Practices and Challenges of Leadership Mitiku D. and Mitiku B. 39

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Practices and Challenges of Leadership in Colleges ofTeacher Education Institutions: The Case of OromiaRegional State

Mitiku Dibessa1 and Mitiku Bekele2

Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the practices and challenges of leadership inColleges of Teacher Education (CTE) in Oromia Regional State. The study particularly,investigated the extent to which the CTE leaders are engaged in the leadership practicesidentified by Kouzes and Posner’s to improve quality of education and institutionalperformances. To accomplish this purpose, the study employed a descriptive surveymethod. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were employed. 164 teacher-educators were selected from the six CTEs using random sampling technique. Inaddition, all Deans of the six CTEs were included purposively. Kouzes and Posner’sLeadership Practice Inventory Questionnaire (Observer) was used to collect quantitativedata. Interview was also conducted to substantiate the data gained through thequestionnaire. Frequency, percentage, mean and Standard deviation were utilized toanalyze the quantitative data. The qualitative data obtained through interview werethematized and analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study revealed that the leadersof the CTEs moderately practices the five Kouzes and Posner’s transformationalleadership and the leadership practices were found to be ineffective. Moreover, lack ofeffective leadership, lack of leadership training and experience, failure to challenge thestatus quo, failure to motivate, empower and enlist staffs in designing and implementingcommon goals, shortage of budget, and inadequate skill of communicating a sharedvision hindered proper implementation of the training processes. Therefore, it isrecommended that there should be leadership development strategy to developleadership skills on the part of CTEs leaders through seminars, workshops and trainingson the practices of effective leadership outlined in this study. Moreover, it is advisable ifthe concerned body of establish professional developments schemes so that the leaderswill improve their skills continuously.

_________________________________________________________________________

1Lecturer; Jimma University; College of Education and Behavioral Sciences; College of Teacher Education. 2Assistant Professor; Jimma University; College of Education and Behavioral Sciences; of Department Educational Planning and Management.

INTRODUCTION

Ethiop. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. 12 No 2, March, 2017 40Technological, economical, social, politicaland cultural changes impose changes oneducational systems of all countries be itdeveloped or developing. These changes,external to the education system, uniformlyand rapidly shape the nature of educationalinstitutions. To this end, educational leadersare bewildered by high expectations andincreasing responsibilities theirgovernments and the public imposed uponthem (Lam and Pang, 2003).

Higher education has experiencedconsiderable changes, often as the result ofpublic scrutiny and subsequent critiquesince the mid-1980s. Kerr (1994)forecasted continuing change that willrequire educational leaders to be adaptable,and cooperative; leaders who understandsthat organizations often operate in achanging environment. To survive,organizations have to understand and adaptto changes (Milliken 1990). Organizationaladaptation can be regarded as the effort bythe organization to fit the environmentOrganizations, however, can take differentforms in adapting to the environment.Presently, however, teachers, students,faculty members, administrators and thegeneral public are concerned about theability of educational organizations to adaptin the face of new demands.

A necessary condition to deal with theexternal pressure, of course, is to haveinstitutional leaders who understand theseproblems and are able and willing to makesignificant efforts to constructively dealwith the changes (Astin, 1993) to transformand make higher education institutionsresponsive. Higher education institutionsindeed, need transformational leaders toshape the future of the nation and thecoming generation. As Dressel (1981:3)points out, “The future of higher educationinstitutions rest upon their ability to involveindividuals who are capable, flexible andwilling to deal with change and developtheir leadership characteristics”.

According to Draughdrill (1988), theessential elements of college or universityleadership are a passion for the institution,a commitment to stewardship, a clear butfar-reaching vision, and the courage ofone‘s convictions. Leadership for Ramsden(1998), is not fundamentally about theattributes a leader has, but about what theleader does in the context of an academicdepartment, research group, or courses.Wilcox and Ebbs (1992) encouragedcertain behaviors such as creating thevision, empowering others, modeling theway, and acting ethically are essentials forleaders in higher education. As Bennis(2003) points out, leadership in highereducation is the capacity to infuse newvalues and goals into the organization, toprovide perspective on events andenvironments which, if unnoticed, canimpose constraints on the institution.Leadership in higher education, therefore,involves planning, auditing,communicating, relating to outsideconstituencies, insisting on the highestquality of performance and people, keepingan eye out for forces which may lead to ordisable important reforms.

According to Rozeboom (2008: 34) “Theconnectedness of college or universityacross departments and divisions of theinstitutions seems to be a key forleadership, not just for the president ordeans, but also for others on the leadershipteam”. The ultimate success of aninstitution is based upon the abilities of itsexecutive level officers to develop teamswho possess the capacities to initiatecritical interrelationships that lead tocooperative and collaborative educationalactivities (Stamatakos, 1991). Bensimonand Neumann (1993), state that teambuilding is essential to the reconstruction ofinstitutional leadership. Enhancingleadership ability among staff in highereducation requires universities and collegesto practice, at all levels, the responsibilities

Practices and Challenges of Leadership Mitiku D. and Mitiku B. 41of envisioning, enabling, developing andlearning.

According to Kouzes and Posner, (1995),there are over 225 definitions of leadershipfound in the literature but no one claims thelast word on “defining” the term. Eachscholar defined leadership in a ways thatworks best for his/her in his/her work withstudents, managers, government officials,community organizers, health careproviders, and educational administrators.

Kouzes and Posner’s ExemplaryLeadership Model is the extension ofBass’s and Burn’s transformationalleadership and its origins in a researchproject which they began in 1983. Theywanted to know what people did when theywere at their "personal best" in leadingothers. They started with the assumption,however, that they did not have tointerview and survey star performers inexcellent companies to discover bestpractices. They assumed that by askingordinary people to describe extraordinaryexperiences, they would find patterns ofsuccess. From an analysis of the personal-best cases, they developed a model ofleadership that consists of what Kouzes andPosner call The Five Practices. Thesepractices are challenging the process,inspiring shared vision, enabling others toact, modeling the way and encouraging theheart.

Based on the research project withsuccessful leaders, for over almost 20years, Kouzes and Posner suggested thatleadership is not a position, but a collectionof practices and behaviors. They alsoconcluded that leadership is a compulsoryskill that can be learned by everyone.According to their research, more and morepeople can grab hold of the opportunity tolead others to get extraordinary things done(Kouzes and Pozner, 2004). The modelargues that leaders must demonstrate atleast some of the five key ‘practices’ to be

successful. The researchers also indicatedthat specific practices and theircharacteristics can vary according todifferent situations, but at some pointsuccessful leaders will need to access themall.

According to Kouzes and Posner (1995),when working at their best, leaderschallenge the process, inspire sharedvision, enable others to act, model the wayand encourage the heart. And they did thisthrough committing themselves toparticular sets of behavior linked to thesevalues. More importantly Kouzes andPosner argued that these leadershipbehaviors were an observable and learnableset of practices, available to anyoneprepared to spend time developing them.They also stressed that these qualities onlymanifest themselves when people actuallydo them. As Kouzes and Posner (1995:9),point out, “These practices serve asguidance for leaders to accomplish theirachievements or to get extraordinary thingsdone”.

Shared governance characterizes highereducation institutions. Although mostattention goes to the role of the president orthe dean as a leader, an effective presidentor dean realizes that single leadereffectiveness could not meaningfullychange higher education settings. Teamleadership is more effective than one-person leadership and thus effective leadersshare responsibility for thinking as well asdoing among teams (Bensimon &Neumann, 1993). Leadership in highereducation, more than any other institution,is a collective practice. It is the network ofkey administrators who actually make mostof the critical decisions.

Rost (1993), stages leaders of highereducation institutions are successful whentheir beliefs are in harmony with thetransformations happening around theglobe and value change over stability;

Ethiop. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. 12 No 2, March, 2017 42empowerment over control; collaborationover competition; relationships over rulesand regulations; and diversity overuniformity. For higher educationorganizations grow in the future, thepresident or deans and executive leveladministrators must all contribute in asynergistic ways to the leadership of theinstitution.

