DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP AND COMMITMENT OF … · Proceedings of the International Conference on...

Proceedings of the International Conference on Education towards Global Peace

30 November – 01 December 2016

Kulliyyah of Education, International Islamic Education Malaysia

http://www.iium.edu.my/capeu 2016/index.php/proceedings/

1

DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP AND COMMITMENT OF TEACHERS

BASED ON COHORT OF GENERATIONS

Marlia Jamail, Yahya Don

Universiti Utara Malaysia

[email protected]

Distributed leadership is a practical necessity in the education system as teachers and school

leaders can establish cooperation and interaction to improve student achievement. Study on

distributed leadership is still in its infancy and needs to be increased.The aim of this study is to

identify the relationship between distributed leadership and commitment of teachers based on

cohort of generations in secondary schools. This study involved 298 respondents that consisted

of teachers and was conducted using the cross-sectional quantitative survey approach. The study

used the Spillane (2006) distributed leadership theory that connected the interaction among

leaders, followers and situation. The Distributed Leadership Survey (DLS) which was introduced

by Davis in 2009 consists of 37 items which are divided into 7 dimensions, are used in this study.

Meyer and Allen’s (1997) Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment Scales (ACNCS)

instrument was used to measure teachers’ commitment level. The selection of schools and

respondents were random and also used the purposive sampling. Three hypotheses were built and

tested using statistical methods of Pearson correlation test, independent sample t-test, ANOVA

and calculated using SPSS version 21. The findings showed a significant relationship between

distributed leadership and teachers’ commitment towards the organization. The principal’s

dimensions of leadership and dimensional vision of the school were found to be frequently

practised. In terms of commitment towards the organization, normative commitment dimension

was the highest. There was no significant difference between distributed leadership and

commitment of teachers based on cohorts of generations and gender of the teachers. Based on

these findings, it is proposed that school leaders should practice distributed leadership to teachers

in addition to share the school's vision clear and easily understood by the school community,

regardless of the gender and cohort of generations.

Keywords : Distributed leadership, commitment of teachers, cohort of generations

INTRODUCTION

Malaysia Education Blueprint (MEB) 2013-2025 is moving towards its second wave which is

implemented for a period of 5 years from 2016 until 2020. The main agenda of Ministry of

Education (MOE) in upgrading the quality of education in Malaysia is to focus on enhancing the

quality of teacher leadership at every school in Malaysia. The basis has been clearly stated in the

fifth shift of MEB 2013-2025 that is: “To Ensure High Performing School Leaders In Every

School”.

In 2009, several research papers, concept papers and also reflection papers were

presented in the 16th National Proceeding Seminar of Education Leadership and Management,

organized by Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB) with the theme: ‘Distributed Leadership’. Seven





2

years have passed and now, in the second sub-wave of MEB which focuses on teachers and

school leaders, the education system should be prepared to shift towards distributed leadership in

2016-2020.

According to Rosnarizah Abdul Halim and Zulkifli Abdul Manaf (2009), school

principals are no longer considered as principals who bear all responsibilities in schools and such

trend has changed towards a common culture of shared responsibilities. Hopkins and Jackson

(2002) stated that an idle leadership can be shown in an individual, and needs to be fully utilized

by an organization. Spillane, Harvenson and Diamond (2001) defined clearly that distributed

leadership is a group of individuals who leads and drive the other members of the organization in

various stages for an instructional change. Baharuddin Yaacob (2009) argued that if distributed

leadership can be practised in schools, improvement in school performance can be achieved and

thus can identify new and capable leadership ability among teachers. Rosnarizah Abdul Halim

and Zulkifli Abdul Manaf (2009) concluded that the effectiveness of distributed leadership is

dependent on the willingness of an organization to accept changes in its organizational

development. Such leadership does not only depend on relationships and trusts between

members of the organization, it also depends on the dissemination pattern and its purposes.

According to Spillane and Diamond (2007), studies on distributed leadership are still in

its infancy. Jamalul Lail Abdul Wahab, Aida Hanim A. Hamid, Surayati Zainal & Md Fuad Md

Rafik (2013) confirmed the opinion of Spillane and Diamond (2007), by stating that relevant

studies on distributed leadership in Malaysia are still in its infancy. Although the idea of

distributed leadership has long existed (Gronn, 2008), a wider and thorough study should be

implemented carefully on the influence of distributed leadership. Organization for Economic Co-

operation and Development, OECD (2008), stated that there is still lack of study on the

implementation of distributed leadership, in accordance with the opinion of Hulpia, Devos and

Rosseel (2009).

