PEDAGOGIGAL OR TRANFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: AN

EXPERIENCIAL PERSPECTIVE
Anthony Gioko
Professional development Teacher
Facilitator Physics and Technology
Aga Khan Academy, Mombasa

Introduction
There is no single definition of leadership that represents my perspective of
which has been agreed upon however my interpretation from the definitions has
resulted to my understanding of viewing leadership as fluid and a responsibility which
is based on taking initiatives, motivating and influencing others on their beliefs and
practices. Among the three leadership theories based on traits, behavioral and
contingency I concur with contingency theory where leaders are made by followers
and leadership will depend on context and task. This is because in various tasks and
context I have experienced followership influencing the strength of the leader.
Leadership has taken a lot of form varying from different authors such as
Marzano, Walter and Mcnulty (2007) meta analysis has identify several leadership
styles with overlap characteristics. Consequently, similar theoretical models may
either be developed or interpreted by researchers working in isolation from each other
and with different agenda and priorities. These similarity and overlap in perspectives
sometimes makes it difficult to arrive at the differences in these theoretical models.
Hence, this paper is an attempt to draw upon two leadership styles and explore their
characteristics in terms of distinctions and implications to school improvement. These
are namely pedagogical (PL) and transformational leadership (TL). The paper further
provides a rationale for coming up with a preferable framework among the two
models.

Pedagogical, Transformational leadership: The Distinctions

The two leadership styles offer some prominent distinctions in the area of
formulation, focus and relations. In terms of formulation PL is derived from the word
pedagogue meaning historically a person leading a student in a school. On the other
hand TL was formulated as an improvement of the previous styles of transmission and
transaction. It is seen as a development of the previous styles for effective leadership.
PL is focused on capacity building, and the development of human potential in
relation to teaching and learning. For the student the focus is social (support for
learning) and academic capital (culture) while for the teacher it is Intellectual
(inquiry) and professional capital (collegiality). Furthermore, PL recognizes the
cultural and social aspects of what is learned and why it is learned. Webb, (2005)
points out that the emphasis on pedagogical leadership in school is becoming
enquiring communities. In contrast TL focuses on restructuring the school by
improving school conditions and providing individual support, intellectual stimulation
and personal vision. As Day, Harris, Hadfield Tolley and Beresford (2000) establish
that TL ensures that the systems are maintained and developed, targets are formulated
and met and school ran smoothly. In addition it is concerned with modeling best
practices and important organizational values, the continuous professional
development of teachers, shared decision making and leadership (Leithwood, Jaintzi
& Steinbach, 1999). Through this process change is brought about in the cultural
context in which people work and “capacity of an organization to continuously
improve is increased” (Leithwood et. al., 1999, p. 5). TL is about commitment and
capacity, and in organizations high level of commitment and capacity to achieve the
goal is very important, however there is a variation in the degree and distribution of
power amongst the various people in the school. Moreover it is broadly focused,
hence gives insufficient attention on pupil’s outcomes (Hopkins, 2003).
Contrary, in relations PL emphasizes social covenants maintained by “loyalty,
fidelity, kinship, sense of identity, obligation, duty responsibility and reciprocity”
(Sergiovanni, 1998; p 44). Rather, the social contracts maintained by the application
of incentives and penalties. It is premised on trust that heads and teachers “have both
the capacity and the need to sacrifice their self-interest for causes they believe in and
for conceptions or the common good that they value” (Sergiovanni, p 45). TL is
mainly about translation of cooperated and government policy into practice and not
individuals (though it may have benefits for some).
Despite the distinctions raised PL as proposed by Sergiovanni (1998) appears
particularly as a form of TL which could meet current concerns to improve pupil
learning not only in terms of achievement in literacy and numeracy but also in relation
to the broader curriculum, approaches to teaching catering for diverse learning styles

2
and pupil independent learning. Sergiovanni claims that pedagogical leadership
“develop human capital by helping schools become caring, focused and inquiring
communities (p. 37). Pedagogical leaders recognize that the learning of the students is
likely to reflect the learning opportunity of teachers.