Colleges and universities, however, facedifferent challenges including capacity tolead effectively and efficiently. Stableenvironment, clearly defined programstructures and limited competition arelonger effective in a networked world. Withthe international economy evolvingtowards a global network organized aroundthe value of knowledge the capacity ofpeople and organizations to perform,effectively and efficiently is critical. Tomeaningfully operate in this challengingenvironment, leaders of higher educationinstitutions need to transform themselvesbefore they try to transform others andaddress increasingly complex and dynamicenvironment (Hanna 2003:26). Thisrequires committed, passionate,transformational and visionary leadership(Tierney 1999). Such a leadership can helpshape higher education institutions in waysthat make them more humane, more livableand more ethical.

Effective leadership is usually viewed as anessential ingredient in organizationalsuccess. If it is present, organizations growand compete but in its absence manycannot survive. In line to this, Sammons(1999:14) pointed out that almost allstudies of institutional effectiveness haveunderlined leadership to be among the keyfactors for organizational success.Similarly, the Wallace Foundation (2009:1)also put clearly that “Leadership is thesecond only to classroom teaching amonginstitution-based factors in influencinglearning”. On top of this Coopers (1989),concluded that nearly 75 % of all

organizational change programs failbecause of leaders’ ineffectiveness increating the necessary support amongemployees. This is also true for academicinstitutions. In support of this, Fullan(2001:337) states “Without good leaderwho is good at leading change, there willbe no improving institution”. The WallaceFoundation (2009:1) also confirms that‘there is slim chance of creating andsustaining high quality learningenvironments without competent andcommitted leader to help shape teachingand learning’.

In spite of the recognition of theimportance of leadership for effectivenessof educational institutions studies ofeducational leadership in African contextindicate that leaders of higher educationinstitutions lack the expected competenceto be proactive and decisive in theirleadership role. (Brown & Conrad, 2007:194). According to Oduro (2008: 13) in hisassessment of a number of studies onquality-related issues in education in Ghanaover the last twenty years revealed thatquality of leadership and management ineducation is generally poor. Moreover,Ngirwa (2006) states that little attention hasbeen given to the contribution of leadershipand management in Tanzania. UNICEF(2004) strongly recommends developingand strengthening leadership competence atall levels of educational institutions toeffectively implement educationalinnovation and reforms.

Cognizant of the importance of qualityhuman capital for the achievement ofoverall economic and social development,Ethiopia has reviewed its overalleducational system by identifying themajor bottlenecks and developing strategyto deal with. As a result, during the pastfew years, education and training system inEthiopia have undergone major quantitativeand qualitative changes. Theimplementation of the new Education and

Practices and Challenges of Leadership Mitiku D. and Mitiku B. 43Training Policy (1994) is the first majorframework for systems reform andtransformation stipulated to decentralizeeducational decision making . Introductionof this decentralized system required manywell qualified, experienced and competenteducational leaders at all levels ofeducational management. Accordingly,colleges of teacher education are alsoredefined their roles to become activeagents of change to meet the public andgovernment expectations. Along with thedefinition of the roles the demand forchange oriented leaders has become aparamount importance so that they collegeswould be able to discharge theirresponsibilities effectively.

To this end, literature on higher educationinstitutions’ leadership has shown thattransformational leadership is positivelyassociated with educational leaders’effectiveness in implementing reformagenda (Coad and Berry, 1998; Sivanathanand Fekken, 2002). According to Barnett etal. (2001) the leaders of higher educationinstitutions need to be equipped with theskills required from transformationalleaders. Transformational leadership hasthe potential for building a high level ofcommitment in teachers and fosters thecapacities teachers need to respondpositively to this agenda.

Kouzes and Posner’s TransformationalLeadership Model is, therefore, believed todescribe CTE leaders effectiveness inOromia Regional State in leading reformagenda. As Barth (1991: 17) points out,Kouzes and Posner’s “the ‘LeadershipChallenge Model’ provides educationalleaders with the qualities to becomeeffective leaders and improve traininginstitutions”. Effective implementation ofreforms regarding the training system in theTEIs of Oromia Regional State as wellrequire transformational leaders who areable to raise the followers to higher levelsof motivation and morality. According to

Burns(1978), Berry (1998); Siyanathan andFekken (2002) these are leaders who searchfor opportunities to change the status quo,inspire a shared vision and set a model tofoster collaboration, empower employeesto pursue a potential future, and recognizethe contributions of employees to theoverall success of the organization.

Bennis (2000) suggested that leadership isthe key to manage change in culture,processes, and strategies. Oliver (2001)suggested that the study of leaders’behaviors and leadership has a greatestvalue in bringing about greatereffectiveness and improvement. Therefore,a deeper understanding of leadership isvery important because leading is anenterprise and a relationship that revitalizesan organization and brings growth andenrichment to a community. Thus, thefocus of this research was to investigate theextent to which the leadership of the CTEsin Oromia Regional State is effective inlight of Kouzes and Posner’stransformational leadership and forwardpossible recommendations for furtherimprovement.

Statement of the ProblemA lot has been said about the importance ofleadership for organizational success.Cameron (1986) points out certainadministrative behavior as the mostpowerful predictors of organizationaleffectiveness than institutional type,institutional culture, governance, structureand institutional mission. Collins (2001)pointed out that strong organizations placea greater weight on hiring the right peoplethan on organizational direction and yetasserted that leadership capability carriesmore significance than specific skills,knowledge or work experience.

As Fullan (2001:9) describes, “Holdingeducational institutions accountable for

Ethiop. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. 12 No 2, March, 2017 44their performance depends on havingpeople the right knowledge, skills andjudgment to improve institutionalperformance". This is because, effectivetransformation of educational systemrequires transformational leaders whoexercise the practices of transformationalleadership (the work that effective leadersdo to guide and support the improvementof institutional transformation andperformance). Kouzes and Posner (2001)conclude that leaders are influentialthrough their actions and activities, notrhetoric.

How educational leaders practiceleadership often determines their impact onorganizational effectiveness. The leadershippractices as identified by Kouzes andPosner are important primarily due to thefact that leaders actions in addition to theirwords.. More specifically, leaders set anexample by how they behave.

Researches in the area of educationalleadership have addressed a variety ofleadership issues and concerns. But, asKouzes & Posner (2000: 28) points out, “tomeet the leadership challenges is still apersonal and a daily challenge for allinstitutional leaders “particularly, withregard to the best leadership practices inthe management of higher educationinstitutions and assessment of leadershipperformance. Therefore, countries need toconstantly check the extent to whichleaders at all level of educationalinstitutions exercise effective leadershippractices to improve and transform theinstitutions they lead.

Though Federal MOE have placed leadersof educational institutions at all levels in ahighly visible leadership role, leadershipand management capacities at institutionallevel still remain weak (MOE ,2010:22). Tothis end, effective leadership practices inhigher education institutions needs to beresearched in order to identify and design

strategies specific to the nature of highereducation institutions for improvement.The major role of the CTE leaders iscreating favorable environment for theinstructors to teach and the trainees tolearn. They are expected to motivate theacademic and non-academic staff as well asthe trainees to become active agents ofchange. More importantly, they areexpected to manage change effectively andrespond to the demands of the prevailingsituations.

A look into local studies in the area ofleadership indicates that no researchendeavors take the Kouzes and Posnersmodel which is well recognized inenhancing organizational success toexamine the leadership practice. Hence,there is no evidence reported that identifiesthe degree to which CTE leaders in OromiaRegional State practice Kouzes andPosner’s Transformational LeadershipModel using Leadership Practice Inventory.

Besides, many teacher-educators andadministrative staff of the CTEs of OromiaRegional State have been heardcomplaining that the working conditions inthe CTEs are not conducive for trainingand hold accountable the leadership for thesituation. The instructors complain that themanagement team was mostly observedtrying to maintain status quo instead ofmanaging change and leading theinstitutions towards adapting to the newchanging environment and facilitateimplementation by creating conduciveatmosphere required to ensure theimprovement of the quality of training.