Jamalul Lail Abdul Wahab et al. (2013) suggested that studies on distributed leadership

in Malaysia should be increased, in order to contribute valuable findings on distributed

leadership in schools. This is in line with the recommendations made by Harris (2008) which

stated that although there have been empirical studies on distributed leadership through certain

mechanisms that influence organizational commitment, they are still insufficient. Spillane,

Camburn and Pareja (2007) mentioned that there are vast developments of literature reviews on

distributed leadership. However, empirical studies on the basic research are still in short supply.

The concept of distributed leadership is still in its early days (Davis, 2009). Lack of such studies

in the context of distributed leadership in Malaysian education is also supported by Rosnarizah

Abdul Halim and Hussein Haji Ahmad (2015) as well as Shakir, Issa & Mustafa (2011).

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Since the term distributed leadership is still new and isolated to the school administrators, further

research should be conducted in depth to see how far the approach of distributed leadership can

be developed optimally at schools (Jamalul Lail Abdul Wahab et al., 2013). Therefore, it is

hoped that this study can contribute relevant data and empirical findings to the needs of





3

distributed leadership in Malaysian schools, to achieve the fifth shift in MEB 2013-2025, which

is to ensure high performing school leaders in every school.

Without the undivided commitment and dedication from teachers and school leaders, the

objective of the education system in Malaysia which is to have a world class education, will be

difficult to realize. Several findings from organizational commitment studies have shown

positive relationship on organizational efficiency and work performance, and negative

relationship with the staff absenteeism (Mowday, Porter & Steers, 1982). Relevant exposures

and methods should be given to teachers and principals in order to make changes in fostering a

culture of excellence in schools.

According to Hulpia, Devos and Rosseel (2009), the relationship between distributed

leadership and organizational commitment still remain unexplored by scholars. Therefore, this

study is taking the opportunity to meet gaps in research needs for empirical data on distributed

leadership and organizational commitment. This indirectly will meet the expectations to the

aspiration of MOE for empowering teachers to the fourth and fifth shifts in MEB 2013-2025.

This should be viewed from the perspective of strengthening distributed leadership among

teachers, and to enhance teaching profession through organizational commitment.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The selection of a charismatic and capable leader has often become the criteria in improving the

quality of an organization. That is a current example of heroic leadership which is no longer

relevant to be applied in schools. Although such selection is proven to be able to enhance the

quality of an organization, unfortunately it cannot sustain long enough if the leader is transferred

to other organization. Indirectly, it will also affect the organizational commitment which has

been fostered by the leader.

Spillane (2006) provided a perspective that distributed leadership is categorized into two

main aspects: leader-plus aspect and practice aspect. Leadership is not centralized on a sole

individual anymore. Gronn (2002) suggested that it may become necessary to switch from a

genre of heroic leadership model towards distributed leadership. Harris (2013), on the other

hand, stated that the practical distribution of task should be widened to more individuals in an

organization through distributed leadership. Currently, leaders in schools began to seek for a new

leadership approaches such as distributed leadership (Hartley, 2007).

Distributed Leadership

Distributed leadership is a debatable leadership issue (Harris, 2008; Gronn, 2000). It is proven to

be effective in enhancing the development and achievement of a school (Gronn, 2003; Harris,

2008; 2009; Spillane, Halverson & Diamond, 2004; Spillane & Sherer, 2004). It is being greatly

discussed in the context of education, even in Malaysia (Baharuddin Yaacob, 2009; Yusof Boon

& Yahzanon Tahir, 2013; Jamalul Lail Abdul Wahab et al., 2013; Nurulaim Asyikin Zakaria &

Suhaida Abdul Kadir, 2013; Siva Rabindarang, Khuan & Khoo, 2014; Rosnarizah Abdul Halim

& Hussein Ahmad, 2015). Harris (2008) stated that the recent empirical study on distributed





4

leadership practice is the result of a study done by Spillane et al. (2001). In addition, there are

studies which confirm that distributed leadership is able to enhance organizational commitment

(Hulpia, Devos & Rosseel, 2009; Nguyen, 2013; Yusof Boon & Yahzanon Tahir, 2013;

Hairuddin Mohd Ali & Salisu, 2015).

Distributed leadership, as defined by Spillane (2005), is a result of an interaction between

leaders, followers and situation. Harris, Brown and Abbot (2006) stated that distributed

leadership, in terms of its practicality, is a transition from top-down organizational hierarchy

leadership model to a leadership form that emphasize on shared leadership by members of the

organization. Teachers play a great role in sharing leadership with the principal, which will

enhance their organizational commitment and motivation. This in turn can improve students’

achievements in schools.