Leadership style Implication to school improvement

There is a mixed position regarding linking school leadership with school
improvement. Leadership has been seen as an agent of creating conditions which
school reforms can succeed (Hargreaves, Earl, Moore & Manning 2001), as well as a
key aspect in improving students learning (Leithwood, Karen, Lous, Anderson and
Wahlston, 2004). However, Evans and Lakomski, (2000) consider leadership as a
misplaced pillar of organizational effectiveness. In addition, Hallinger and Heck
(1996) identify a paucity of evidence linking leadership at this level to improved
student outcomes. Despite this I consider leadership as a crucial element for school
improvement since research evidence has consistently reinforced the importance of
leadership in securing and sustaining improvement (e.g. Hopkins, 2001; Van Velzen,
Miles, Elholm, Hameyer & Robins, 1985). Furthermore, it is clearly argued by
Leithwood and Jaintzi (2000) that effective leaders exercise an indirect but powerful
influence on the effectiveness of the school and on the achievement of students. In
summary, the impact of leadership upon school effectiveness and school improvement
is significant (Wallace, 2002). The following are implication based on the particular
leadership styles.

Pedagogical Leadership
PL has impacted on the school improvement through its characteristic of
capacity building, mediating and enabling environment.
PL focus on capacity building has lead to sustenance of school improvement
as Fullan (2001b) Hopkins and Jackson (2002), Mitchell and Sackney (2000) links
sustenance to capacity building. Fullan (2001a) argues the Individual and collective
learning of its members are at the heart of organizational capacity. Hence the schools
develop intellectual capital by becoming inquiring communities. As the leadership
focuses on the individuals the reception of change initiatives will be higher hence
impacting on school improvement.

3
 According to Southworth (2004) pedagogical leaders use mediating factors
such as on going workplace interaction, action planning, monitoring classroom
practice and evaluating and celebrating pupils achievement to bring about desired
improvements and promote staff professional development. Focus on the conditions
that support learning for and future students are a focus to change. Leadership, from
this perspective, resides in the human potential available to be released within an
organization. It is what Gronn (2000) terms “an emergent property of a group or
network of individuals in which group members pool their expertise” (p. 3). It
suggests a view of the school as a learning community chiefly concerned with
maximizing the achievement capacities of all those within the organization.
Pedagogical leaders concern are enabling the learning and intellectual growth
of the students it is predicated on informal teachers practice and reflection, teachers
empowerment to exercise professional responsibility and supportive judgments.
According Hopkins (2003) raising students achievement is through focusing the
teacher learning processes and condition that supports it. Intellectual capital is the
sum of what everyone in the school knows and shares that can help the school be
more effective in enhancing the learning and development of students. As the amount
of intellectual capital increases, the school capacity to add value to lives of students
increases. According to Sergiovanni (1998), the school gets smarter as a result (p. 39).

Transformational Leadership
TL has impacted on the school improvement through its characteristics of
empowering, culture change, moral purpose, vision building influencing condition
and broad focus.
The development and achievement of fundamental improvement in teaching
and learning cannot be achieved solely by the efforts of the Head Teacher but require
in addition enthusiasm , motivation and leadership displayed at different times and in
divers ways by all the staff. However argues Webb (2001) while delegated initiatives
can provide opportunities for teachers to be leaders, if there are to be experienced as
empowering rather than solely as an additional workload, it is vital that teachers want
to assume a leadership role and have the full support of head and other colleagues.
Transformational leaders allocate responsibility to those not informal leadership
position hence they are able to lead and to undertake task. Such an action will
accelerate change initiatives as the points of influence are dispersed among the staff.