Assessment of leadership effectiveness wasnot a common practice in CTEs of theOromia Regional State. To the knowledgeof the researchers, there are no studies onkouzes and Posners leadership practices ofColleges of Teacher Education in OromiaRegional State. As a result, any failure orweakness observed in the training process

Practices and Challenges of Leadership Mitiku D. and Mitiku B. 45is often attributed to teachers, students orboth without considering the extent towhich the leaders discharge theirresponsibilities. The researchers, therefore,felt that investigation of the extent to whichthe leaders of the CTEs in OromiaRegional State attempted to influence theacademic and non-academic staff in light ofKouzes and Posner’s leadership practicesmodel to measure the leadershipeffectiveness.

To this end, the study attempted to answerthe following basic research questions:

1. To what extent do the CTE leadersin Oromia Regional State exercisethe five Kouzes and Posner’sleadership practices to change andtransform their institutions?

2. Which of the five Kouzes andPosner’s leadership practices are themost or least exercised by theleadership teams of the CTEs ofOromia Regional State?

3. In which category of Kouzes andPosner’s database do the leadershipteams of the CTEs fall?

4. To what extent are the teachereducators satisfied with the practicesof CTE leadership team members?

5. What is the CTEs leaders’ feeling oftheir involvement in the Kouzes andPosner’s practices oftransformational leadership?

6. What are the challenges ofinstitutional leadership in CTEs ofOromia Regional State?

Objectives of the StudyThe study was aimed at investigatingleadership practices and challenges of theTEIs in Oromia Regional State in light ofkouzes and posners leadership practicesmodel and provide constructive feedback

for the OEB, TEI leaders themselves andemerging professionals. The specificobjectives of the study are to:

1. Examine the extent to which theCTEs leadership exercises the fiveKouzes and Posner’s leadershippractices for effectiveimplementation of change;

2. Identify the most and the leastexercised Kouzes and Posner’sleadership practices by theleadership teams of the CTEs;

3. Identify where the leaders of theTEIs of Oromia Regional State fallin terms of the five perceivedpractices of leadership scores inKouzes and Posner’s database;

4. Examine the teacher-educators’satisfaction with the leadershipengagement in the five practices oftransformational leadership;

5. Identify the leaders’ perception oftheir engagement in the fivepractices;

6. Identify the major factors affectingthe implementation of bestleadership practices in governmentTEIs of Oromia Regional State

Significance of the StudyThe findings of the study would help theRegional Education Bureau (REB) officialsto understand the current status ofleadership practices in the CTEs. It alsoenable the leaders of the CTEs improvetheir leadership practices and effectivelylead the CTE. Above all, it benefits theleadership team members at college level toidentify their leadership weaknesses andstrengths to transform their respectiveinstitutions. It could also give the CTEleaders an awareness regarding the need toimprove their leadership competence

Ethiop. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. 12 No 2, March, 2017 46throughout their careers to meet themounting challenges of their jobs. It mightalso serve as a spring board for the futureresearchers and contributes to the generalunderstanding of the leadership practicesand challenges of the training institutions.

Delimitation of the StudyThe study has taken into consideration thepeculiar nature of and the possible variationthat might exist among different regionsand focused on the Colleges of TeacherEducation in Oromia Region. Since Oromiais autonomous in governing the colleges inlight of the needs of the region that may notbe shared with other regions. Thougheducational leadership is a broad conceptthat cannot be dully studied in thisresearch, leadership of higher educationinstitutions, Colleges of teacher in thiscase, is particularly considered in light ofKouz and Possnor’s leadership practicesmodel for it is the model that better fits inthe practices of educational institutions.

Research Design and Methodology The study employed descriptive survey todraw meaningful results from a large bodyof quantitative data as it allows thereporting of summary results in numericalterms. This design was selected as it wasappropriate to sufficiently describe thecurrent practices and challenges ofleadership teams in the Teacher TrainingInstitutions (CTEs) to draw valid generalconclusion. Besides, qualitative methodwas also used as a support to betterinvestigate the complex realities of theColleges and to obtain the basicinformation from the leaders regarding thechallenges of their CTEs and theirperception of the five Kouzes and Posner’sleadership practices that could have beendrawn through LPI (self) questionnairewhich were used to minimize possible self-report bias.

Source of Data and Population of the StudyPrimary data was obtained from teacher-educators and college deans to acquirefirst-hand information of the situationunder the study and draw valid conclusion.The population of the study was 538teacher-educators including the StreamHeads and 10 Colleges in the ten CTEs ofOromia Regional State.

Among the 10 CTEs, 6 (60%) CTEs wereselected via stratified random samplingtechnique. The stratification of the collegeswas made based on the number of yearsthey have been training teachers. The firststratum included CTEs which had beentraining teachers for more than 15 years.These CTEs were Jimma, Asela and Robe.The second stratum included CTEs whichhad the experience of training teachersfrom 10 to 15 years such as Nekemte,Dembi Dolo and Metu. The third stratumincluded recently established CTEs(Sebeta, Ciro, Bule Hora, and Shambo).Accordingly, among the CTEs in the firststratum, Jimma and Nekemte, among thesecond stratum, Asela and Metu; among thethird stratum Sebeta and Shambo wereselected using lottery method.

According to the information from eachsample CTEs, there were 80, 52, 60, 24, 64and 48 instructors in Jimma, Metu,Nekemte, Shambo, Asela and Sebetarespectively. In other words, there were 328teacher-educators and Stream Heads in thesix sample CTEs. Among those teacher-educators and Stream Heads, 164 (50%)respondents were selected from the sixsample CTEs using proportionate stratifiedrandom sampling technique particularlylottery method. Accordingly, 40, 26, 30, 12,32 and 24 sample instructors were selectedfrom Jimma, Metu, Nekemte, Shambo,Asela and Sebeta respectively. Since theCollege Deans were responsible for overallinstitutional function and to facilitate thework of teacher-educators and college staff

Practices and Challenges of Leadership Mitiku D. and Mitiku B. 47they were purposefully included in thestudy. It was believed that the informationthey provide would be highly valuable. Tools of Data Collection The study used quantitative data to identifyand analyze the status of leadershippractices and the challenges of theleadership in the CTEI, compare itsexisting condition with the reviewedresearch findings and to draw a generalconclusion. The quantitative data weregathered through close-endedquestionnaire. Besides, qualitative datawere gathered as a supplementary to thestudy employing semi structured interviewwith the college Deans.

Questionnaire was used as a main tool fordata collection. The questionnaire was usedto gather data from 164 sample teacher-educators who were randomly selectedfrom the six TEIs of Oromia RegionalState. The return rate was 164 (100%).Permission was obtained through emailfrom Leadership Challenge Team in SanFrancisco to use LPI as a tool to collect thedata for the purpose of the study.

Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI)observer questionnaire based on Kouzesand Posner’s Transformational LeadershipModel was used for this purpose. There aretwo versions of LPI (Self and Observer).LPI observer questionnaire was used andLPI self was excluded to minimizepotential leaders’ self-report bias. Thebackground information section and open-ended questions were added by theresearcher to elicit additional commentfrom the respondents.

The Kouzes and Posner’s LPI Observerquestionnaire was structured closed endedquestionnaire with 5 point Likert scale ofthirty items leadership practice. Therefore,it was appropriate not only for theresearcher to obtain reliable response fromthe respondents but also for the respondents

to choose one option from the given scalesthat best align with their views. In additionto this, open-ended questions were includedat the end of each leadership practice togive the respondents an opportunity toexpress their views.

LPI is a reliable and valid standardizedleadership assessment tool which wasproved quite powerful in assessingindividuals’ leadership capacities and indemonstrating what exemplary leaders do(the five practices) to make a difference atthe personal, interpersonal andorganizational level (Leong 1995).Different researches were conducted todetermine whether the inventory had soundpsychometric properties and the testsindicated that the LPI was internally validand reliable. All the studies revealed aninternal reliability ranging from .70 to .91and test-retest reliability of at least .93 inall five leadership practices (Leech, et.al.2010).