Spillane (2005) stated that distributed leadership is the current antidote or more

accurately, a series of antidotes to the genre concept of heroic leadership. Heroic leadership

refers to a leader who is able to implement and administer every task individually through

charismatic characteristics. It is already considered as obsolete and outdated. The scope of

educational management which is vastly developing cannot be managed efficiently by a principal

who is individually charismatic. This is why Hartley (2007) explained the reason for the

emergence of distributed leadership in schools’ organization. Hartley (2007) identified two main

factors of why distributed leadership has become a major focus. Firstly, the failure of a

charismatic hero and secondly, the complex demands and expectations placed on the shoulders

of school leaders. Fullan (2001) also confirmed that an established institution has leaders in

every level of the organization. Harris and Muijs (2003) found that leadership should involve

every member of the organization.

Teacher leadership is one of the dimensions in distributed leadership. A teacher can lead

other teachers in the effort of developing situational participation and cooperation in all activities

as well as instructional programs. Studies have proven that a principal plays a vital role in

developing the capacity of teacher leadership ability in schools. This is related to the teacher

leadership factor which is able to influence the existence of effective schools (Harris & Muijs,

2003; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001; Frost & Durrant, 2002; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach,

1999).

Hailan Salamun (2010) stated that power does not refer to the position of an individual in

an organization. It is actually an individual’s ability to influence other people to work together in

achieving given objectives. Recognizing an individual’s expertise is also a type of power that can

be used to achieve organizational objectives. Teacher leader is a teacher who manages to

influence the behaviors, beliefs or actions of other individuals and is able to enhance the capacity

of achievement and success of students (Lester, 2008). Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001) named

such teacher leadership ability as ‘the sleeping giant of teacher leadership’ and it only exists if

the principal pays great attention to teacher leadership.

School organizations should explore various ways in order not to be too formal and

teachers should be given more opportunities to lead (Davis, 2009). According to Mayrowetz,





5

Murphy, Louis and Smylie (2007), a leader in an organization will remain in one position of a

formal organizational structure and it is difficult to change. Changes in organizational structure

from bottom to top will make teachers feel uncomfortable (Copland, 2003; Macbeath, 2005;

Neumann & Simmons, 2000). It can lead to conflict when it comes to decision-making about

school matters (Hulpia, Devos & Rosseel, 2009). Therefore, Davis (2009) stated that it is the

main responsible of a principal to know his organizational situations and act on it continuously in

order to develop the capacity of the teachers. Teachers should be given more opportunities to

become leaders in various fields in schools so that they can cross over the knowledge boundaries

on leadership practices in schools.

Jamalul Lail Abdul Wahab et al. (2013) mentioned that in distributed leadership, not

everyone will make a decision. However, each individual can contribute to the process of

decision-making through their knowledge and expertise. The subordinate involvement concept in

decision-making is one of the significant principles in a practice of total quality management

(Karia & Ahmad, 2000). Distributed leadership can be seen as an effective leadership practice

which can be implemented in schools. This is due to its positive relationships with various

aspects of school effectiveness. Jamalul Lail Abdul Wahab et al. (2013) found that studies

related to distributed leadership in Malaysia are still in its infancy. It requires further study in

order to determine the extent of distributed leadership approach that can be optimized.

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment can be referred to as how far a commitment level is displayed to be

measured by its belonging to the organization. Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982) defined

commitment as the determination of an individual to identify himself with the organization and

its involvement in the organization. They also stated that employees who have high commitment

level, usually able to reduce the exchange-rate of job-hopping, lateness, absenteeism and able to

enhance work satisfaction in an organization. These factors will directly or indirectly increase

work performance and achievement as well as being committed continuously with the

organization. Such employees will strive harder in order to achieve the objectives of the

organization.

A committed teacher has a very close relationship with not only to students’

achievements, school effectiveness, teacher satisfaction, job performance, but also to teacher

absenteeism (Singh & Billingsley, 1998). Commitment is very important because a teacher with

a low commitment level often puts his own interest first instead of his duties and responsibilities

(Abdul Ghani Kanesan, 2009). Hussein Mahmood (2005), on the other hand, found that highly

committed teachers and communities are able to enhance the achievement of organizational

objectives and its effectiveness.

Meyer and Allen (1997) referred commitment as a psychological state that according to

the individuals in an organization. Meyer & Allen (1997) divided organizational commitment

into 3 dimensions: affective commitment, continuous commitment and normative commitment.

Allen and Meyer (1996) stated that highly committed employees have a positive outlook to the





6

organization, consistent with his behavior to avoid misunderstandings or to develop his own

positive self-perception.

