Article

Comparing the effects

of instructional and
transformational leadership
on student achievement:
Implications for practice

Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
2014, Vol. 42(4) 445459
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1741143213502192
emal.sagepub.com

Ryan H Shatzer, Paul Caldarella, Pamela R Hallam

and Bruce L Brown

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare transformational and instructional leadership theories,
examine the unique impact that school leaders have on student achievement, and determine which
specific leadership practices are associated with increased student achievement. The sample for
this study consisted of 590 teachers in 37 elementary schools in the Intermountain West of the
United States. Teachers rated their principals leadership style according to the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (Transformational Leadership) and the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (Instructional leadership). Student achievement was measured by a criterion
referenced test. Hypotheses were tested using regression analysis. Results indicated that
instructional leadership explained more of the variance in student achievement than did transformational leadership. Principals leadership style tended to have a meaningful impact on student
achievement beyond the impact of school context and principal demographics. Specific leadership
functions associated with student achievement were also identified and reported. Conclusion,
implications and limitations are also discussed.
Keywords
Leadership, administration, elementary schools, student achievement

Introduction
Previous research has demonstrated that the leadership style of the school principal can strongly
influence various elements of the school environment, including teacher and staff attitudes, student
learning, and academic achievement (Bogler, 2005; Waters et al., 2003). Of the several leadership

Corresponding author:
Paul Caldarella, Brigham Young University, Department of Counseling Psychology and Special Education, Center for the
Improvement of Teacher Education and Schooling, MCKB 340-A, Provo, Utah, 84602, USA.
Email: paul_caldarella@byu.edu

445

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com by guest on January 19, 2015

446

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4)

theories in the literature, the two that have received the most attention are instructional leadership
and transformational leadership (Robinson et al., 2008). Both have gained support in the literature,
and both have been recommended as models of leadership for school principals (Leithwood et al.,
2006; Robinson et al., 2008). Because of distinct differences in application of these theories, investigation is warranted regarding which theory school principals should follow to best impact their
school management and student learning outcomes.
Results from previous studies have shown that instructional leadership accounts for higher gains
in student academic achievement than transformational leadership (Marks and Printy, 2003;
Robinson et al., 2008). Conversely, transformational leadership has been proposed by some
researchers as being ideal for school principals because instructional leadership lacks a uniform
conceptual model, and recent changes in school reform call for a leader with transformational abilities (Leithwood et al., 2006; Murphy et al., 1983). While both forms of leadership have extensive
empirical support, a study directly comparing these leadership theories has not been undertaken.
The overall objective of this research was to compare transformational and instructional leadership
theories, examining which practices within these theories best predict academic achievement as
measured by student test scores. There were three specific purposes:
1. To compare the effects of instructional and transformational leadership on student achievement
2. To examine whether either leadership theory would significantly predict student achievement after controlling for school context and principal demographics
3. To investigate which specific leadership practices within each theory best predicted student
achievement
This study contributes to the current literature in two ways. First, although there is considerable
evidence supporting both instructional leadership and transformational leadership in education,
this study directly compares them. Second, this study examines the impacts of both practices on
student achievement. These findings will directly benefit principals by informing them of which
practices seem to most positively impact teachers and students, thus contributing to the literature
on educational leadership.

Literature review
Instructional leadership
Hallinger (2003) developed a specific conceptualization of instructional leadership consisting of three
goals: (1) defining the schools mission, (2) managing the instructional program, and (3) promoting a
positive school learning climate. Defining the schools mission includes working with the staff to
ensure that the school has clear and measurable goals that are clearly communicated throughout the
school community. These goals are primarily concerned with the academic progress of the students.
Managing the instructional program requires the school principal to be deeply involved in the schools
curriculum, which includes supervising instruction in the classroom, managing the curriculum, and
monitoring students progress. The principal also leads improvement of the schools climate by ensuring there is a high standard of excellence, with high expectations adopted by the school community.
This includes providing incentives for students and staff, maintaining visibility, as well as protecting
the time needed for classroom instruction from being consumed by managerial duties.
Several studies have been conducted examining instructional leadership. Hallinger and Heck
(1996, 1998, 2000) conducted a review of the instructional leadership literature published between
446

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com by guest on January 19, 2015