Semi structured interview was set andconducted with five college Deans toobtain additional supplementary data. Semistructured interview was used to ensureflexibility in which new or extensionquestions could be forwarded during theinterview based on the responses of theinterviewee. The purpose of the interviewwas to collect more supplementary opinion,so as to stabilize the responses obtainedthrough questionnaire and to gatheradditional data.

Data Analysis The quantitative data collected throughclose ended questionnaires were tallied andtabulated. Then, it was interpreted with thehelp of frequency and percentage. Meanand standard deviation were also used tomeasure the degree to which CTEs leaderspractice Kouzes and Posner’sTransformational Leadership Model asmeasured by Leadership PracticesInventory (LPI) and to further strengthen

Ethiop. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. 12 No 2, March, 2017 48the finding obtained with the help offrequency and percentage. The quantitativedata were analyzed using the StatisticalSPSS. To assure participant confidentiality,results were presented only in aggregateform.

The data were analyzed through thefollowing procedures. Firstly, each of thefive leadership practice was analyzedseparately. It was believed that plotanalysis would be appropriate to conveydetailed information about the distributionof the six items questions under eachleadership practice. Frequency distributionwas displayed for each leadership practiceusing table and percentage. Secondly,numerical descriptive approach was used tocompute the means and standard deviationsto convey the average and to summarizethe data of the five variables. Accordingly,the finding was analyzed as (X<2.49 = lowpractice, X>2.5<3.49 = Moderate,X>3.5<4.49 = Good Practice, >4.5<4.75 =Very Good Practice, 4.75- 5 = Excellent(Abdullah et. al. 2008). Then, the recordeddata collected through interview wascategorized based on the similarities ofresponses. This was analyzed qualitativelyto supplement the quantitative data.

Results and Discussion The data collected from 164 teacher-educators were entered into SPSS forquantitative analysis. Frequency count andpercentage were used to investigate theextent to which the TEI leaders exercise thefive kouzes and Posners leadershippractices in the six sample TEIs of OromiaRegional State a five -point liker scalequestionnaires. The result for the fivepractices of leadership scores wereobtained by adding together the scores ofsix behaviors related to each practice (i.e.,the 30 behaviors on the survey weregrouped according to the five leadershippractices. A higher value indicated morefrequent leadership behavior associatedwith the practice and the low valueindicated rare leadership practices orbehaviors exhibited. The leadershippractice scores for the five variables wereobtained for each by adding together thescores of six behaviors related to eachpractice (variable). The maximum possiblescore on each of the five practices wasthirty (six behaviors with a maximum offive points each). The minimum possiblescore on each of the five practices was six(six behaviors or variables with a minimumof one point each item).

Table 1: Summary of frequency count and percentage on each of the five leadership practices

Leadership Practices

1 2 3 4 5

F % F % F % F % F %

Challenging the Process

41 24.79 31 19.11 39 23.98 33 20.22 20 11.89

Inspiring Shared Vision

38 22.87 29 17.68 39 24.09 34 20.63 24 14.74

Practices and Challenges of Leadership Mitiku D. and Mitiku B. 49Enabling Others to Act

38 22.87 29 17.58 36 22.05 28 17.38 33 20.12

Modeling the way 35 21.44 25 15.35 43 26.52 37 22.26 24 14.43

Encouraging the Heart

46 28.05 37 22.26 34 21.24 30 17.99 17 10.47

1= Rarely 2= Once in a while 3=Sometimes 4= Fairly Often 5= Almost Always

The frequency rating on the five leadershippractices (Modeling the Way, Inspiring aShared Vision, Challenging the Process,Enabling Others to Act and Encouragingthe Heart) indicated that the majority of theteacher-educators rated their leaders fromrarely to sometimes. Table 1 indicates that111 (67.88%), 106 (64.63%), 103 (62.5%),103 (62.5%), 117(71.55%), rated theleaders the extent to which they challengethe process, inspire shared vision, enableothers to act, modeling the way andencourage the heart respectively from

rarely to sometimes. It also shows thatconsiderable number of respondents ratedthe leaders as hardly engaged in thepractices. Means and standard deviationwere also used to measure the degree towhich TEI leaders fit into Kouzes andPosner’s Transformational LeadershipModel as measured by LeadershipPractices Inventory (LPI).The followingtables show result of the plot analysis forthe six behaviors under each of the fivevariables.

Table 2: Extent to which the leaders Challenge the Process

Leadership Behavior Mean StandardDeviation

Set achievable goals, concrete plans, and establishmeasurable milestones for the projects and programs

3.10 1.33

Ethiop. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. 12 No 2, March, 2017 50Challenge us to try out new and innovative ways todo our work

2.80 1.26

Ask “What can we learn?” when things don’t go asexpected

2.80 1.31

Seek out challenging opportunities that test their ownskills and abilities

2.80 1.32

Search for innovative ways to improve what we do. 2.54 1.40

Experiment and take risks, even when there is achance of failure.

2.44 1.34

Aggregate mean 2.75

When the six variables under the leadershippractice i.e. “Challenging the Process”were ranked from the highest to the lowestmean score (Table 2), variable number 1i.e. setting achievable goals, makingconcrete plans and establishing measurablemilestones for the projects and programsthat we work on was rated relatively thehighest mean 3.10 where as the variableranked the lowest was Experimenting andtaking risks, even when there is a chance offailure with mean score 2.44. As can beseen from the table, the mean scores for thefive variables related to “Challenging theProcess” were between 2.5 and 3.49. Thiscorresponds with data obtained by thefrequency count given earlier. Thus, onecould conclude that the CTE leaders ofOromia Regional State moderatelyChallenge the Process.

It is also interesting to note that the meanfor variable 6 (experiment and take risks,even when there is a chance of failure) wasless than 2.5 which indicated that the TEIleaders’ was below moderate which impliesthey are reluctant to take risk. Besides, allof the means for the variables related to theleadership practice challenging the processwere within 1.3 standard deviation of eachother, signifying similar degree ofagreement among the respondentsregarding leaders’ engagement in the fiveleadership practices while there was moreagreement regarding to the extent to whichleaders challenge staff to try out new andinnovative ways to do our work. Theaggregate mean 2.75 shows that the extentto which leaders challenges the process ismoderate.

Table 3: Extent to which the Leaders Inspire a Shared Vision

Leadership Behavior (variables) Mean S. D

Talk about future trends that will influence how our workgets done.

3.03 1.4

Speak with conviction about the higher meaning and 2.97 1.4

Practices and Challenges of Leadership Mitiku D. and Mitiku B. 51purpose of our work.

Show us how our long-term interests can be realized byenlisting in a common vision.

2.84 1.34

Describe a compelling image of what our future could belike.

2.83 1.30

Paint the “big picture” of what we aspire to accomplish. 2.84 1.32

Appeal to us to share an exciting dream of the future. 2.71 1.45

Aggregate mean 2.87

The means for the variables related withInspiring a Shared Vision as indicated inTable 3 above talking about future trendsthat will influence how our work gets donewas ranked the highest practiced with meanscore of 3.03. The second ranked statementwith the mean score of 2.97 was the extentto which leaders speak with genuineconviction about the higher meaning andpurpose of the work of the staff. The lowestranked variable is appealing to share anexciting dream of the future” with the meanscore of 2.71. Table 3 also showed that themeans of the six variables lies between 2.5to 3.49 signifying that the CTEs leadersinspire a shared vision moderately. thestandard deviations results revealed thatthere is high variation among the

respondents on the least ranked variablesthan the others while there was moreagreement regarding describing acompelling image of what the future shouldlook like. It is also interesting to note thatthe standard deviations for the leadershipbehaviors 1 and 2 were almost the same.Moreover, the standard deviation amongrespondents for variable 6 was slightlyhigher than that of the highest rankedvariables. This indicated that there was lessagreement among the respondentsregarding the highest ranked variable thanthe lowest ranked i.e. appealing to share anexciting dream of the future. Generally, theaggregate mean 2.87 shows that the leadersinspire a shared vision moderately.