Hulpia, Devos and Rosseel (2009) who studied the relationship between teachers’

perception of distributed leadership and teacher leadership towards job satisfaction and

organizational commitment, found that the relationship between these variables has not been

permanently studied in the area of distributed leadership. Hulpia et al. (2009) stated that

distribution of functional leadership has a weak relationship with organizational commitment and

also with job satisfaction. The more supervision is being disseminated amongst leadership teams,

the lower organizational commitment level is displayed by teachers and teacher leadership.

Teacher involvement in decision-making will increase teachers’ organizational

commitment. More significantly, the integration of leadership teams and the number of support

towards teacher leadership are highly correlated to organizational commitment. Also indirectly,

it is closely related to job satisfaction of the teachers. Hulpia et al. (2009) stated that a school

principal has the biggest influence on these two dimensions which have a significant relationship

with distributed leadership: integration of leadership teams and number of support towards

teacher leadership.

Hairuddin Mohd Ali and Salisu (2015) conducted a study entitled “Distributed

Leadership and Empowerment Influence on Teachers Organizational Commitment” and found

out that there was a significant effect between distributed leadership and teacher organizational

commitment. The findings are in line with those of Hulpia, Devos and Keer (2010) that

distributed leadership has a high significant level with teacher organizational commitment. The

study also found that there is a strong medium which can determine distributed leadership with

teacher commitment: teacher empowerment. The findings from this study are in line with studies

conducted by Bogler and Somech (2004), and Gaziel (2009). The teacher empowerment can be

improved by involving teachers in decision-making at schools and this can certainly enhance

teachers’ organizational commitment (Firestone & Pennel, 1993; Bogler & Somech, 2004).

Generation

According to Kupperschmidt (2000), generation is defined as a group (cohort) that shares the

same year of birth, age, location and several developmental stages of important events that

happened in their lives. Mannheim (1953) had long defined generation as a group of people who

were born and brought up at the same period of time chronologically, socially and also

historically.

The current job market divides working people into three groups of generations: Baby

Boomers, Generation-X and Generation-Y. Strauss & Howe (1991) labeled the American

generation as Baby Boomers (born in 1946-1964), Generation-X (born in 1965-1978) and

Generation-Y (born after 1979). Zemke, Raines and Filipczak (2000), on the other hand,

categorized generations into Baby Boomers (born in 1943-1960), Generation-X (born in 1960-

1980) and Generation-Y (born in 1980-2000). Although there were variations in determining an

accurate cohort of generation, studies from Eisner (2005), Martin and Tulgan (2001) and Raines





7

(2003) were where cohorts of generations were widely used: Baby Boomers (born in 1945-

1964), Generation-X (born in 1965-1980) and Generation-Y (born after 1980). Therefore, this

study used cohort generation of teachers based on the findings made by Eisner (2005), Martin

and Tulgan (2001) and Raines (2003).

Studies on the psychological contract between employees and employers of old and new

generations, had shown various effects, such as effects on organizational commitment. Alessia

and Regina (2008) found that new generation of employees showed a high level of

organizational learning but a lower level of organizational commitment from the generation

before them. Tulgan (1996) stated that it is important for a leader to identify job differences

between several cohorts of generations in order to ensure an effective and productive

performance in an organization, based on appropriate leadership styles. Miller (2006) found that

there are significant generation differences in organizational commitment, job satisfaction,

intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, as well as the need to leave the organization. The organizational

generation differences normally will influence their work status, the desire to be recognized,

workplace commitment and also the desire to get an ideal workplace (Bush, Venkitachalam &

Richards, 2008). Therefore, this study uses the generation differences in studying the differences

found in distributed leadership and organizational commitment.

Murphy, Olivas-Luján and Greenwood (2009) pointed out that generation differences

should be put in line with other demographic variables. This is because it can provide a long

view study on the values, attitudes, culture, behaviours, generations, organizations, group or sub-

group of members of organizations. Haeberle, Herzberg and Hobbs (2009) found that the

generation cohort differences within an organization provide a direct effect towards the

communication styles, technological needs, priorities in professional development, work

environment expectations, benefit and compensation requirements, the needs for leadership

styles as well as reward and recognition effectiveness. Wagner (2007) affirmed that leaders

should not isolate the generation differences, but should provide opportunities for each cohort of

generation to develop and compete healthily.

Chun Yu and Miller (2005) also stated that leadership styles which suit the present

modern work environment should avoid the hierarchical organizational structure leadership

styles. They should shift to leadership styles which focus more on knowledge-based leadership.