Shatzer et al.: Comparing leadership theories

447

1980 and 1995. They noted that studies have concluded that school principals who employ an
instructional leadership style have some influence over student outcomes, usually through teacher
or organizational means. Hallinger et al. (1996) found that a principals instructional leadership had
an indirect effect on student reading achievement and direct effects on school climate variables in
elementary schools. Van de Grift and Houtveen (1999) examined instructional leadership in elementary schools and found that leadership had a small but significant effect on student achievement
scores. In a study in which ODonnell and White (2005) surveyed 250 middle-level educators, perceptions of principal instructional leadership behaviors that focused on improving school learning
climate were identified as predictors of student achievement. The relationship between instructional
leadership and student achievement is often mediated by school-level factors such as school climate
or classroom-level factors such as teacher efficacy and job satisfaction (Hallinger and Heck, 1996).
More recent research has broadened the focus of instructional leadership, such as collaboration
among teachers, creating opportunities for professional growth, and the development of professional learning communities (Marks and Printy, 2003). This shift has stirred a new line of research
looking at different conceptualizations of leadership, which researchers are calling shared
instructional leadership (Marks and Printy, 2003) and distributed leadership (Hulpia et al.,
2009; Mayrowetz, 2008; Scribner et al., 2007). Although this shift is important to note, the
instructional leadership theory used in the current study does not include the additional dimensions attributed to these newer conceptualizations. Rather these newer conceptualizations will be
considered different theories of leadership, which show promise but lack an established measure
and extensive empirical support (Mayrowetz, 2008; Reitzug, 2008).
It should additionally be noted that this study takes a direct effects model approach when analyzing the relationship between leadership practices and student achievement. Although there is
significant merit to investigating the mediating and moderating effects of principals leadership
practices, there is also value in researching the direct impact of leadership on student achievement
(Nettles and Herrington, 2007; Silva et al., 2011). Direct effects commonly account for a small, but
meaningful and significant, portion of the variability in student achievement and merit further
investigation (Nettles and Herrington, 2007). For the purposes of this study to compare instructional and transformational leadership theories, there was value in investigating the direct impact
on student achievement, rather than peripheral outcomes of leadership practices.

Transformational leadership
Although primarily studied in business settings, transformational leadership encompasses several
types of organizations, including schools (Bass, 1998), and involves several leadership practices
and behaviors that facilitate organizational change (DuBrin, 2006). Principals who are transformational leaders are able to identify and articulate a school vision, motivate others through example,
support a culture of intellectual stimulation, and provide support and development to individual
staff members (Leithwood, 1994; Robinson et al., 2008). Four different practices are addressed
in transformational leadership theory: (1) inspirational motivation, (2) individualized consideration, (3) idealized influence (charisma), and (4) intellectual stimulation (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass
and Avolio, 1994).
Included in the transformational leadership theory are two additional leadership elements with
subsets of practices: transactional leadership and non-leadership. Transactional leadership is based
on a simple exchange relationship with followers, including the practices of contingent reward and
management by exception-active. Non-Leadership is the absence of leadership, which includes
447

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com by guest on January 19, 2015

448

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4)

management by exception-passive and laissez-faire leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1994). Strong
transformational leaders tend to also demonstrate strong transactional leadership practices, but would
not demonstrate management by exception-passive or laissez-faire leadership (Avolio and Bass,
2004).
The following components and practices should be differentiated so that they can be interpreted
and compared:
 Inspirational motivation: The degree to which leaders inspire followers with a strong vision
of the future
 Individualized consideration: The degree to which leaders understand the individual needs
of their followers and develop individuals through coaching
 Idealized influence (charisma): The degree to which leaders influence others by example,
requiring trust, admiration and respect
 Intellectual stimulation: The degree to which leaders encourage innovation and divergent
thinking, creating a climate of creativity by challenging norms and taking calculated risks
 Contingent reward: The degree to which leaders establish productive transactions with
followers
 Management by exception-active: A process that involves anticipating problems and monitoring follower behavior to take corrective action before problems become serious
 Management by exception-passive: The practice of waiting until problems are serious
before taking action
 Laissez-faire leadership: The absence or avoidance of leadership, characterized by avoidance of responsibility, disorganization, and little direction or support.
Transformational leadership has been suggested as the ideal leadership style for principals of
schools considering substantial reform, as change management is a strength of transformational
leaders (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006). Transformational leadership by school principals has been
associated with positive outcomes such as improvements in the school environment and in teacher
and staff relations (Bogler, 2005; Griffith, 2004). However, there is a weaker relationship between
transformational leadership and students academic achievement (Leithwood et al., 2006; Leithwood
and Jantzi, 2006). In 665 primary schools in England, Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) found that
transformational leadership had strong direct effects on teachers motivation and the school environment, but failed to explain the variance in students achievement gains on national literacy
exams. Similarly, Ross and Gray (2006) collected data from elementary schools in Canada and
found that transformational leadership had strong direct effects on teacher commitment and
teacher self-efficacy, but weaker indirect effects on student achievement.