Table 4: Analysis of Modeling Leadership Behavior

Variables Mean S.D

Builds consensus around a common set of values for runningour institution.

3.20 1.35

Make certain that we adhere to the principles and standards we 3.20 1.30

Ethiop. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. 12 No 2, March, 2017 52have agreed on.

Follows through on promises and commitments that they make. 3.01 1.24

Sets a personal example of what he expects of us. 2.93 1.24

Asks for feedback on how his actions affect other people/ourperformance.

2.73 1.33

Clear about their philosophy of leadership. 2.70 1.44

Aggregate mean 2.96

As indicated in Table 4 above buildingconsensus around a common set of valuesfor running institutions and spending timeand energy making certain that staff adhereto the principles mean score (3.20) is thehighest for Modeling the Way. However,clarity about their philosophy of leadershipis the lowest. The next lower behavior withmean score of 2.70 was asking for feedbackon how his actions affect other people/ourperformance. In spite of the differences, themeans for all behaviors related with“Modeling the Way” fall between 2.5 and3.49 which indicated that the leaders weremoderately engaged in modeling the way.

The data also revealed that standarddeviations for variables 3 and 4 were lowerthan the means for the other variables. Thissignified that there were little variationsamong the respondents regarding variables3and 4 than the remaining behaviors. It wasalso interesting to note that the standarddeviation for the least ranked behavior wasgreater than the others indicating moredisagreement among the respondents thanthe remaining five behaviors The aggregatemean 2.96 for this dimension shows thatthe leaders of the Colleges of Educationmodel leadership behavior moderately.

Table 5: Analysis of the Behaviors of Leaders in enabling others to Act

Variables Mean S.D

Treat all of us with dignity and respect. 3.03 1.44

Develop cooperative relationships among the people they work 3.03 1.50

Practices and Challenges of Leadership Mitiku D. and Mitiku B. 53with.

Give us a great deal of freedom and choice in deciding how todo our work.

3.00 1.50

Actively listen to diverse points of view 2.90 1.42

Ensure that we grow in our jobs by learning new skills anddeveloping ourselves.

2.90 1.41

Support the decisions that we make on our own 2.89 1.40

Aggregate Mean 2.96

In Table 5, the two highest means for theleadership practice related to “EnablingOthers to Act “where leadership treats allemployees with dignity and respect anddevelope cooperative relationships amongthe people they work with equal meanscore of 3.03. On the other hand, theleadership practice with the least meanscore (2.89) was supporting the decisionsmade by workers. The mean scores for thesix behaviors fall between 2.5 to 3.9signifying that the leaders moderatelyenable others to act. Moreover, the standarddeviations for all the leadership behaviorswere high implying that there was highlevel of variation among the respondentsregarding the behaviors exhibited.

This may imply that leaders behavedifferently in different situations so thatemployees perceive them differently. Theresults in the table also revealed that as the

mean for the behaviors in a rank orderdecreases, the standard deviation alsodecreases which implies that respondentsbetter agree regarding the least rankedbehaviors than the highest rankedbehaviors. The analysis of both meanscores and standard deviations revealedthat the leadership practice of enablingothers to act is moderately exercised by theleaders of the CTEs of Oromia RegionalState. Thus, failure to enable and motivatethe staff members to act may be anindicator for the CTE leaders’ inability tobuild the capacity of the staffs andreinforce the team spirit needed forextraordinary achievement by organizingon-job training, cheering about key values,making public ceremonies, beingpersonally involved and creating socialsupport rituals (Kouzes & posner, 2002).In general the extent to which the leadersenable others to act is moderate

.

Table 6: Analysis of Leaders Behaviors in Encouraging the Heart

Variables Mean S.D

Give us lots of appreciation and support for our contributions. 2.74 1.31

Make it a point to let us know about their confidence in our 2.73 1.34

Ethiop. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. 12 No 2, March, 2017 54abilities

Find ways to celebrate accomplishments 2.62 1.30

Make sure that we are rewarded for our contributions to thesuccess of our projects.

2.53 1.40

Publicly recognize the college staffs who exemplify commitmentto shared values.

2.52 1.40

Praise us for a job well done 2.50 1.32

Aggregate Mean 2.60

Table 6 above indicated that the meanscores for the six variables lies between2.5 to 2.74 which indicate that the CTEleaders’ were moderately engaged inencouraging the heart of the workers. Theresults also showed that quality of theleaders in appreciating and providingsupport for staff contributions with meanscore of 2.74 was the highest ranked whilepraising and acknowledging staff for a jobwell done with the mean score 2.50 is leastranked. This may be due to the lack of theculture that values open praises andappreciations, and lack of the awareness onthe side of the leaders the motivation powerof recognizing others work. Note also thatthis leadership behavior was the leastranked of the 30 LPI behaviors. Thisstrengthens the finding obtained throughthe frequency count presented earlier. Thus,both data revealed that the CTE leaders ofOromia Regional State moderately engagedin the practice of Encouraging the heart. Itis also interesting to note that the fivebehaviors (1, 2, 4, 5, and 6) fall withinsimilar standard deviations indicatingsimilar level of agreement among therespondents perception of the CTE leaders’engagement in encouraging the Heart. Thedata also indicated that there was variationamong the respondents regardingleadership the extent to which leaders findways to celebrate accomplishments thanthe other leadership dimensions.

The frequency counts for the fiveleadership practices were analyzedseparately to highlight individuality anddifferences. Some similarities have beenobserved among the responses of the CTEteacher-educators concerning the leaders’various leadership practices. The frequencycount the mean scores of the responses onall the five leadership practices revealedthat the CTE leaders moderately exercisethe expected leadership practices.Moreover, majority of the respondentsrated six to eighteen while less number ofthe observer-respondents rated fromnineteen to thirty on all the leadershippractices. This indicated that, although thedegree varied from one practice to theother, the leaders’ engagement in all thepractices was not encouraging to achieveextraordinary result and transform theirinstitutions.

With regard to the ranking of the leadershippractices from the most exercised to theleast, respondents’ responses are presentedin the table below. Higher value indicatesmore frequent use of the leadershipbehavior associated with the statement.Thus, the maximum possible score on eachof the five practices was 30 (six statementswith a maximum of five points each) andthe minimum possible score on each of thefive practices will be six (six statementswith a minimum of one point each). Groupmeans are, then, calculated for each of the

Practices and Challenges of Leadership Mitiku D. and Mitiku B. 55five practices from the overall scale foreach variable. The ability and behaviors ofthe leaders in encouraging the heart is

slightly above the cut point low that meansit is moderate.

Table 7: Leadership Practices Rank-Ordered

Variables Mean Standard Deviation

Enabling Others to Act 17.73 7.70

Modeling the Way 17.70 6.55

Inspiring a Shared Vision 17.22 7.30

Challenging the Process 16.40 6.85

Encouraging the Heart 15.63 7.20

The rank-ordered leadership practices bymeans and corresponding standarddeviations as indicated in Table 7 showedthat the three leadership practices(Enabling Others to Act, Modeling the Wayand Inspiring a Shared Vision) wererelatively better practiced leadershipbehaviors. The mean for the leadershippractice of “Enabling Others to Act” was17.73 with the corresponding standarddeviation 7.70. This shows that there ishigh variation among the respondents. Themean for “Modeling the Way” was 17.70and the mean for “Inspiring a SharedVision was 17.22.Their correspondingstandard deviations were, 6.55 and 7.30respectively.

The findings of the study generallyrevealed that the TEI leaders moderatelyexhibit the five practices oftransformational leadership. However,when leadership practices are considered,“Enabling Others to Act” and “Modelingthe Way” was better observed leadershippractices while “Encouraging the Heart”and “Challenging the Process” were theleast practiced.

Kouzes and Posner (1987) argue thatleaders must demonstrate at least some ofthe five key ‘practices’ highly to besuccessful. The researchers also indicatedthat specific practices and theircharacteristics can vary according todifferent situations, but at some pointsuccessful leaders will need to access themall if they have to achieve extraordinaryoutcome. Thus, it could be concluded thatsince the TEI leaders did not demonstratehigh any of the five key practices it wouldbe possible to conclude that they areeffective as a leaders.