Leadership that stretched over several individuals is one of the important components displayed

in distributed leadership (Elmore, 2000; Gronn, 2002; Spillane et al., 2001). Also, through such

distributed leadership, organizational learning culture will increase the Professional Learning

Communities (PLC) among teachers.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The study design was in a form of descriptive-quantitative method. Its purpose was to study the

relationship between distributed leadership and organizational commitment. Descriptive study

was used to identify the level of distributed leadership and organizational commitment of





8

teachers. Correlation study was conducted to measure the strength of relationship between

independent variables (seven dimensional of distributed leadership) and dependent variables

(three dimensional of organizational commitment). The data were analyzed by using the software

Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 21.0.

Research Population and Sample

For this study, the population consisted of all teachers from the national secondary schools in the

district of Baling Sik, Kedah. The research samples involved 298 respondents and were reviewed

using the sample size determination tables by Krejcie and Morgan (1970). Samples were selected

through stratified random sampling method out of 1358 teachers from four different zones. In the

selection of the sample of teachers, researcher used unproportionate stratified random sampling

to ensure that the number of selected samples was adequate for each category. The researcher

also used purposive sampling in order to ensure that selected samples of teachers fulfilled the

cohort of generation required.

Research Instrument

This study used the Distributed Leadership Survey (DLS) instrument which was modified by

Davis (2009) in his study, to measure the level of distributed leadership practiced in schools. The

questionnaires on organizational commitment of teachers used the Affective, Continuance and

Normative Commitment Scales (ACNCS) instrument, which was developed by Meyer and Allen

(1997).

RESEARCH FINDINGS

The research findings show that principal leadership dimension is a practice which stays at a

very high level with mean value 4.31. This is followed by the school vision dimension at a very

high level with mean value 4.29.

The analysis shows that every dimension in distributed leadership displays a high mean

value where the highest mean value is 4.31 at the principal leadership dimension. Analysis for

the level of teachers’ organizational commitment shows a high mean value 3.63 at normative

commitment dimension. Overall, distributed leadership and teachers’ organizational commitment

are practiced at a high level in this study.

Table 1 illustrates Pearson correlation test where distributed leadership shows a

significant relation (r = .31, p < .01) with teachers’ organizational commitment. However, the

findings show a very weak relationship (r = .31) between distributed leadership and teachers’

organizational commitment.

Table 1: Pearson Correlation Test: Distributed Relationship with Teachers’ Organizational

Commitment

Variables Distributed Leadership





9

N Correlation

coefficiency Sig. (2 tailed)

Teachers’ Organizational Commitment 279 .313 .000

**p < .01

Table 2 shows the one-way ANOVA test was not significant [F(2, 276) = 1.24, p>.05)]

between cohort of generations and distributed leadership. While the one-way ANOVA test was

not significant

[F (2, 276) = .86, p>.05)] between cohort of generations and teachers’ organizational

commitment. Therefore, there is no significant difference in distributed leadership and teachers’

organizational commitment based on cohort of generations. However, mean (4.03) distributed

leadership practice for Baby Boomers generation is higher than mean (3.93) for Generation-X.

Mean (3.51) of teachers’ organizational commitment for Baby Boomers generation is higher than

mean (3.43) for Generation-Y.

Table 2: ANOVA Test Results on Differences of Distributed Leadership and Teachers’

Organizational Commitment between Cohorts of Generations

Generations N Min Sp Dk1 Dk2 F p

Distributed Leadership Baby Boomers 53 4.03 .38 2 276 1.24 .29

Generation X 117 3.93 .41

Generation Y 109 3.96 .37

Teachers’ Organizational Commitment Baby Boomers 53 3.51 .40 2 276 .856 .43

Generation X 117 3.47 .38

Generation Y 109 3.43 .38

Total 279

**p < .05

Table 3 shows the Levene test was not significant (p>.05). The result has fulfilled the

variance homogeneity of variance between distributed leadership based on gender. Independent

samples t-test was not significant (t (277) = -.188, p >.05) statistically. Therefore, there is no

difference in terms distributed leadership based on gender. Independent samples t-test was not

significant (t (277) = 1.743, p >.05) statistically. The result shows that there was no difference on

teachers’ organizational commitment based on gender. However, mean (3.96) distributed

leadership for female teachers is higher than mean (3.95) for male teachers. Meanwhile, mean

(3.50) teachers’ organizational commitment for male teachers is higher than mean (3.42) for

female teachers.





10

Table 3: Independent Samples T-test Results: Differences on Distributed Leadership and

Teachers’ Organizational Commitment Based on Gender

Gender N Min Sp Dk T p

Distributed Leadership Male 132 3.95 .41 277 -.188 0.85

Female 147 3.96 .37

Teachers’ Organizational Commitment Male 132 3.50 .43 277 1.743 .08

Female 147 3.42 .33

Total 279

**p < .05

DISCUSSIONS

Leadership of the 21st century is no longer seen only one leader as the only individual who is

capable to lead his organization successfully. According to Hartley (2007), the failure of heroic

leadership in the 21st century has made distributed leadership gained a huge attention from the

academicians / scholars. It is also a series of various tasks of school leaders which are getting

more complex and burdening. A theory concluded by Spillane (2006) suits the findings of this

study because it shows a significant relationship towards organizational commitment of teachers.