Comparing leadership theories

There are distinct differences between transformational and instructional leadership theories. First,
transformational leadership proposes a more distributed or bottom-up approach, while instructional
leadership functions more from the top down (Hallinger, 2003). For example, transformational leaders
create a common vision, establish a consensus among staff members, and inspire followers to accomplish this vision through a more autonomous process. In contrast, instructional leaders tend to manage
and reward staff members toward a predetermined set of goals instead of creating a common vision
among staff. Secondly, the leadership theories differ in their involvement of staff members in soliciting
448

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com by guest on January 19, 2015

Shatzer et al.: Comparing leadership theories

449

change and school reform (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2000). Transformational leaders use their shared
vision to create a supportive school climate in order to solicit change and manage school reform,
whereas instructional leaders tend to focus on making changes with core curriculum. Hallinger
(2003) refers to the focus on teaching and curriculum in school reform as first-order changes, while
transformational leaders tend to focus on the second-order changes such as articulating the school
vision and creating a supportive culture. A final distinction is the contrast of transactional versus transformational forms of leadership. Instructional leadership can be seen as transactional in the sense that
the principal manages and rewards staff members toward a predetermined set of goals. In contrast,
transformational leaders create a common vision, create a consensus among staff members, and inspire
followers to accomplish this vision through a more autonomous process (Hallinger). Although there is
overlap in these two theories of leadership, these differences create a definite distinction between them.
Robinson et al. (2008) compared instructional and transformational leadership in a metaanalysis from 22 published studies that examined the relationship between leadership and student
outcomes. The mean effect size estimates for instructional leadership (ES .42 from 12 studies)
was nearly four times as that of transformational leadership (ES .11 from five studies), and
higher than the other theories of leadership (ES .30 from five studies). The authors reasoning
behind the impact of instructional leadership on student outcomes being greater than that of transformational leadership suggests that general and abstract leadership theories do not prescribe specific leadership practices that can have an impact on student outcomes. This parallels Marks and
Printys (2003) results when comparing the two leadership theories, and supports their criticism
that transformational leadership lacks an educational emphasis and does not specifically spell out
the practices of a successful principal. Although both of these studies provide additional insight
into the comparison of transformational and instruction leadership theories, further evidence is
needed from research that directly compares these two leadership theories in the same context and
with the same operationalization of student achievement.

Method
Participants and procedure
A total of 37 schools from three school districts located in the Intermountain West participated
in this study. Schools were chosen based on their availability and their membership in a public
school partnership with the institution collecting data. To control for grade level and school type,
only elementary schools (K-6) were invited to participate. Of the 45 elementary schools invited,
37 (82%) distributed and completed the questionnaires and thus were included in the study.
Demographic information was collected from the principals at the participating schools.
The median age range for principals was 5054 years old, 62% were male and 38% were
female, and all had completed a masters degree. Participants had been the principal at their
current school an average of 4.39 years (SD 2.85) and had been a school principal an average of 9.58 years (SD 6.26).
Elementary teachers from the participating schools completed a series of anonymous questionnaires evaluating their principals leadership behavior. Online survey software randomly
assigned teachers to complete either the transformational leadership questionnaire (Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)) or the instructional leadership questionnaire (Principal
Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS)) to assess their principals leadership practices. Teachers completed the questionnaires at the end of the school year to ensure that they
449

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com by guest on January 19, 2015

450

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4)

had adequate opportunities to observe and accurately rate their principals behavior. A total of
590 teachers completed the online questionnairesa 45% response rate. Teachers median age
range was 4044 years old; 91% of the teachers were female and 9% were male. A total of 74%
were traditional K-6 classroom teachers, 9% taught across grade levels or taught grade combination classes, and the additional 17% were other faculty or staff members (e.g. librarians, school
psychologists, and office staff). Participating teachers had an average of 11.07 years of teaching
experience (SD 10.07) and had worked with the current school principal an average of
3.61 years (SD 3.04).
The elementary schools involved in the study participated in their statewide testing independent
of the current study; thus no students participated directly. There were 23,738 students at the
37 participating schools, averaging 641.57 students per school. Student ethnicity was primarily
White (80%) or Hispanic (15%), with a small percentage of African American (1%), Asian
(1%), Pacific Islander (2%), and other (1%) ethnicities. A total of 12% of the students were English
language learners (ELL), and 36% were considered to be low socioeconomic status (SES) based on
household income and eligibility for reduced price lunch.