4
 The transformational nature of leadership has a potential of altering the
cultural context with which people work. School improvement is linked to the cultural
change. In TL the leaders interrogates current practices and policies that negates
affect the learning environment, teacher competence and student achievement
(Dantley & Tillman, in press). Hence they pursue change by espouse a philosophical
work towards creating and sustaining an environmental where teachers and students
excel. Fullan (2001a) claims that “the single factor common to every successful
change initiative is that relationships improve [and for this reason he considers that]
leader must be consummate relationship builders with diverse people and groups” (p
5). According to Fullan (2005) effective culture establishes more interactions in which
demanding process produce both good ideas and social cohesion. In such an
environment the teacher’s motivation and commitment may be impacted leading to a
kind of extra effort which is significant for organizational change. School
improvement will succeed when the focus is on strategies on culture and ethics in the
school.
Change of culture for the better has a focus on moral values and values laden
activities of leaders and how this are disclosed to other colleagues (Duignan &
Macpherson, 1992). The sense of moral purpose is fueled by a focus on value added
“expectations for all, raising capability, pulling together and an ongoing hunger for
improvement”. (Fullan 2001b, p. 59). The power of such leaders is used with or
through other people and not control over them. Leading to a transforming role where
the subject leaders and the teachers participate in shaping and defining school
direction. The concept suggests individual empowerment and dispersion of leadership
by virtue of leadership sharing and enabling the school vision.
School visions acts like a guide to direct the school to articulate the change
initiatives developed in the school for improvement. TL offers opportunity for
building and sharing of the vision (Busher & Saran, 1994) as commitment to agreed
goals, as intellectual stimulation, as consensus building inclusivity (Gunter, 2001).
This has contributed positively to teacher’s professional commitment and Job
satisfaction possibly also for retention. However according to Earley, Evans,
Collarbone, Gold and Halpin (2002) “there is no evidence to support that on its own
it bring about anything but modest improved consequences for pupil outcome (p. 80).
In contrast Leithwood and Jaintzi (2005) conclude that TL has significant indirect

5
effect on the student academic and school engagement program. I argue that the
significance will depend on the level of TL.
Furthermore TL has been found to influence attitude, effort and in role
performance including job satisfaction organizational commitment and organizational
citizenship behavior (Ngunia, Sleegersb & Denessenc, 2006). Educational change
foster change in beliefs and practices, TL will facilitate such in school improvement.
School improvement initiates benefits from TL as it draws attention to a
broader array of school and classroom condition that may need to be changed if
learning is to improve (Leithwood et al, 2004). TL according to Bass and Avolio,
(1994), argue that it motivates the subordinate to strive to satisfy their own higher
order needs. The motivational influence towards teacher in school may influence on
the take-up of change initiatives for school improvement since TL has “added on
Value’ (Selzer & Bass, 1990) leading to performance beyond expectation.

Rational for preferable model

From the two styles I will prefer a blend of the two. From the distinction of the
model it clearly comes out that the two models have some distinctions. The
implications established has outlined complimenting elements which are offered by
the two models. On the basis of such impacts to school improvement it will only be
efficient and more effective if both the models are blended and practiced. Furthermore
my mini research on leadership styles of a principal in a school revealed a multiple of
styles in varying frequency of application based on the tasks. This will ensure the
school environment is conducive to capacity building based on the cultural changes
developed by transformational leadership. Furthermore teachers and students under
such an environment will undergo pedagogical leadership which will further develop
socially, academically and intellectually, professionally respectively. However the
proportionate of the blending will determine the benefits, if the prevailing contextual
and human resource capacity is considered. The leader should be in a position to scan
the environment and respond accordingly. As the teachers and the student capacity are
built, there will be a need to respond to cultural change to match the situation.

Conclusion
The attempt to review the two leadership styles and their implications to
school improvement has highlighted the process of exploring leadership styles.

6
Educational leadership is aimed at realizing the set goal of provision of education to
the students through learning teachers and enriched curriculum. One of the factors
though still debatable is the leadership styles. Understanding the styles is crucial for
both the leaders and the followers as they both play a role in the style. The awareness
of the implications towards school improvement will influence the choice and
enhance specific practices for efficiency and effectiveness. In practice there is an
overlap among elements of leadership styles hence knowledge of the distinctions may
influence the dominance of a particular style with respect to person, task or context.
The review drew upon insights of the clarity between PL and TL hence shaping the
rationale for preferable framework.

7
 References
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (Eds) (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness
through Transformational Leadership, Sage Publications, London.