The third research question attempted toidentify if the leaders in CTEs of OromiaRegional State were in high, moderate orlow category in relation to the leaders inKouzes and Posner’s database. Kouzes andPosner and their associates haveadministered the Leadership PracticesInventory to managers and non-managersacross a variety of organizations,disciplines and demographic backgrounds.The scores from these instruments havebeen compiled in a normative database.Although the attempt to compare the meanscores for the sample leaders of the CTEs

Ethiop. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. 12 No 2, March, 2017 56in Oromia Regional State with that ofKouzes and Posners’ data base might soundunwise, the two were compared to furtherunderstand the status of leadership in TEIsof Oromia Regional State. The mean scores

for the sampled CTEs leaders of OromiaRegional State and the mean scores for theleaders in Kouzes and Posner‘s databaseand the means differences are presented inTable 8 that follows.

Table 8: Analysis CTE Leaders in light of Kouzes and Posner‘s Database

Variables Mean score for Sample CTE leaders

Mean Score of Data Base

Difference

Challenging the Process 32.80 43.90 -11.10 Inspiring a Shared Vision 34.44 40.60 -6.16 Modeling the Way 35.40 47 -11.60 Enabling Others to Act 35.46 48.70 -13.24 Encouraging the Heart 31.26 43.80 -12.54

According to Kouzes and Posner (2000), ahigh percentile level (dependent uponmeans) is one of 70 and above. As clearlyindicated in Table 8 a score betweenpercentile ranks 31 and 69 is consideredmoderate and low scores are at or belowthe 30th percentile. The LPI specific scorefor CTE leaders for each practice was firstchanged into 60 to calculate the mean outof 60 since Kouzes and Posner’s data baseused ten point Likert Scale. Then, the meanscores for Sample CTE leaders werecompared with that of Kouzes and Posner’sdata base.

As indicated in Table 8 above, the meanscores for the CTEs leaders of OromiaRegional State were much below theleaders in Kouzes and Posner’s data base.The mean differences were all negative-11.10, -6.16, -11.60, -13.24, -12.54, forchallenging the process, inspiring a SharedVision, Modeling the Way, Enabling Othersto Act, and Encouraging the Heartrespectively.

The data indicated that the leaders of theCTEs in Oromia Regional State were in thelow category on the five leadershippractices. For the CTE leaders, the meanscore on Challenging the Process (32.80)

fell at percentile rank five (i.e., the CTEsleaders scored 5 % below all the peoplewho have taken the Leadership PracticesInventory and reported to Kouzes andPosner data base. The mean score on“Inspiring a Shared Vision” (34.44) fell atpercentile rank 12 below the database. Theleadership practice “Enabling Others toAct” reflected a mean score of 35.46 and acorresponding percentile rank of 2.5 belowthe database. “Modeling the Way” had amean score of 35.40 with a percentile rankof 6 below the database. The mean score onEncouraging the Heart (31.26)corresponded with a percentile rank of 5below all the leaders in Kouzes andPosner’s database.

This data pointed out that all the meanscores for leaders of the TEIs fell below30% on Kouzes and Posner’s databasewhich showed that on all leadershippractices, the TEI leaders were very muchbelow the leaders who have taken theLeadership Practices Inventory andreported the scores to Kouzes and Posner’sdatabase. Given the leaders’ lack ofadequate knowledge about transformationalleadership theory in general and Kouzesand Posner’s five leadership practices inparticular, the finding could be justified and

Practices and Challenges of Leadership Mitiku D. and Mitiku B. 57comparing the status of the leadershippractices of the TEIs in Oromia RegionalState with that of the leaders in developedcountries might seem unfair. However,given the country’s effort to change andtransform its education system and itseconomy, the finding tells that a lot has tobe done in this regard.

The fourth question asked by the researcherwas “To what extent were the teacher

educators satisfied with the practices ofCTE leadership team members?” Thisquestion was answered by summarizing theteacher-educators’ satisfaction of theleaders’ involvement in each of the fiveleadership practices. The following tableshows summary of the teacher-educators’satisfaction with the practices of CTEleadership Team.

Table 9: The Teacher-educators’ Perception of CTEs Leaders in light of kouzes and Posers’ leadership practices

Variables 1 2 3 4 5

F % F % F % F % F %

Challenging the Process

41 25.30 32 19.41 39 23.88 33 19.92 19 11.48

Inspiring Shared Vision

37 22.56 29 17.78 40 24.19 34 21.04 24 14.43

Enabling Others to Act

36 22.15 30 17.99 36 22.26 29 17.38 33 20.22

Modeling the Way

33 20.12 26 15.75 45 27.54 36 22.26 24 14.33

Encouraging the Heart

46 27.95 37 22.46 35 21.14 29 17.99 17 10.47

Note. 1 = Hardly satisfied, 2 = Fairly Satisfied, 3 = Moderately Satisfied, 4 = highly

satisfied 5 = Very Highly satisfied

Table 9 above showed that 33 (20.12%) ofthe teacher-educators were almost notsatisfied with the extent to which leadersmodel the way, where as only 19 (11.48%)were highly satisfied with the leaders withregard to modeling the way. Majority of therespondents 45 (27.54%) were moderatelysatisfied. With regard to Inspiring a SharedVision, 37 (22.56%), 29 (17.78%) totallyabout 66 (40.34) are almost not satisfied onthe other hand 34 (21.04%), 24 (14.43%)respondents’ were highly and very highly

satisfied respectively which means about58(35.47) are satisfied with how the leadersinspire and share vision among the staff.The table also indicated that 41 (25.30%),32 (19.41%) respondents the total of 73(40.71) were almost not satisfied with howleaders challenge the existing process;whereas 52 (31.40) were satisfied withtheir leaders’ practice of challenging theprocess. Regarding Enabling Others to Act36 (22.15%), 30 (17.99%) which is about66 (40.25) were not satisfied and 29

Ethiop. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. 12 No 2, March, 2017 58(17.38%) and 33 (20.22%) which is about62 (37.70) of the respondents respondedthat they were satisfied. Finally, withregard to encouraging the heart 46(27.95%) and 37 (22.46%) were hardlysatisfied, and fairly satisfied respectivelytotally 83 (50.41) responded that they werenot satisfied in this regard. Whereas 29(17.99%) and 17 (10.47%) i.e. 35 (28.46)were satisfied with the way the leadersencourage the heart of their employees.

As can be understood from the analysispresented in the above paragraph, in allleadership practices majority of therespondents were not satisfied as comparedto those who are satisfied. Therefore, it canbe concluded that leaders in Oromia TEIsare not transformational leaders and needsupport to come to the expected level oftransformational leadership which isbelieved to have significant positive impactin effective and sustainable institutionalchange.

The fifth researches question how CTEleaders’ evaluate themselves in light ofKouzes and Posner’s leadership practices.The deans of the colleges were interviewedand the data revealed that the CollegeDeans fully understand the importance ofthe leadership practices; however, theyfailed to challenge the processunsatisfactorily. “The analysis of theinterview data generally indicated that theleaders recognized the importance of takingrisk as well. But, they practically failed totake risk. The quantitative data obtainedfrom teacher-educators in this regardindicated that the leaders almost notencourage the heart of the workers, on theother hand as opposed to the teacher-educators’ responses, almost all the leadersinterviewed indicated that they are highlyengaged in this dimension of leadershippractice. This is often expected because selfperception is often more inflated ascompared to perceived by others and can

be concluded that the leaders need to workmore to encourage the heart of the

Enabling others to act engenders thedevelopment of cooperative goals throughempowerment, sharing power and trustbuilding. Success in this practice ispredicated upon the leader’s ability toappropriately match the capabilities of anorganization’s human capital with thedemands of the task. By sharing power theleader creates in the workers a feeling ofinfluence and ownership in organizationalsuccess. With regard to this leadershippractice, almost all the leaders respondedthat the planning process in their TEIsinvolve all the staffs. But they also stressedthat some of the non-academic staff lacksthe capacity required to accomplish theirtasks. But they fail to recognize havingstaff who lack the capacity is alsoconsidered as one of the weakness of theleaders in light of the kouzes and posners’leadership practice.