Measures
Multifactor leadership questionnaire. The MLQ Form 5X (Bass and Avolio, 1994) was used to assess
the transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and passive/avoidant leadership
behaviors of the participating principals. The MLQ measures eight leadership dimensions, with
each dimension containing four items (internal consistency reliabilities from the current study
are also reported). Transformational leadership contains the dimensions of inspirational motivation
(a .90), individualized consideration (a .94), intellectual stimulation (a .93), and idealized
influence (a .87). Transactional leadership includes the dimensions of contingent reward (a .88)
and management by exception-active (a .84). Passive/avoidant leadership is measured by the
dimensions of management by exception-passive (a .89) and laissez-faire leadership (a .86).
Items in the MLQ use a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) not at all to (5) frequently, if not always.
Teachers scores from each leadership dimension were averaged to create a total of eight dimension
scores for each principal. An overall transformational leadership score was also calculated by the
overall average of the four dimensions of transformational leadership. This overall score did not
include transactional or non-leadership dimensions.
Principal instructional management rating scale. The PIMRS evaluates a principals performance on 10
instructional leadership dimensions that have been associated with effective school leadership
practices (Hallinger, 2000; Hallinger and Murphy, 1985). The measurement contains 50 items (five
for each dimension) which address specific principal behaviors and practices. The 10 dimensions,
along with the internal consistency reliabilities from the current study, include the following:
frame the school goals (a .92), communicate the school goals (a .89), supervise and evaluate
instruction (a .81), coordinate the curriculum (a .93), monitor student progress (a .87),
protect instructional time (a .83), maintain high visibility (a .88), provide incentives for teachers (a .95), promote professional development (a .88), and provide incentives for learning
(a .91). Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) almost never to (5) almost
always. Teachers scores from each leadership dimension were averaged to create a total of 10
dimension scores for each principal. An overall instructional leadership score was also calculated
by the overall average of the 10 dimensions.
450

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com by guest on January 19, 2015

Shatzer et al.: Comparing leadership theories

451

Student achievement variables. Two variables were used in this study to measure student achievement. Every year the elementary schools in this study take a criterion referenced test (CRT), a statewide mandatory standardized test. The CRT is taken at the conclusion of the school year and
covers the topics of math, language arts, and science. The two student achievement variables used
were CRT-raw (referring to the total raw score average for each school) and CRT-progress (referring to the index of change comparing the achievement levels of each student from one year to the
next, which has a possible range of 50375). The CRT undergoes continual refinement to ensure
that it is a valid and reliable assessment (Dyson, 2008). This test shows strong convergent validity,
having strong correlations (r .74.83) with the Stanford Achievement Test-9 (Dyson, 2008).
Internal consistency was also strong, with Cronbachs alpha coefficients ranging from .79 to .95
(Dyson, 2008). CRT scores, which were used as the outcome measure for the current study, are
available to the public and were accessed through the state department of education, which process
the scores for each school. One of the participating schools did not have test scores from the previous year, so it was omitted from all analyses involving CRT-progress since no progress score
could be calculated. Thus CRT-progress and CRT-raw will have n 36 and n 37, respectively.
School context and principal demographics. Several control variables from each school were collected
including total student enrollment; the percentage of students in the school who were African
American, Native American, Asian, Hispanic or Pacific Islander (non-White); the percentage of
students in the school who were ELL; and the schools SES. Students were classified as either high
or low SES based on household income and eligibility for reduced price lunch. The SES variable in
this study is the percentage of students at the school who were classified as low SES. Principal
demographic variables included the principals gender and the number of years he or she had been
at the school (tenure). These control variables are standard measures consistently used in research
to control for school context and principal demographics (Dumay, 2009; Hite et al., 2006; Printy,
2008). See Table 1 for descriptive statistics on these school-level variables.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for school context and principal demographics.
Demographic Category

SD

Principal tenure
School size
Non-White
ELL
School SES

37
37
37
37
37

4.39
641.57
23.66
13.36
37.63

2.89
175.65
16.62
14.09
18.56

ELL: English language learner; SES: socioeconomic status.

Data analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to report the frequency, central tendency, and variability of the
measures used in this study. Student achievement was used as the dependent variable. Multiple
regression was the primary statistic used to analyze the effect that instructional and transformational leadership had on student academic achievement. The instructional and transformational
leadership dimensions were the predictor variables, and the two student achievement scores were
the separate dependent or criterion variables. These analyses produced an R2 statistic for the two
451

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com by guest on January 19, 2015

452

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4)

Table 2. Multiple regression results for leadership dimensions predicting student achievement.
Instructional leadership
Variable
CRT-rawa
CRT-progressb

Transformational leadership

R (SEE)

R2 (SEE)

.45 (12.06)
.27 (10.76)

2.16y
0.93

.29 (13.25)
.22 (10.72)

1.43
0.94

Note. an 37. bn 36. yp .056.

CRT: criterion referenced test.

separate leadership theories on each of the two student achievement measures (CRT-raw and
CRT-progress), which were then compared.
Sequential regression was to be used to examine whether either leadership theory would predict student achievement after controlling for school context and principal demographics.
Sequential regression is similar to stepwise regression in that variables or blocks of variables are
entered consecutively in the regression analysis (Galambos et al., 2008; Keith, 2006; Rubin
et al., 2005). In this study the school context and principal demographic control variables were
the first block of variables entered in the analysis, followed by the second block of leadership
dimensions. Separate analyses were conducted for instructional and transformational leadership,
repeated for each dependent variable of student achievement. Since this study was focused on the
R2 for all the leadership dimensions from each leadership theory, no variables were excluded
from the analyses, although it was assumed that some or even many of the variables would not
be significant.
Multiple regression was also used to investigate which specific leadership practices within each
theory best predicted student achievement. The standardized betas were used to determine which
leadership dimensions best accounted for student achievement. In addition, individual regression
analyses were performed on each leadership practice, since the direction and statistical significance of the betas could differ with multiple variables being entered into the analysis together.

