Relationship Between School Principals Strategic

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

WCES 2013

Examining the Relationship between School Principals’ Strategic Leadership Actions and Organizational Learning: A Quantitative Study in Primary Schools

Mehmet Kemal Aydına [1] , Nezahat Güçlüb

aGazi University, Ankara 06500, Turkey

bGazi University, Ankara 06500, Turkey

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to investigate the relationship between public and private primary school principals’ strategic leadership actions (SLA) and organizational learning (OL). The correlational research was conducted by use of cross-sectional survey design with participants comprising 606 teachers, randomly selected as a stratified sample from 24 public and 6 private primary schools in İstanbul, Turkey. The quantitative data were collected via two scales entitled "SLQ" by Pisapia and "DLOQ" by Watkins and Marsick, then analyzed by employing means, standard deviations, Independent Samples t-Tests, Pearson’s correlation coefficient and multiple linear regression techniques. The findings revealed that there is a positive and significant relationship between SLA and OL. Transforming, political and ethical leadership actions were found the significant predicators of organizational learning. However, managing actions was not counted a significant predicator of OL at any levels. As a result, it was implicated that as the school principals use SLA more frequently, the teachers’ perceptions of OL also increase.

© 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: strategy, strategic leadership, leadership, organizational learning, learning organization.

Introduction

Educational organizations are institutions that need to improve themselves constantly in terms of their form and functions. The ability to improve and follow innovations requires creating new things. This depends on the learning ability of the organization (Cerit, 2003). In order to improve school’s learning ability and maintain learning systematically is directly proportional with putting organizational learning in the centre of organization’s culture firmly. Educational organizations that can develop their organizational learning culture can be more effective in achieving their goals and in educating people according to the requirements of the information age. Accordingly, like all other organizations, educational organizations are also expected to be learning organizations and they need to develop effective strategies which can suit to the developments and to the organizational environment (Özden, 2008). Thus, planning, developing and implementing these strategies is an important mission of the school principals who have the ability to change and transform as the leader of the organization.

In order to be successful in the post modern condition, school principals should display a set of various leadership actions and think strategically instead of displaying uniform leadership actions and linear thinking (Pisapia, 2006). Although strategic leadership is mostly associated with senior executives, it is also accepted that school principals can display strategic leadership actions in today’s leadership paradigm (Davies, 2004; Pisapia, 2009).

Review of Literature

Strategic Leadership

Leadership literature in years between 1950s and 1980s mainly focused on senior and executive managers in organizations (Yukl, 2010). After 1980s, leadership research renewed and varied, especially after the mid 1980s, the change went through from administrative leadership studies to strategic leadership studies (Boal & Hooijberg, 2000, p. 516; Yukl, 2010). According to Vera and Crossan (2004), "the change at the emphasis of the leadership studies emerged first with the introduction of Upper Echelon Theory by Hambrick and Mason in 1984". As a result, the researchers started to investigate the top executive managers’ demographic features such as age, educational background and seniority. In addition, they focused on the kind of information used by the CEOs, supposing that the strategic decisions taken by them have an effect on the effectiveness and the performance of the organization (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). From this point of view, strategic leadership theory can be said to have emerged from Upper Echelon Theory and continue to evolve with many improvements (Boal & Hooijberg, 2000, p. 516; Vera & Crossan, 2004, p. 222)

Some researchers, on the other hand, argued that strategic leadership is a leadership concept which entered the literature with the introduction of strategic management theory. Yet, there are different viewpoints about whether strategic leadership is a different leadership style or not (Altınkurt, 2007). Although Baron and Henderson (1995) stated that strategic leadership is a different leadership style, Davies (2006, p. 122) argued that strategic leadership is not a leadership style such as transformational leadership and instructional leadership, yet it is a necessary quality for every kind of leadership. Furthermore, Altınkurt (2007) described strategic leadership as an umbrella concept which includes other leadership styles. However, Thomson and Stricland (2001, pp. 430-431) defined strategic leadership as "having many leadership roles and fulfilling the suitable ones in proper time and circumstances". Similarly, Ülgen and Mirze, (2004, p. 375) explained that "strategic leaders are the ones who can display proper leadership styles with a strategic decision in proper circumstances". However, since the basic responsibility of the strategic leader, as it is stated in the definitions, is related with the maintaining survival and competitiveness of the organizations, it is more important for strategic leaders to have qualities and skills such as having a vision and putting a direction rather than other features.

School Principals as Strategic Leaders

Analyzing the organizational structure of educational organizations, one can ask the following question: Is it possible to consider the school principals as strategic leaders? In order to answer this question, first we need to understand better the place of schools in national education system. The fact that the actual production process is realized by schools makes schools strategic and indispensable component of educational systems (Altınkurt, 2007). In the center of this strategic component, there are school principals as strategic leaders. In this sense, many strategic responsibilities such as, in the first place, initiating the organizational learning at school and making it sustainable are given to the school principals. In order to fulfill these strategic responsibilities, the principals as the leaders of educational organizations can enable for their schools to main their lives effectively and to achieve competition advantage by thinking strategically and reacting actively to the changes happening around them by using a set of various leadership actions artistically and with agility at the right time and in the right condition. As a result, all these roles assigned to principals require considering school principals as strategic leaders (Altınkurt, 2007; Davies, 2004, Pisapia, 2009).