Spillane’s (2006) theory clearly increases organizational commitment of teachers regardless of

the cohort of generations and the gender of the teachers. Hatcher (2005) pointed out that

distributed leadership has become significant in school management discourse in order to

increase the participation and capability of teachers in developing a more democratic school.

From the results of this study, principal leadership dimension and school vision

dimension are the most frequently practiced in distributed leadership. Therefore, the findings of

this study can become a source of useful information resource to the NPQEL programme that

trains school leaders especially principals and headmasters. Due to the stigma of teachers who

still consider the principal as the only leader with empowerment and a power source in schools,

it is vital for MOE and IAB through NPQEL programme to emphasize on the role of the

principal in the practice of distributed leadership itself. Principal plays an important leadership

role in enhancing the commitment, motivation and improvement of teaching environment in

schools (Leithwood, Day, Sammons & Harris; 2006). Hulpia et al. (2009) stated that teacher

commitment can be increased if distributed leadership is not too formally practiced. School

organizations should explore more ways not to become too formal and teachers should be given

more opportunities to lead (Davis, 2009). In addition, sharing the school visions should be given

greater attention to enhance distributed leadership practices at school levels. Meyer and Allen

(1997) mentioned that shared visions amongst members of organizations are based on school

goals, particularly, the ones in line with the goals of the leaders is expected to give a positive

impact on employee satisfaction and commitment. The results of this study showed a significant





11

relationship between distributed leadership practices and organizational commitment of teachers,

regardless the cohort of generations and gender of teachers.

CONCLUSION

In order to fulfill the aspiration of MOE through the education blueprint which has been

thoroughly outlined, distributed leadership practice should definitely be made an established

platform to be implemented widely in every school. Thus it will at once make the PPPM 2013-

2025 a reality through its fifth shift: “To Ensure High Performing School Leaders In Every

School”. This is the most appropriate time to spur the enhancement of the system because the

education blueprint is now in the second wave (2016-2020). The second wave is raised clearly in

the PPPM 2013-2025: “To empower teaching profession and shift towards distributed

leadership”. The distributed leadership should be given adequate space for teachers to lead the

schools alongside school management leaders, in order to make the school visions a success in

line with the visions of MOE.





12

REFERENCES

Abdul Ghani Kanesan. (2009). Pengaruh kepemimpinan transformasi sekolah dan efikasi

kolektif guru terhadap komitmen kualiti pengajaran. Prosiding Seminar Nasional

Pengurusan dan Kepimpinan ke16. Institut Aminuddin Baki, Genting Highlands.

Alessia, D.A., & Regina, H. (2008). Learning orientation, organizational commitment and the

talent retention across generation: A study of European managers. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 63 (8), 929-953.

Allen, N.J, & Meyer, J.P. (1996). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the

organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49,

252-276.

Baharuddin Yaacob. (2009). Respective approaches in promoting distributive leadership in

school. Seminar Nasional Pengurusan dan Kepimpinan Pendidikan ke 16. Institut

Aminuddin Baki, Genting Highlands.

Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational

commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in

schools. Teaching and Teacher Education. 20, 277-289.

Bush, P., Venkitachalam, K., & Richards, D. (2008). Generational differences in soft knowledge

situations: status, need for recognition, workplace commitment and idealism. Knowledge

and Process Management, 15(1), 45-58.

Chun, H.Y., & Miller, P. (2005). Leadership style. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal,26(1), 35-50.

Copland, M. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school

improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 375–395.

Davis, M.W. (2009). Distributed Leadership and School Performance. Tesis Kedoktoran yang

tidak diterbitkan. The faculty of the Graduate School of Education and Human

Development of the George Washington University, UMI Number 3344534.

Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington : The Albert

Shanker Institute.

Eisner, S.P. (2005). Managing Generation Y. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 70(4), 4-15.

Firestone, N.A., & Pennel, J.R. (1993). Teacher commitment, working conditions and

differential incentive policies. Review of Educational Research,63(4), 489-532.

Frost, D., & Durrant, J. (2002). Teachers as leaders: Exploring the impact of teacher-led

development work. School Leadership and Management, 22(2), 143-161.