Results
One main purpose of the study was to compare the effects of instructional and transformational
leadership on student achievement. Results from the two separate multiple regression analyses are
presented in Table 2. Results indicated that instructional leadership scores explained more of the
variance in student achievement when measured by the CRT. For CRT-raw, instructional leadership explained 45.4% of the variation, while transformational leadership explained 29.0%. However, neither instructional nor transformational leadership predicted a statistically significant
amount of variance in measures of student achievement without controlling for school context and
principal demographics. Although not statistically significant, R2 values in the .20 to .45 range do
explain a meaningful amount of variance in student achievement. Other factors such as school context may also contribute to this variation.
The second purpose of this study was to examine whether either leadership theory would predict
student achievement after controlling for school context and principal demographics. A summary of
the results is presented in Table 3. Results from the sequential regression analyses show that both
transformational and instructional leadership accounted for most of the variance in the CRT-raw and
CRT-progress scores, while the control variables accounted for only a small proportion.
452

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com by guest on January 19, 2015

Shatzer et al.: Comparing leadership theories

453

Table 3. Summary of the sequential regression analyses on student achievement.

Instructional leadership
Variable
CRT-rawa
Step 1
Step 2
CRT-progressb
Step 1
Step 2

DR

Transformational leadership
R2

DR2

.24y
.76**

.52**

.24y
.50

.26

.18
.51

.33

.18
.52

.34

Note. an 37. bn 36. yp < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Step 1 contains the control variables and Step 2 contains the
control variables in addition to the leadership dimensions.
CRT: criterion referenced test.

After controlling for school context and principal demographics, instructional leadership
accounted for a large and significant amount of the variance in CRT-raw scores [F (10, 20) 4.31,
p < .01, DR2 .52], and transformational leadership accounted for a proportion that was nonsignificant but larger than the control variables [F (8, 22) 1.42, p .24, DR2 .26]. Neither the
control variables nor the leadership practices predicted a significant amount of the variance in
CRT-progress scores, although instructional leadership [F (10, 19) 1.28, p .31, DR2 .33] and
transformational leadership [F (8, 21) 1.89, p .12, DR2 .34] accounted for more of the variance
than the control variables.
The most consistent control variable to predict a significant amount of variance in achievement
scores was school SES (b .73 to .85, p < .05), while none of the other control variables was
significant in the first step of the regression analysis. A negative relationship was found between
school SES and student achievement: As the percentage of students with low SES increased in the
school, the achievement scores decreased. In addition to the control variables, another interest was
to determine which specific leadership practices were associated with high achievement scores.
The third purpose of this study was to investigate which specific leadership practices within each
theory best predicted student achievement. To determine which leadership practices best predicted
student achievement, multiple regression was used, with separate analyses for the instructional and
transformational leadership dimensions, each predicting the two measures of student achievement.
Results showed that very few leadership dimensions significantly predicted student achievement scores. The standardized betas are reported in Table 4 (refer back to Table 2 to find the
R2 and standard error of the estimate). Management by exception-passive (b .82, p < .05) and
laissez-faire leadership (b .87, p < .05) were the only significant transformational leadership
dimensions to predict student achievement, while monitor student progress (b .85, p < .05) and
provide incentives for learning (b .57, p < .05) were the only significant dimensions of instructional leadership. The betas reported may be misleading because the direction and strength of the
relationship may be unclear when several dimensions are entered together in the multiple regression analysis.
In order to find the directions and strength of these relationships, separate regression analyses
were used for each of the individual dimensions of leadership (see Table 4). For instructional leadership, the dimensions protect instructional time (R2 .11, p < .05, r .33) and provide incentives
for learning (R2 .25, p < .001, r .50) significantly predicted CRT-raw. Monitor student
453

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com by guest on January 19, 2015

454

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4)

Table 4. Results of multiple regression and single regression analyses for student achievement.
Multiple Regression

Leadership Dimensions
Instructional leadership
Frame the school goals
Communicate the school goals
Supervise and evaluate instruction
Coordinate the curriculum
Monitor student progress
Protect instructional time
Maintain high visibility
Provide incentives for teachers
Promote professional development
Provide incentives for learning
Transformational leadership
Idealized Influence
Inspirational motivation
Intellectual stimulation
Individualized consideration
Contingent reward
Management by exception-active
Management by exception-passive
Laissez-faire leadership