Taking the situation from a viewpoint of effective schools and school improvement literature, one can see that there is an agreement in the literature that "school principals’ characteristics have an effect on the effectiveness of the school" (Şişman, 2002, p. 41). Especially, in a significant number of research studies on effective schools, there is profound evidence showing that there are significant relations between the effectiveness of the school and the leadership characteristics of the school principal (Balcı, 2002, p. 113; Sergiovanni, 1991; Şişman, 2002). The educational leader should have a clear vision to achieve desired results and outcomes, that is, a vision which focuses on achieving targets for an effective and competitive school in global context. In order to get the necessary support for this vision, the principals should share it with every one related with the school, provide necessary resources and also have all necessary and effective leadership skills (Özdemir & Sezgin, 2002). Sergiovanni (1991) specified four leadership actions for school leaders, sequentially, leadership by bartering, building, bonding and banking. He further mentioned that "of the four approaches, leadership by bonding (ethical actions) is the cornerstone of an effective long-term leadership strategy for schools." Likewise, Pisapia (2009) proposed a set of four different leadership actions for school leaders to apply artistically and with agility in today’s chaotic organizational environment for providing effectiveness. In line with all these factors, it is essential for school principals to display strategic leadership actions within the framework of today’s leadership paradigm.

Organizational Learning

Researchers have defined learning in various ways such as "something continues as long as we interact with our environment" (Fidan & Erden, 1995, p. 170), "permanent changes that occur in individuals" (Özden, 1998), "the ability to cope with the change" (Yücel, 2007), "a complex cognitive process which can occur intentionally or unintentionally" (Hoy & Miskel, 2001, p. 41) in the literature.

If the development of individuals depends on their learning abilities, then organizational development also depends on the learning abilities of organizations. Organizations, like people, learn by paying attention to their previous mistakes and experiences. Experience-based learning basically requires individuals to change their perceptions, attitudes and behaviours and depends on the reality of learning from people who work in the same organization (Uysal, 2008). A learning organization reflects organizations’ ability to learn from their experiences, the ability to adapt themselves to the changing situations and establishing a dynamic structure which can renew itself. Organizations should also have the capacity to change their behaviour styles as other living creatures do according to the changing situations, in other words, organizations should have learning capacities as the living organisms who created them do, too (Özden, 2008, p. 147).

Researchers made various definitions of organizational learning. Garvin (1993, p. 82) states that there are a lot of definitions on organizational learning as in the definitions of learning. He also states that all the existing definitions focus on different points of learning process. Sun (2003) explained that, when learning is defined as process, the term of organizational learning is defined as the learning process of organization (p. 156). Furthermore, "organizational learning is defined as the process of detecting and correcting mistakes" (Argyris & Schön, 1996), "the process of change in cognitive structure and behaviours" (Crossan & Berdrow, 2003), "development of actions through superior knowledge and understanding" (Fiol & Lyles, 1985), "the increase in the organization’s capacity to act effectively" (Kim, 1990), "organizing daily routine in the context of effectiveness, knowledge and culture by developing ways to use the skills of organizational workforce" (Dodgson, 1993), "continuous learning and transformation (performance improvement)" (Marsick & Watkins, 2003). It can be concluded from the definitions that organizational learning is a learning process.

According to Marsick and Watkins (1999, 2003) learning takes place at four levels in organizations. These levels are classified as individual level, team-group level, organizational level and Organization-Society level (the Outcomes of Organizational Learning) (AydoÄŸdu, 2002; Uysal, 2008). This study is based on the Organizational Learning Framework by Watkins and Marsick (1999, 2003).

Schools as Learning Organizations

In the studies about management and innovation, the need for learning is clearly defined as in the following: ‘Learning is searching for the ways of developing and protecting innovation, competitiveness and productivity in unpredictable conditions. In other words, the more uncertainty is the more need for learning" (Dodgson, 1993, p. 381). It is clear that the survival of organizations in today’s constantly changing chaotic environment and conditions depends on changing their traditional structures and management styles and reorganizing themselves (Özdemir, 2000, p. 11). In this sense, organizational learning is regarded as the only way to adapt organizations successfully to the changes. In today’s global competitive conditions, since the way to compete with other organizations lies behind changing and the ability to adapt, the concept of organizational learning becomes more important. The most effective leverage of today’s organizations is to have sustainable learning culture rather than physical capital (Davies, 2004; Özden, 2008).