13

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gaziel, H. (2009). Teacher empowerment and commitment at school based and non school based

sites, In Zadja, J. And Gamage, D.T. (eds.). Decentralization school based management

and quality, globalization, comparative education and policy research 8. Springer

Science and Business Media BV.

Gronn, P. (2000). Distribute properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational

Management and Administration. 28(3), 317-338.

Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13,

423-451, doi:10.1016/s1048-9843(02)00120.

Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders : Changing leadership practice in an era

of school reform. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Gronn, P. (2008) The future of distributed leadership. Journal of Educational Administration.

46, 141–158.

Haeberle, K., Herzberg, J., & Hobbs, T. (2009). Leading the multigenerational work force.

Healthcare Executive, 62-67.

Hailan Salamun. (2010). Kepemimpinan Rabbani Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Agama. Tesis

Doktor Falsafah yang tidak diterbitkan, Institut Pengajian Kepengetuaan, Universiti

Malaya.

Hairuddin Mohd Ali, & Salisu A.Y. (2015). Distributed leadership and empowerment influences

on teachers organizational commitment. Academic Journal of Interdisicplinary Studies

MCSER Publishing, Vol. 4 No. 1. S1, Rome-Italy. ISSN 2281-3993.

Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2003). Teacher leadership: Improvement through empowerment? An

overview of the literature Educational Management and Administration, 31, 437-448.

Harris, A., Brown, D., & Abbott, I. (2006). Executive leadership: Another lever in the system?

School Leadership & Management. 26(4), 397-409.

Harris, A. (2008). Distributed Leadership: developing tomorrow’s leaders. London : Routledge.

Harris, A. (2009). Distributed School Leadership : Evidence, issues and future directions. ACEL

Monograph 44. Penrith, NSW: Australian Council for Educational Leaders.

Harris, A. (2013). Distributed Leadership : Friend or foe? Educational Management

Administration and Leadership. 41, 545.

Hartley, D. (2007). The emergence of distributed leadership in education: Why now? British

Journal of Educational Studies cf, 55(2), 202-214.





14

Hatcher, R. (2005). The distribution of leadership and power in schools. British Journal of

Sociology of Education, 26(2), 253-267.

Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Rosseel, Y. (2009). The relationship between the perception of

distributed leadership in secondary schools and teacher’s and teacher leaders’ job

satisfaction and organisational commitment. American Educational Research

Association. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40284858.

Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Keer, H.V. (2010a). The influence of distributed leadership on

teachers’ organizational commitment: A multilevel approach of Educational Research,

103, 40-52.

Hulpia, H., & Devos, G. (2010b). How distributed leadership can make a difference in teacher’s

organizational commitment? A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education,26,

565-575.

Hussein Mahmood. (2005). Kepemimpinan Profesionalisme: Satu utopia? Pemimpin, 5, 39-51.

Hopkins, D., & Jackson, D. (2002). Building the capacity for leading and learning, dalam A.

Harris, C. Day, M. Hadfield, D. Hopkins, A. Hangreaves and C. Chapman (eds.)

Effective Leadership for School Improvement, London: Routledge, 84-105.

Jamalul Lail Abdul Wahab, Aida Hanim A. Hamid, Surayati Zainal & Md Fuad Md Rafik

(2013). The relationship between headtachers’ distributed leadership and teachers’

motivation in national primary schools. Asian Social Science, 9(16), 161-167.

Karia, N., & Ahmad, Z.A. (2000). Quality Practices that pay: Empowerment and teamwork,

Malaysian Management Review, 35(2).

Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop

as leaders. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2006). Pelan Induk Pembangunan Pendidikan 2006-2010.

Kuala Lumpur.

Krejcie, R.V, & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research. Educational and

Psychological Measurements, 30, 607-610.

Kupperschmidt, B.R. (2000). Multigenerational employees: Strategies for effective

management.Health Care Manager, 19(1), 65-76.

Leithwood,K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times.

Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40284858





15

Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A. and Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful School

Leadership: What it is and How it Influences Pupil Learning, NCSL/Dept for Education

& Skills, University of Nottingham Paul, Nottingham

Macbeath, J. (2005). Leadership as distributed: A matter of practice. School Leadership and

Management,25, 349-366.

Mannheim, K. (1953). Essays on sociology and social psychology, Oxford University Press,

New York, NY.

Martin, C.A. &, Tulgan, B. (2001). Managing generation Y. Global Citizens born in the late

seventies and the early eighties, HRD Press, Amherst, MA.

Mayrowetz, D., Murphy, J., Louis, K. S.,& Smylie, M. A. (2007). Distributed leadership as work

redesign: Retrofitting the job characteristics model. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6,

69–101.

Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and

application, Thousands Oaks, CA : Sage Publications.