Single Regression

CRT-raw

CRT-prog

CRT-raw

CRT-prog

R2

R2

.47
.71
.24
.06
.85*
.18
.16
.10
.24
.57*

.14
.77
.05
.09
.38
.35
.40
.49
.20
.47

.01
.10y
.01
.07
.02
.11*
.04
.04
.10y
.25**

.03
.04
.01
.02
.01
.00
.05
.00
.00
.03

.10
.44
.10
.23
.14
.17
.82*
.87*

.42
.29
.03
.34
.01
.08
.67y
.73y

.01
.01
.03
.03
.04
.04
.05
.00

.03
.04
.05
.07
.06
.02
.01
.08

Note. n 36 (CRT-prog), n 37 (CRT-raw). yp < .10. *p < .05. **p < .001.
CRT: criterion referenced test.

progress, which was significant in the multiple regression analysis, did not reach significance in the
single regression analysis, but it did have a positive correlation with CRT-raw (R2 .02, p .37,
r .15). Management by exception-passive (R2 .05, p .19, r -.22) and laissez-faire leadership (R2 .00, p .87, r .02) did not reach significance on the single regression analysis for
CRT-raw, although they were significant when entered with the other dimensions in the multiple
regression analysis.

Discussion
The first purpose of this study was to compare instructional and transformational leadership theories, specifically evaluating how each affects student achievement. Elementary school teachers
evaluated their principals leadership style, and the leadership ratings were used to predict student
achievement scores. Results for student achievement indicated that instructional leadership
accounted for more of the variance in CRT-raw scores (45%) than transformational leadership
(29%). Instructional leadership also explains slightly more of the variation in CRT-progress scores
(27%) than transformational leadership (22%).
These results are consistent with those of Robinson et al. (2008), who found that instructional
leadership has a stronger effect on student achievement than transformational leadership. Although
454

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com by guest on January 19, 2015

Shatzer et al.: Comparing leadership theories

455

Robinsons meta-analyses claimed that effect sizes were four times higher for instructional leadership, the limitations of the meta-analysis should be noted: When keeping the international context of the schools constant, the differences between leadership theories were not as striking. The
results from the current study also support the conclusion that instructional leadership has a slight
advantage over transformational leadership in relation to student achievement.
Results demonstrated that CRT-raw and CRT-progress scores were explained primarily by the
principals leadership ratings (2652%), with the control variables predicting a small nonsignificant amount of the variance (24% and 18%, respectively). This suggests that school principals can have a meaningful impact on student achievement. The results for CRT-progress, which
considers the progress students have made from the previous year, are also important to consider.
Possibly principals actually do have more influence over the progress of the students in their school
than the impact of the school context. School context would seem to be a rather stable characteristic, while principal leadership is more dynamic and may have a larger impact on change, as indicated by the results of both instructional and transformational leadership accounting for nearly
twice as much of the variance in student academic progress as school context.
What specific principal behaviors have the largest impact on student achievement? Results
demonstrated that the following behaviors were associated with higher levels of student achievement: monitor student progress, protect instructional time, provide incentives for learning, provide
incentives for teachers, and make rewards contingent. These first four leadership dimensions
address the following principal capabilities:








Meet with teachers to discuss students needs

Discuss performance results with teachers and students
Limit possible interruptions on classroom instruction
Encourage teachers to use classroom time effectively
Recognize students who exhibit academic excellence or improvement
Provide clear expectations and appropriate rewards for teachers
Provide recognition at assemblies, office visits, and in communications to parents

These leadership practices seem to align nicely with students ability to perform academically, but
correlations have not been demonstrated in previous studies (Witziers et al., 2003).
The last leadership dimension associated with student achievement was contingent reward,
which has been shown in previous research to be associated with student achievement (Robinson
et al., 2008). This dimension is the ability of principals to clearly indicate expectations and establish appropriate rewards for teachers when they meet those expectations.

Implications
For the past 20 years, leadership development programs have suggested the use of instructional or
transformational leadership practices (Hallinger, 2000; LaPointe and Davis, 2006). However, until
recently few research studies have attempted to directly compare these theories. Robinson et al.
(2008) was one of the first to make such a comparison. Results from that meta-analysis suggested
instructional leadership practices to be more effective than transformational leadership. Likewise,
the results from the current study suggest the use of instructional over transformational practices.
Another reason for the use of instructional leadership in leadership development programs is its
specificity. The use of transformational leadership in education may leave a principal asking what
455

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com by guest on January 19, 2015