Busher H & Saran R (1994) Towards a model of school leadership, Educational

Management and Administration, 22(1), 5± 13.

Dantley, M. E., & Tillman, L. C. (in press). Social justice and moral/transformative
leadership. In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for social justice:
Making it happen. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H. & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading schools
in times of change. Buckingham: Open University press.

Duignan P. A. & Macpherson R. J. S. (1992). Educative leadership: a practical theory

for new Administrators and managers, London: Falmer Press.

Earley, P., Evans, J., Collarbone, P., Gold, A. & Halpin, D. (2002) Establishing the
current state of school leadership in England (London, DfES).

Evans, C. & Lakomski, G. ( 2000). Doing educational administration. Amsterdam:

Pergarnon.

Fullan, M. (2001a) Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2001b). Leadership and sustainability. System thinkers in action .

Thousands Oarks: Kirwan.

Gronn, P. (2000) ‘Distributed Properties: A New Architecture for Leadership’,

Educational Management & Administration 28(3): 317–38.

Gunter, H. M. (2001) Leaders and leadership in education (London, Paul Chapman).

Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. (1996) ‘Reassessing the Principal’s Role in School
Effectiveness: A Critical Review of Empirical Research 1980–1995’,
Educational

8
Hargreaves, A. Earl, l. Moore, S. & manning, M. (2001). Learning to change:
Teaching beyond subject standards. San Francisco. Jossey Bass.

Hopkins, D. (2001) School Improvement for Real. London: Falmer Press.

Hopkins, D. (2003). Instructional leadership and school improvement In R Glatter, M,

Preedy and C. Riches & M Masterton, Understanding School management.
Milton Keynes: Open University

Hopkins, D. and Jackson, D. (2002) ‘Building the Capacity for Leading and
Learning’, in A. Harris, C. Day, M. Hadfield, D. Hopkins, A. Hargreaves and
C. Chapman (eds) Effective Leadership for School Improvement. London:
Routledge, pp. 84–105.

Leithwood, K. and Jaintzi, D. (2005).

Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2000) ‘The Effects of Transformational Leadership on

Organisational Conditions and Student Engagement’, Journal of Educational
Administration 38(2): 112–29.

Leithwood, K. Jaintzi, D. & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing Leadership for changing

Times, Buckingham: Open University.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership

research 1996 to 2005. Paper presented at AERA, Montreal, April.

Leithwood, K., Karen, S., Louis, K, Anderson, S & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Learning
from Leadership Project How leadership influences student learning The
Wallace Foundation retrieved July 21, 2006, From
http:/wallacefoundation/WF/knowledgecentre/knoledgetopic/educational
%20ership/hoelesdershipinfluences student learning

Marzano, R. J., Walter, T., Mcnulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
Research to results. Association for supervisors and curriculum developers:
California.

9
Mitchell, C. and Sackney, L. (2000) Profound Improvement: Building Capacity for a
Learning Community. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Ngunia S., Sleegersb, P., and Denessenc, E. (2006). Transformational and

Transactional Leadership Effects on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction,
Organizational Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in
Primary Schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement 17, 2, 145 – 177.

Selzer, J. and Bass, B.M. (1990), “Transformational Leadership: Beyond Initiation

and Consideration”, Journal of Management, Vol. 16, pp. 693-703.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1998). Leadership as pedagogy, capacity development and school

effectiveness, International journal of leadership education. 191): 37-46

Southworth (2004)

Van Velzen, W., Miles, M., Elholm, M., Hameyer, U. and Robin, D. (1985) Making
School Improvement Work. Leuven: ACCO.

Wallace, M. (2002) ‘Modelling Distributed Leadership and Management

Effectiveness: Primary School Senior Management Teams in England and
Wales’, School Effectiveness and School Improvement 13(2): 163–86.

Webb, R. (2001). Delegation Burden or Empowerment. Education 3-13 , 30(3), 35-

41

Webb, R. (2005) leading teachers and learning in the primary school from educative
leadership to pedagogical leadership, Educational management administration
& leadership. 33(1) 69-91

10