Miller, E. (2006). The effect of rewards, commitment, organizational climate, and work values

on intentions to leave: Is there a difference among generations? PhD Dissertation,

University of New York, Albany, NY.

Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W. & Steers, R. (1982). Employee-organizational linkages: The

Physhcology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Murphy, E., Olivas-Luján, M., & Greenwood, R. (2009). What does the Incoming Generation of

Hispanic Workers Value? Comparing Hispanic High School Student Values to Those of

Other Generations, Academic Meeting of the National Society of Hispanic MBAs,

Minneapolis, MN.

Neumann, M., & Simmons, W. (2000). Leadership for Student Learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 9-

12.

Nguyen Ngoc Du (2013). The Influence Of Distributed Leadership On Teacher Organisational

Commitment: Initial Evidence From Vietnam, Arecls, 2013, 10, 69-90.

Hairuddin Mohd Ali, & Salisu A.Y. (2015). Distributed leadership and empowerment influences

on teachers organizational commitment. Academic Journal of Interdisicplinary Studies

MCSER Publishing, Vol. 4 No. 1. S1, Rome-Italy. ISSN 2281-3993.

Nurulaim Asyikin Zakaria & Suhaida Abdul Kadir (2013). Kepimpinan Distributif Sekolah

Menengah Di Daerah Kangar, Perlis, Seminar Pasca Siswazah Dalam Pendidikan

(GREDUC 2013) Universiti Putra Malaysia.

OECD. (2008). Education and Training Policy, Improving School Leadership, Volume 1: Policy

and Practice, Summary in English. Paris: OECD.





16

Rabindarang, S., Khuan, W.B., & Khoo, Y.Y. (2014). Refleksi tenaga pengajar terhadap

kepemimpinan distributif dan tekanan kerja dalam pendidikan teknik dan vokasional.

Jurnal Akademika, 84(1&2).17-27.

Raines, C. (2003). Connecting Generations: The Sourcebook, Crisp Publications, Menlo Park,

CA.

Rosnarizah Abdul Halim & Zulkifli Abdul Manaf. (2009). Kajian Eksplorasi Distributed

Leadership di Malaysia. Kertas Penyelidikan Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pengurusan

dan Kepimpinan Pendidikan ke-16.Institut Aminuddin Baki, Genting Highlands.

Rosnarizah Abdul Halim & Hussein Ahmad. (2015). Kepemimpinan Distributif, Faktor

Kontekstual dan Efikasi Kendiri Guru Malaysia. Jurnal Kepimpinan Pendidikan, Institut

Aminuddin Baki, Genting Highlands, 2(4).

Shakir Firas Jalal., Issa Jinan Hatem, Mustafa Paiman Omer (2011). Perception towards

distributed leadership in school improvement. International Journal of Business and

Management, 6(10).doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v6n10p256

Singh, K., & Billingsley, B.S. (1998). Professional support and its effects on teachers'

commitment. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(4), 229-239.

Spillane, J.P., Harvenson, R. & Diamond, J.B. (2001). Investigating School Leadership Practices.

Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.

Spillane, J.P., Harvenson, R. & Diamond, J.B. (2001). Towards A Theory of Leadership

Practice: A Distributed Perspective. Chicago : Northwest University.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice:

A Distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 3-

34.doi:10.1080/0022027032000106726.

Spillane, J.P., & Sherer, J.Z. (2004). A distributed perspective on school leadership: Leadership

practice as stretched over people and place. Preliminary draft prepared for presentation

at the annual meeting of the American Education Association, San Diego.

Spillane,J.,P.(2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69, 143-150.

doi:10.1080/00131720508984678.

Spillane, J.P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Spillane, J. P., Camburn, E. M. and Pareja, A.S. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective to the

school principal’s work day. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 103-125.

Spillane, J.P., & Diamond, J.B. (2007). Distributed Leadership in Practice; Teachers College

Press: New York, NY, USA.

Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584-2089.

Quill William Morrow, New York.





17

Tulgan, B. (1996). Managing Generation X, How To Bring Out the Best in Young Talent, W.W.

Norton and Co., New York, NY.

Wagner, K.L. (2007). Filling the gap. Journal of Property Management, pp. 29-35.

Yusof Boon & Yahzanon Tahir (2013). Kepimpinan tersebar dan hubungannya dengan tekanan

dan komitmen kerja. Johor: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

Zemke, R., Raines, C. and Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of

Veterans, Boomers, Xers and Nexters in Your Workplace, 2nd ed., Amacom, New York,

NY.

DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP AND COMMITMENT OF … · Proceedings of the International Conference on...

Documents

Transcript of DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP AND COMMITMENT OF … · Proceedings of the International Conference on...