, E. (2001), “The learning needs of principals”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 58 No. 8,
pp. 75-7.
Mahathir, M. (1991), Malaysia: The Way Forward, Malaysian Business Council, Kuala Lumpur.
Ministry of Education (2004), Educational Planning and Research Division, Ministry of
Education, Putrajaya.
Moos, R.H. (1974a), Evaluating Treatment Environments: A Social Ecological Approach, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Moos, R.H. (1974b), The Social Climate Scales: An Overview, Consulting Psychologists Press,
Palo Alto, CA.
Moos, R.H. (1981), Manual for Work Environment Scale, Consulting Psychologists Press,
Palo Alto, CA.
Northouse, P.G. (2001), Leadership Theory and Practice, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Norton, M.S. (1984), “What is so important about school climate?”, Contemporary Education,
Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 43-5.
Olson, L. and Jerald, C.D. (1998), “School climate”, Education Week, Vol. 17 No. 17, pp. 18-20, The
Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire for Secondary Schools (OCDQ\-RS),
Ohio State College of Education, available at: http://.coe.ohiostate.edu/whoy/instruments_
6.htm (accessed January 27, 2005).
Owens, R.G. (1995), Organizational Behaviour in Education: Adaptive Leadership and School
Reform, 8th ed., Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Pasi, R.J. (2001), “A climate for achievement”, Principal Leadership, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 17-20.
Peterson, K.D. and Deal, T.E. (1998), “How school leaders influence the culture of schools”,
Educational Leadership, Vol. 56, pp. 28-30.
Phillips, D.T. (1999), Martin Luther King, Jr. on Leadership: Inspirations and Wisdom for
Challenging Times, Warner Books, New York, NY.
Plucker, J.A. (1998), “The relationship between school climate conditions and student
aspirations”, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 240-53.
Purkey, S.C. and Smith, M.S. (1983), “‘Effective schools’: a review”, Elementary School Journal,
Vol. 83, p. 427453.
Purpel, D. (1989), The Moral and Spiritual Crisis in Education: A Curriculum for Justice and
Compassion in Education, Bergin and Garvey, Granby, MA.
Rosenbach, W.E. and Taylor, R.L. (1989), Contemporary Issues in Leadership, Westview Press, Principals’
Boulder, CO.
Rubio, J.J. (1999), “A descriptive study of principal leadership style and social system variables of
leadership style
school climate through the perceptions of elementary school teachers [Abstract]”,
Dissertation Abstracts International 60(1), 39.
Scheerens, J. (2000), Improving School Effectiveness: Fundamentals of Educational Planning,
International Institute for Education and Planning, Paris, pp. 18-19. 333
Smulyan, L. (2000), Balancing Acts: Women Principals at Work, State University of New York
Press, Albany, NY.
Tagiuri, R. (1968), “The concept of organizational climate”, in Tagiuri, R. and Litwin, G.W. (Eds),
Organizational Climate: Explorations of a Concept, Division of Research, Graduate School
of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston, MA, pp. 1-32.
Tichy, N.M. and Devanna, M.A. (1986), The Transformational Leader, Wiley, New York, NY.
Tichy, N.M. and Devanna, M.A. (1990), The Transformational Leader: The Key to Global
Competitiveness, Wiley, New York, NY.
Vaughan, A. (1979), Incredible Coincidence: The Baffling World of Synchronicity, Lippincott,
Philadelphia, PA (reprinted by Ballantine Books, New York, 1989).
Weber, G. (1971), Inner-city Children can be Taught to Read: Four Successful Schools, Council for
Basic Education, Washington, DC.
Williamson, J.C. (1986), The Educational Testing Service Test Collection Catalogue Volume 5:
Attitude Tests, Oryx Press, Phoenix, AZ.
Yukl, G.A. (1989), Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

About the authors

Adel Tajasom is a PhD candidate from Iran pursuing his studies in leadership in
the School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM). He has co-written
five books. Adel Tajasom is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
adeltajasm@yahoo.com

Zainal Ariffin Ahmad works in the College of Graduate Studies, Universiti

Tenaga Nasional and was the recipient of the Malaysian National Academic
Award for Teaching 2008 and the USM Outstanding Teacher Award 2007.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats