COMPARING DISTRIBUTIVE LEADERSHIP PRACTICES ... differences in distributive leadership practices in

download COMPARING DISTRIBUTIVE LEADERSHIP PRACTICES ... differences in distributive leadership practices in

of 15

  • date post

    12-Aug-2020
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    1
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of COMPARING DISTRIBUTIVE LEADERSHIP PRACTICES ... differences in distributive leadership practices in

  • http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1197 editor@iaeme.com

    International Journal of Management (IJM) Volume 11, Issue 7, July 2020, pp. 1197-1211, Article ID: IJM_11_07_106

    Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=7

    ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510

    DOI: 10.34218/IJM.11.7.2020.106

    © IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

    COMPARING DISTRIBUTIVE LEADERSHIP

    PRACTICES AMONG TEACHER LEADERS IN

    MALAYSIAN AND INDONESIAN SCHOOLS

    Yahya Don, Mohd Isha Awang, Muhamad Dzahir Kasa, Mohd Faiz Mohd Yaakob*

    School of Education and Modern Languages, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia

    Prima Gusta Yanti and Nurs Asiah

    Universitas Muhammadiyah Prof. Dr. HAMKA, Indonesia

    *Corresponding Author mohdfaizmohdyaakob@gmail.com

    ABSTRACT

    Malaysia and Indonesia emphasizes distributive leadership practices among

    school leaders by the year 2020. This is being done to improve the social and

    economic capital of the country through an effective school improvement, quality

    improvement of human capital, and the growth of state assets. However, the issues

    that arise such as education transformation and leadership complexity, indirectly lead

    to conflict that affects the school performance. This study was conducted to review the

    distributive leadership among teacher leaders in two different nations, Malaysia and

    Indonesia. Specifically, this study examined the distributive leadership practices

    among teacher leaders in secondary schools. Cross-sectional survey method was

    applied in the process of collecting data through Distributed Leadership Readiness

    Scale (DLRS) formed by Gordon, 2005. The findings showed that there were

    differences in distributive leadership practices in Malaysia and Indonesia. This study

    can be used by school leaders as a guide in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of

    the leadership aspects, as an addition to the basic reference to improve the range of

    knowledge, skills, and leadership management, as act of sharing the vision, values,

    duties and responsibilities of the organization in particular, as well as research in

    aspects of management in schools generally.

    Key words: Distributive leadership, school performance, Malaysia and Indonesia,

    Educational Policy, Educational Leadership.

    Cite this Article: Yahya Don, Mohd Isha Awang, Muhamad Dzahir Kasa, Mohd Faiz

    Mohd Yaakob, Prima Gusta Yanti and Nurs Asiah, Comparing Distributive

    Leadership Practices among Teacher Leaders in Malaysian and Indonesian Schools,

    International Journal of Management, 11(7), 2020, pp. 1197-1211.

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=7

  • Yahya Don, Mohd Isha Awang, Muhamad Dzahir Kasa, Mohd Faiz Mohd Yaakob,

    Prima Gusta Yanti and Nurs Asiah

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1198 editor@iaeme.com

    1. INTRODUCTION

    Education policy makers in Malaysia, Indonesia and throughout the world have studied and

    experimented with various methods and strategies in educational leadership in an effort to

    enhance school excellence and achievement. The main focus of school leadership stems from

    the inclusion of research findings that showed that school leadership has an impact on school

    achievement. In Malaysia and Indonesia, school leadership is fully given the responsibility to

    create a climate, culture, environment, commitment, teacher work satisfaction that can support

    school's excellence. As such, the Ministry of Education Malaysia and Indonesia have

    explored the effectiveness of various strategies and leadership models aimed at assessing their

    impact on school performance, as well as various variables such as school climate,

    confidence, commitment and retention of teachers within a school. In addition, it is also

    reported that school leadership is a determinant of the motivation and quality of teachers

    which are recognized to have the greatest impact on student motivation and achievement

    (Fullan, 2001; Leithwood et al, 2004; Marzano et al, 2005; Sergiovanni, 2007).