456

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4)

transformational leadership looks like. Instructional leadership, however, has specific practices
that a principal can understand and implement simply by reviewing the leadership dimensions
or reading the items on the PIMRS.
Leadership development programs can specifically target the most effective leadership practices rather than all the practices of instructional leadershipthe specific practices that were associated with student achievement in this study. It should also be noted that some of the
transformational leadership practices were associated with student achievement. Although these
practices seem to be transactional, they show a considerable impact on student achievement.
The No Child Left Behind Act has increased the accountability of school principals to ensure
that all students are meeting achievement standards (US Department of Education, 2009). In the
past the influence of principal leadership on student achievement was thought to be limited. However, researchers are increasingly asserting that leadership does make a difference (Waters and
Cameron, 2005). Although not directly addressing educational leadership, Kaiser et al. (2008) have
recently argued that leaders should be evaluated on actual group outcomes, rather than on perceived effectiveness or processes. Results from empirical research suggest that principal leadership
does account for a meaningful amount of the variation in student test scores (Nettles and Herrington, 2007). Elmore (2003) acknowledged,
[K]nowing the right thing to do is the central problem of school improvement. Holding schools accountable for their performance depends on having people in schools with the knowledge, skill, and judgment to make the improvements that will increase student performance. (p. 9)

From the results in this study and the conclusions reached by other researchers, knowing the
right thing to do continues to increase. Thus it is suggested that principals should be held to a
higher standard for the performance of teachers and students, while taking into consideration
important contextual factors.
Heck (2000) has pointed out that student background and school contextual factors, such as
school SES, are beyond the control of the school principal. Principals should, however, be accountable for the student achievement standards that fall within their influence. Heck (2000) proposed a
model that included statistical adjustments allowing for equitable comparisons between schools.
The results from this study support the conclusion that school context and principal demographics
do significantly impact student achievement, but that principals contribute to the outcome of student test scores in unique and meaningful ways. Results from CRT-progress data also suggest that
the principal may have more influence on the progress, than on students actual scores. Thus leadership does matter within the context of student and school characteristics, and school context may
be maximized by tracking the progress of students within the same school.

Limitations and future research

Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, the sample was relatively small, which prevented some of the analyses from reaching statistical significance. For example, results showed
that leadership accounted for 2245% of the variance in student achievement. Although accounting for this amount of variance is very meaningful, the R2 did not reach statistical significance.
Presumably, with more schools in the sample the R2 would reach significance. Other research studies have also found a meaningful but non-significant association between leadership and student
achievement (Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Robinson et al., 2008). However, it should be noted that
456

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com by guest on January 19, 2015

Shatzer et al.: Comparing leadership theories

457

the results from the current study show a much stronger association than other research studies,
with correlations ranging from .40 to .67, while typical correlations from other studies tend to
be around .25 (Waters and Cameron, 2005). Secondly, this study did not examine the situational
factors associated with each school. For example, a different style of leadership may be required in
various stages of the school development or for schools undergoing tremendous change (Brauckmann and Pashiardis, 2011). Finally, the CRT-progress score only captures a one-year difference
in student achievement scores. A stronger measure of student achievement would be an index of
student test scores across multiple years.
Future research could also examine new models of leadership in education. Several researchers
have created modified theories of leadership that are beginning to replace the somewhat dated theories of instructional and transformational leadership. For example, Hallinger (2003) suggested
that the ideal form of leadership is the integration of the instructional and transformational
approaches. Other researchers have built off Hallingers work and integrated leadership models
to form newer and more popular theories of leadership, called shared instructional leadership and
distributed leadership, which include the contributions of other staff members (Hulpia et al., 2009;
Mangin, 2007; Scribner et al., 2007). Although this shift is important to note, the instructional leadership theory used in the current study does not include the additional dimensions attributed to
these newer conceptualizations. Rather these newer approaches are considered different theories
of leadership, which show promise but lack established measures and extensive empirical support
(Mayrowetz, 2008; Reitzug, 2008); thus they were not examined in this study.
Caution should be taken when integrating leadership theories. There is danger in simply combining leadership practices because practices may not be theoretically compatible. For example,
one cannot easily combine the practice provide incentives for teachers with transformational
leadership theory because, as Bass (1998) has noted, transformational leaders are able to go beyond
the short-term exchanges of providing incentives for teachers and instead motivate followers to
provide additional effort by encouraging them to buy into a greater vision. Another danger in simply integrating established leadership dimensions is developing the false impression that the
researcher has created something new (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006). Simply adding an element
to an already established model does not sufficiently merit the attention of an entirely new line
of research. What may be needed in educational research is the conceptualization of a new model
of leadership that can go beyond current theories and have a greater impact on student achievement
than the current models of instructional and transformational leadership.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.