Inspiring a shared vision (the image of thefuture that provides focus for all activities),requires the leader to communicate thisvision in such a way as to motivate thefollowers to work toward its achievement.The leaders interviewed stated thatalthough they communicate the vision andtry to motivate their followers, some peoplewere resistant and were not motivated.

Generally, the interview data indicated thatthe leaders lack the quality of challengingthe process though they believed in itsimportance. With regard to the practice of“Encouraging the Heart”, they the twogroups of respondents had opposing viewsregarding which might imply that theleaders do not meet the expectations of thestaff. Therefore, it could be concluded thatperception staff is highly important thanthat of the leaders because leadership is arelationship between the leader and thefollowers and is based on the followers’perception. Thus, it should be noted that the

Practices and Challenges of Leadership Mitiku D. and Mitiku B. 59teacher-educators’ perception of thefollowers is more significant than that ofthe leaders.

The final research question was thechallenges of institutional leadership inCTEs of Oromia Regional State. Theresearch question was answered on thebasis of the quantitative data as well as theinterview conducted with the Deans ofColleges of Education. As a result, thequantitative and qualitative data, thefollowing leadership challenges wereidentified:

a) The leaders’ failure to effectively leadchange and innovation: The analysis ofthe quantitative data indicated that the TEIleaders were moderately engaged in thefive leadership practices. According to theanalysis of the frequency count 89 (59.74%) respondents rated the leaders’engagement in the practice of “Challengingthe Process”. Moreover, challenging theprocess was the second least ratedleadership practices (16.52). This mightindicate that the leaders failed to createconducive organizational climate requiredby challenging the existence practice tobring about change within the institutions.They were unable to be innovative, to takerisks, and challenge assumptions about theway things have always been done. Thismay cost the TEIs in terms of performance.According to Kouzes and Posner (1995),extra ordinary things are done if leaderschallenge the process.

Leaders’ incapability to inspire a sharedvision negatively influenced many aspectsof the organization such as commitment,performance and satisfaction because anaccepted vision that creates a commonpurpose is motivational (Tichy & Devanna,1996). Vision can influence commitment,performance (Nanus, 1992), and cohesion(Conger, 1990). Lack of a compellingvision negatively affects followers whenthey are uncertain about the future

(Waldman et al., 2001). Therefore, theleaders’ little engagement in this leadershippractice could negatively affect the teachereducators’ and the non-academic staff’scommitment, performance, satisfaction,and motivation.

The study indicated that the leaders werenot optimistic building the capacity of theiremployees and encouraging them to act asrequired. Being optimistic may helpleaders understand and encourage peopleso that they can achieve even more thanthey thought they were able to achieve(Seligman, 1990).Through their researchKouzes and Posner (2000) found thatencouragement increases the chance thatpeople will actually achieve higher levelsof performance.

Leadership is also conceptualized as arelationship between the leader and thefollowers and is based on the followers’perception. The study indicated that theteacher-educators’ perception of theleaders’ leadership practice was generallylow. In other words, their perception oforganizational support was also lowbecause the leadership practice of enablingothers to act was rated moderate by therespondents. As a result, the teachereducators lack commitment andengagement in behaviors that promote thegoals of the institutions (Bennis, 2007).

In terms of the change the Federal MOEaims to achieve, the leaders’ lessengagement in the five practices need to beseriously considered by both thegovernment and the training institutions.The TEI leaders’ high focus on routineactivities was an indicator for theirincapability to create a powerful andcompelling vision which could transformroutine drudgery into energy that iscollective and focused (Bennis, 2007). Itindicated that they were unable to isolateand eliminate structures and routines thatwork against change. They failed to create

Ethiop. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. 12 No 2, March, 2017 60a shared vision and sense of urgency,implement plans and structures that enablechange, and foster open communication.

b) Lack of Professional Support for TEILeadership Teams: Decentralization andthe devolution of responsibilities andownership of initiatives to communitiesand educational institutions at federal levelhave encouraged a commitment to capacitybuilding at the level of Regional State andinstitutions in attempts to promote effectivequality provision. Although government-directed reforms have placed the TEIleaders in highly visible leadership roles,the institutions still lack the capacityrequired to effectively implement thechange in the training process. Most of theleaders interviewed stated that they werehardly provided professional support toimprove the leadership capacity and toensure successful implementation ofchange.

c) System Structure: The TEI leaders wereunable to be innovative, willing to takerisks, and challenge assumptions about theway things have always been done becausepower and responsibilities was highlycentralized. Instead of finding solution forproblems facing their institutions, theytended to seek solution from the RegionalEducation Bureau. As a result, the systembecame highly bureaucratic which oftencaused impractical and inflexibleadministrative situations.

These structural characteristics tended tocreate decision paralysis in which TEIleadership team members were fearful ofinitiating change and taking risk in theimplementation phase without the explicitorder from REB (Hallinger 1994). In otherwords, leadership activities in TEIs ofOromia Region were highly prescriptiveand, thus, the institutional leaders wereexpected to follow the directives asmandated by the REB. Consequently,leaders in the training institutions have

acted as agents of stability, rather than asagents of change. In a similar manner, therole of academic and non-academic staffhad been framed as that of order takerswithin the educational bureaucracy (Tyack& Cuban 1995). Initiative had seldom beenvalued or expected. Instead, the TEI leadershad been attempting to maintain culturalcontinuity inside the system bureaucracy(Cuban, 1988; Fullan& Hargreaves, 1991).

d) The leaders’ incapability to usevarious approaches in securing resourcesand utilizing them to secure competitiveadvantage: Resources are critical to thesuccess of an organization. The shortage ofone type not only impedes theimplementation of various parts of theoverall plan but also causes under or non-utilization of complementary resources.The data gathered through interview withthe TEI leaders indicated that the entire sixsample TEIs were facing serious shortageof human and material resources:

The interview with leaders of the TEI inOromia Regional State indicated not onlyacute shortage of resources, but alsoleaders’ lack of good understanding of theirinstitutions’ resource needs and theirincapability to frequently use variousapproaches in securing and utilizingresources to secure competitive advantage.The leaders’ responses to the interviewindicated their failure to use differentstrategies such as developing a sharedvision and collaborative relationship withexternal or internal providers to tackle theresource shortage and to strengthen theirreform strategies. Although, budgetallocated by the government could be themain source of financial resource for theTEIs. However, the TEI leaders failed notonly to understand that fund from onesource could be inadequate but also todesign strategies of securing additionalbudget. Thus, the major challenge of theTEIs could be the leaders’ incapability to

Practices and Challenges of Leadership Mitiku D. and Mitiku B. 61secure the resources required rather thanscarcity of resource.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSCONCLUSIONSThe focus of this study was to investigatethe practices and challenges of leadershipin the TEIs of Oromia Regional State inlight of Kouzes and Posers’ leadershippractices. As a result of data analysis andthe findings of the study the followingconclusions are made.

The CTE leaders lack the confidence tochallenge the process as a basis to increaseemployee motivation and enhanceperceived organizational performance.They failed to enable the teacher educatorsto act freely to make a difference, to think“outside the box”, and experiment withnew ideas without fear of discipline orblames for making mistakes. As a result, itcould be concluded that the workingatmosphere was not as conducive for theteacher-educators to try new ideas andways of doing things.

The CTE leaders hardly take risks andhence failed to initiate and experiment newideas and strategies that help to transformthe institutions. The leaders are not smartenough in crafting clear vision andeffectively communicating their vision insuch a way that motivates the followers towork towards its achievement. They wereunable to indicate the staff the futuredreams and goals of their institutions bycommunicating the vision. The leaders’failure to communicate the vision, in turn,resulted in failure to bring aboutcommitment, performance, staffsatisfaction and cohesion. In this era ofhigh stakes testing and accountability,teaching has become an increasinglystressful profession (Bennis 2000). Suchstressful time require leaders who promote

and support the successes of the membersof their learning communities. The TEIleaders failed to give such genuine carewhich helps to provide the academic andnon-academic staff with the spirit toovercome insurmountable obstacles.