    There are some researches in education that stated that teaching leadership (Hallinger &

    Murphy, 1992) and transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000;

    Gronn, 2002; Restrorative & Humphrey, 2010) has a strong impact on the success of a school.

    However, Heck and Marcoulides (1993) argued that the era of leadership led by only a

    charismatic individual whose sole responsibility for school organization is over. Hargreaves

    and Fink (2006) on the other hand, emphasized that leadership sustainability exists in

    distributive leadership as it promotes the emergence of new leadership talent and recognizes

    the achievement of group leadership rather than individual-based leadership. Thus, 21st

    century education requires a kind of leadership that is capable and has the inclination of

    identifying the capabilities and potentials of other individuals within the organization. (Harris

    & Spillane, 2008).

    1.1. The Perspectives of Distributive Leadership in Malaysian and Indonesian

    Schools

    As an individual who is fully responsible for the journey of a school, the principal / school

    leader faces significant challenges. Principals / school leaders take on traditional

    responsibilities as organizational managers (Darling Hammond, Bullmaster, & Cobb, 1995)

    and at the same time as instructional leaders (Leithwood et al., 2004). As instructional

    leaders, principals / school leaders need to manage instructional programs in schools by

    monitoring classroom teaching and learning processes. (Hallinger, 2011). Fullan (1998)

    opined,

    “The burgeoning workload, disruption of stakeholders and the implementation of new

    policies often result in the implementation of new ideas being disrupted and the principals/

    school leaders to lose focus” (Fullan, 1998, p. 6)

    Recent developments have made the principals' / school leaders' role more complex and

    the school is expected to do more than it has ever done. The complex school system in

    Malaysia and Indonesia, with its many challenges, leaves no leader able to meet the day-to-

    day responsibilities of the school (Oduro, 2006). The need for education in millennium 21

    requires the ability and capacity of excellent teacher leadership across the school boundaries.

    Most educational leadership researchers think that a formal leader such as a principal /

    school leader can fulfill all of their demands by simply obeying the policies and mandates,

    which is an inadequate view and is no longer realistic (Barker, 2001; Fullan & Hargreaves,

    1996; Spillane, 2005, 2006). Principals / school leaders who work alone are unable to bring

    the expected transformation to the school and system. Changes in an increasingly complex

  • Comparing Distributive Leadership Practices among Teacher Leaders in Malaysian and

    Indonesian Schools

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1199 editor@iaeme.com

    society require more sophisticated leadership (Fullan, 2001) principals/ school leaders to

    focus on developing capacity and providing leadership opportunities to their subordinates

    while providing appropriate support for change or innovation (Harris & Muijis, 2004; Harris,

    2008).

    In this regard, school leadership researchers have proposed a collaborative model

    involving school faculty participation as defined by the distributive leadership model. (Gronn,

    2008; Spillane, 2005). Leithwood et al., (2006) emphasizes that distributive leadership is not

    one of the effective leadership styles or plans of action but rather a collaborative action

    between leaders and subordinates in the school leadership process. Changing leadership from

    one leader to the other reduces the stresses faced by principals / school leaders (Kratzenmeyer

    & Moller, 2001), increasing teachers' job satisfaction (Leithwood, Mascall, & Tiuu, 2009) as

    well as improving and enhancing the school culture and the learning experiences of students

    and teachers (Lambert, 2002; Barth, 2001).

    Distributive leadership model is a model where teachers and principals / school leaders

    share leadership roles (Spillane, 2005). Marzano et al. (2005), emphasizing the importance of

    distributing leadership across organizations to create meaningful and ongoing change. This is

    because, according to Leithwood et al. (2006) leadership that is widely distributed has a

    significant impact on learning. Accordingly, in the context of distributive leadership,

    leadership is no longer seen as a one-person business but it is widely distributed to individuals

    and the completion of a task is accomplished through ongoing interactions between many

    leaders (Spillane, 2006; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004). According to Harris

    (2002b), the focus of distributive leadership is not on the qualities that leaders possess but the

    focus is on creating a conducive environment for sharing learning and developing leadership

    capabilities. In addition, the distribution of leadership across the schoo