References
Avolio BJ and Bass BM (2004) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Manual and sampler set (3rd ed.)
Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.
Avolio BJ, Waldman DA and Yammarino FJ (1991) Leading in the 1990s: The four Is of transformational
leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training 15: 916.
Bass BM (1998) Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
457

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com by guest on January 19, 2015

458

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4)

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1994) Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bogler R (2005) Satisfaction of Jewish and Arab teachers in Israel. Journal of Social Psychology 145: 1933.
Brauckmann S and Pashiardis P (2011) A validation study of the leadership styles of a holistic leadership theoretical framework. International Journal of Educational Management 25: 1132.
DuBrin AJ (2006) Leadership: Research Findings, Practice, and Skills (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton,
Mifflin and Co.
Dumay X (2009) Origins and consequences of schools organizational culture for student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly 45: 523555.
Dyson K (2008) Predicting performance on criterion-referenced reading tests with benchmark assessments.
Unpublished Masters Thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
Elmore R (2003) Knowing the Right Thing to Do: School Improvement and Performance-Based Accountability. Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices.
Galambos NL, Magill-Evans J and Darrah J (2008) Psychosocial maturity in the transition to adulthood for
people with and without motor disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology 53: 498504.
Griffith J (2004) Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration 42: 333356.
Hallinger P (2000) Instructional Management Rating Scale: Resource manual. Bangkok, Thailand: Mahidol
University.
Hallinger P (2003) Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education 33: 329351.
Hallinger P and Heck RH (1996) Reassessing the principals role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly 32: 544.
Hallinger P and Heck RH (1998) Exploring the principals contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 9: 157.
Hallinger P and Murphy JF (1985) Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. The
Elementary School Journal 86: 217247.
Hallinger P, Bickman L and Davis K (1996) School context, principal leadership, and student reading
achievement. The Elementary School Journal 96: 527549.
Heck RH (2000) Examining the impact of school quality on school outcomes and improvement: A valueadded approach. Educational Administration Quarterly 36: 513.
Hite J, Williams E, Hilton S, et al. (2006) The role of administrator characteristics on perceptions of innovativeness among a network of public school administrators. Education and Urban Society 38: 160187.
Hulpia H, Devos G and Rosseel Y (2009) The relationship between the perception of distributed leadership in
secondary schools and teachers and teacher leaders job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 20: 291317.
Kaiser RB, Hogan R and Craig SB (2008) Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist
63: 96110.
Keith TZ (2006) Multiple Regression and Beyond. Boston, MA: Pearson.
LaPointe M and Davis S (2006) School Leadership Study: Developing Successful Principals. Palo Alto,
CA: Stanford University.
Leithwood K (1994) Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly 30: 498518.
Leithwood K and Jantzi D (2000) The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and
student engagement in school. Journal of Educational Administration 38: 112129.
Leithwood K and Jantzi D (2006) Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 17: 201227.
458

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com by guest on January 19, 2015

Shatzer et al.: Comparing leadership theories

459

Leithwood K, Jantzi D and McElheron-Hopkins C (2006) The development and testing of a school improvement model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 17: 441464.
Mangin MM (2007) Facilitating elementary principals support for instructional teacher leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly 43: 319357.
Marks HM and Printy SM (2003) Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly 39: 370.
Mayrowetz D (2008) Making sense of distributed leadership: Exploring the multiple usages of the concept in
the field. Educational Administration Quarterly 44: 424435.
Murphy J, Hallinger P and Mitman A (1983) Problems with research on educational leadership: Issues to be
addressed. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 5: 297305.
Nettles SM and Herrington C (2007) Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of school leadership on
student achievement: The implications for school improvement policy. Peabody Journal of Education 82:
724736.
ODonnell RJ and White GP (2005) Within the accountability era: Principals instructional leadership and
student achievement. NASSP Bulletin 89: 5671.
Printy SM (2008) Leadership for teacher learning: A community of practice perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly 44: 187226.
Reitzug UC (2008) Conceptualizing instructional leadership: The voices of principals. Education and Urban
Society 40: 694714.
Robinson VMJ, Lloyd CA and Rowe KJ (2008) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of
the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly 44: 635674.
Ross JA and Gray P (2006) School leadership and student achievement: The mediating effects of teacher
beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education 29: 798822.
Rubin RS, Munz DC and Bommer WH (2005) Leading from within: The effects of emotion recognition and
personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of Management Journal 48: 845858.
Scribner JP, Sawyer RK, Watson S, et al. (2007) Teacher teams and distributed leadership: A study of group
discourse and collaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly 43: 67100.
Silva J, White G and Yoshida R (2011) The direct effects of principalstudent discussions on eighth grade
students gains in reading achievement: An experimental study. Educational Administration Quarterly
47: 772793.
US Department of Education (2009) No Child Left Behind Act. Available at: www.ed.gov/nclb (accessed
6 October 2009).
Van de Grift W and Houtveen A (1999) Educational leadership and pupil achievement in primary education.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 10: 373389.
Waters T and Cameron G (2005) The Balanced Leadership Framework: Connecting Vision with Action.
Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL).
Waters T, Marzano RJ and McNulty B (2003) Balanced Leadership: What 30 Years of Research tells us about
the Effect of Leadership on Student Achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and
Learning (McREL).
Witziers B, Bosker RJ and Kruger ML (2003) Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive
search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly 39: 398.

459

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com by guest on January 19, 2015