It is not possible for educational organizations to be isolated from these high winds of change. Individuals who have the necessary skills for the information society can only be raised by schools which have the ability to produce, share and disseminate information (Aydoğdu, 2002; Uysal, 2008). It is obligatory for today’s schools to turn into learning organizations to produce the outcomes as a requirement of the information age in which we live. Reorganizing according to the learning organization model, developing suitable management strategies for constant learning and change; directing school culture in a way to support learning are important steps which will transform our schools into learning schools (Sezik, 2005, p. 31). As a result, we can consider the concept of schools as learning organizations as "a sanguine vision that can guide the direction of future schools" in post modern condition (Silins, Mulford & Zarins, 2002).

The Relationship between Strategic Leadership and Organizational Learning

Strategic leadership is a process based on constant learning. Senge (2002, p. 363) stated that "strategic leaders should be experts of learning by valuing learning in their organizations". There is an agreement in literature that strategic leaders need to create a sustainable learning environment and an organizational culture depending on constant learning in their institutions in order to ensure the effectiveness of management (Akgemici, 2008, p. 517; Boal, 2007; Pisapia, 2009). In addition, organizational learning is accepted as "a basic strategic process for practicing successful strategic management in organizations" (Lähteenmäki, Toivonen & Mattila, 2001; Marsick & Watkins, 2003) and perceived as "the only sustainable competitive advantage in the future" (DeGeus, 1988, p. 71). To adapt the organization to the changing environment, to initiate organizational learning and make it sustainable are undoubtedly among some of the important responsibilities of strategic leaders for their organizations (Boal, 2007; Senge, 2002; Ulrich, Glinow & Jick, 1993).

A limited number of research studies have been carried out about strategic leadership and organizational learning so far. However, the majority of these studies were descriptive studies which were carried out to determine strategic leadership characteristics and behaviors in organizations (Altınkurt, 2007; Turna, 2007; Uğurluoğlu, 2009; Ülker, 2009); most of which were conducted to determine organizational learning levels and/or barriers for organizational learning (Coşkun, 2008; Kale, 2003; Kuru, 2007; Sezik, 2005; Töremen, 1999; Uysal, 2008). However, few researchers were interested in which leadership actions started and facilitated organizational learning and made it sustainable (Korkmaz, 2008; Vera & Crossan, 2004).

Korkmaz (2008) asserted that while school principals’ transformational leadership actions showed significant relations with all the dimensions of organizational learning, transactional leadership actions were not significant predictors of organizational learning. In contrast, Çakmakyapan (2009), in his study, found significant relations between transactional leadership actions and organizational learning. Vera and Crossan (2004) claimed, in their theoretical framework, that both transactional and transformational leadership actions had a positive effect on organizational learning. By viewing the literature, one can see that research studies investigating the relation between leadership and organizational learning mostly focused on transformational and transactional leadership styles (Berson, Nemanich, Waldman, Galvin & Keller, 2006). Thus, this brings out the need for investigating strategic leadership actions with a broader perspective not only transformational or transactional perspective. On the other hand, some of the researchers strongly argued that leadership has an effect on learning (Silins et al., 2002), yet there is not enough evidence which shows the relation. In some of the research studies, although it was stated that "leadership was the guiding component behind organizational learning" (Lähteenmäki et al., 2001), the researchers could not reach a precise conclusion about which leadership actions have an effect on organizational learning to what level (Vera & Crossan, 2004). As a result of this, the relation between leadership and organizational learning kept out of research subjects quite a while (Crossan & Hulland, 2002). As a result, there is a need for more empirical studies to investigate the relationship between leadership and organizational learning, which brings about the purpose and significance of this study.

In this research, the relationship between school principals’ strategic leadership actions and organizational learning was examined by utilizing Pisapia’s (2003, 2009) Strategic Leadership Theoretical Framework and Watkins and Marsick’s (1999, 2003) Organizational Learning Framework. According to Pisapia’s (2009) theoretical framework, strategic leadership means using four kinds of leadership actions (Transforming, Managing, Ethical and Political) artistically and with agility. In Watkins and Marsick’s (1999, 2003) Organizational Learning Model, learning takes place at four levels (Individual, Team/Group, Organizational and the Outcomes of Organizational Learning). In the research, the questions how much of the variance on the dimensions of organizational learning can be explained by school principals’ strategic leadership actions and which leadership actions can be more effective on organizational learning and how much of the variance on information and financial performance (outcomes of organizational learning) can be explained by strategic leadership actions are the research questions reflecting the rationale and problem situation of this research study.

Research Questions

The purpose of this research is to investigate the relationship between public and private school principals’ strategic leadership actions and organizational learning.

In order to achieve this purpose, the answers to the following questions were sought.

Is there a significant difference between perception scores of public and private primary school teachers about the frequency of school principals’ strategic leadership actions (Transforming, Managing, Ethical and Political) by school type?

Is there a significant difference between perception scores of public and private primary school teachers about the dimensions of organizational learning (Individual, Team/Group, Organizational and the Outcomes of Organizational Learning) by school type?

Is there a significant relationship between public and private primary school principals’ strategic leadership actions and the dimensions of organizational learning?

Are public and private primary school principals’ strategic leadership actions significant predicators of the dimensions of organizational learning?