The leaders of the TEIs in Oromia RegionalState moderately exercise all the fivepractices of Kouzes and Posner’stransformational model. Therefore, theleaders’ low scores in the five practicescould be one major factor which negativelyaffects effective achievement ofinstitutional goals if not the only one. Andhence, these lack of the behaviors oftransformational leadership handicappedtheir effort to deal with the challenges ofcurrent restructuring (BPR) of educationalinstitutions. Moreover, the leaders failed tobuild high level of commitment in teacher-educators and supporting staff to performin the complex and uncertain nature of theinstitutional reform agenda and to foster thecapacities teacher-educators need torespond positively to this change agendathe leaders also lack the creativity requiredto deal with scarcity of resources and theability to implement appropriate strategy tomanage human resource by identifyingtheir institutions’ resource needs andfrequently use various approaches insecuring and utilizing resources to securecompetitive advantage.

RECOMMENDATIONSOn the basis of the conclusion drawn fromthe findings of the study, the researcherswould like to offer the following fiverecommendations.

Oromia Education Bureau (OEB) isadvised to plan and invest resourcesin the leadership development of allmanagers and leadership teammembers in the TEIs of the region.The Bureau and the boards of thecolleges can use this study as the

Ethiop. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. 12 No 2, March, 2017 62impetus for a professionaldevelopment plan. The plan shouldbe focused on the utilization of bestleadership practices that directlyinfluence institutional effectivenessrelative to the administration ofteacher training institutions.

The TEI leaders are advised todevelop a leadership developmentplan paying attention to their ownleadership development so that theyimprove their leadership skills toinfluence their institutions. Such aplan would include particularattention to the leadership practicesoutlined in this study.

Coordinated and comprehensiveleadership development models andtraining needs to be conducted topropel the TEIs toward their missionby elevating the leadership. To thisend, Jimma University and otheruniversities in Ethiopia might needto design a leadership trainingcourse that particularly focuses onthe practices of leadership and theuse of assessment resources such asKouzes and Posner’s LeadershipPractices Inventory (LPI) and otherinstruments for leadership evaluationand development as a basis forcontinuous leadership development.

Additional leadership practices studywhere the data can be disaggregatedmight be necessary in order to lookat each individual TEI. Theresearchers used the parameters ofthis study to analyze data only inaggregate form. But there might bedevil in individual cases that wouldbe helpful to understand. Such astudy would require a differentmethodology. Perhaps a qualitativestudy would help researchers findparticular themes although such astudy may require more risk to the

participants as they would beidentifiable.

This study needs to be replicated atsome time in the future to determineif the leadership practices areaffected by employee or leaders’turnover or change with the leaders’level of leadership training andexperience.

REFERENCES

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G., & Riley, G. L. (1978). Policy makingand effective leadership: A national study of academic management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baldridge, J. V., & Deal, T. E. (1977). Change processes in educational organizations. In G. L. Riley & J. V. Baldridge (Eds.), Governing academic organizations: New problems, new perspectives Berkeley, CA: McCutchen Publishing.

Barnett, K. et. al. (2001), Transformational leadership in schools – panacea, placebo or problem?”, Journal of Educational Administration, 39/1.

Bennis, W. G. (2003) On Becoming a Leader. MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bennis, W. (2000) Managing the dream: Reflections on leadership and change.Cambridge: Perseus Publishing.

Bennis,W. (2007) On Becoming a Leader:

Practices and Challenges of Leadership Mitiku D. and Mitiku B. 63Strategies for Taking Charge. MA:Addison-Wesley

Bensimon, E. M., & Neumann, A. (1993) Redesigning collegiate leadership:Teams and Team Work in Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Brown L. & Conrad D.A. (2007) ‘School Leadership in Trinidad and Tobago: the Challenge of Context’. Comparative Education Review, 51 (2)

Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Cameron, K. S. (1986). A study of organizational effectiveness and its predictors. Management Science.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.

Conger, J.A. (1990).The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19 (2).

Cooper, R. L.1989. Language Planning andSocial Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cuban. (1984) Transforming the frog into aprince: effective schools research, policy, and Practice at the district level, Harvard Educational Review, 54/2.

Draughdrill, J. H. (1988). Essential ingredients for success. In J. L. Fisher & M. W. Tack.

(Eds.), Leaders on leadership: The college presidency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dressel, P. L. (1981) Administrative

leadership: Effective and responsive decision

making in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2001) The New Meaning of Educational Change. London: Routledge Falmer.

Hallinger, P. (2003) Leading Educational Change: reflections on the practiceof instructional and Transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education 33/3.

Hanna, E. (2003) Building a Leadership Vision: Eleven Challenges for Higher Education. Washington D.C: Educause.

Kerr, C. (1994). Troubled times for American higher education: The 1990s and beyond. Albany, NY:State University of New York Press.

Kouzes, M.J, & Posner. Z. B.(1995). The leadership challenge: How to keepgetting extraordinary things done in organizations (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2000). The Janusian Leader, in Chowdhury, S.(ed.). Management of 2 1C. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Lam, Y.L.J. and Pang, S.K.N. (2003), “The relative effects of environmental, internal, and contextual factors on organizational learning: the case of Hong Kong schools under reforms”, The Learning Organization, 10/ 2.

Milliken, F.J. (1990), “Perceiving and Interpreting Environmental Change: An Examination of

Ethiop. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. 12 No 2, March, 2017 64College Administrators’ Interpretation of Changing Demographics,” Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 42–63.

MOE (2003) TESO Handbook. Addis Ababa: ICDR.

MOE (1994) The New Education and Training Policy. Addis Ababa: Berhanena Selam Printing Press.

Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary Leadership San Francisco: Jossey -Bass.

Ngirwa C.C. (2006) The Effects of Leadership Styles in Promoting Academic Performance In Primary Education. M.A.Ed. Dissertation, University of Dares Salaam, Tanzania.

Oduro, K.T. George (2008) Educational Leadership and Quality Education in Disadvantaged Communities in Ghana and Tanzania. Paper presented at The Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management Conference, International Convention Centre, Durban, South Africa, 8th- 12th September 2008.

OREB (2004) Maanuwaalii Kenniinsa Eeyyamaa fi Haaromsa Ogummaa Barsiisummaa fi Hoggansa Dhaabbilee Barnootaa (Unpublished).

Ramsden, P. (1998) Learning to lead in higher education. London: Routledge.

Rost, J. C. (1993), Leadership for the twenty-first century. Wesport, CT: Praeger.

Rozeboom. J. David.(2008) Self Report

and Direct Observer’s Perceived Leadership Practices of Chief Student Affairs Officers in Selected Institutions of Higher Education in the United States, Ph.D Dissertation: Unpublished.

Sammons, P. (1999) School Effectiveness, Lisse, The Netherlands: Swetz & Zeitlinger.

Sivanathan, N. and Fekken, G.C. (2002), “Emotional intelligence, moral reasoning and transformational leadership”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23/4.

Stamatakos, L. C. (1991). Student affairs administrators as institutional leaders. In T. K. Miller,& R. B. Winston (Eds.), Administration and leadership in student affairs: Actualizing student development in higher education (2nd ed.) Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development.

Tichy, N. M. and Devanna, M.A. (1986).The Transformational Leader . New York: Wiley.

Tierney, G. W. (1999) Building the Responsive Campus: Creating High Performance Colleges and Universities. Thousand Oaks: Calif.

Practices and Challenges of Leadership Mitiku D. and Mitiku B. 65

Waldman, David A. et al. (2001). Does leadership matter?: CEO leadership and profitability Under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44/1.

Wallace Foundation (2009) Assessing the effectiveness of school leaders: New directions and new Processes. New York.

Wilcox, J. R., & Ebbs, S. L. (1992). The leadership compass: Values and ethics in higher education. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.