Deregulation has formed the primary core of education reform in Taiwan in the past decade. The principal selection system was one of the specific recommendations in the deregulation of education. The method of designation of senior high school principals has changed from being “appointed” to being “selected.” The issue as to whether selection of principals affects their leadership styles is a subject worthy of examination. This study employs transformational and transactional leaderships as a framework for identifying leadership behavior exhibited by general and vocational high school principals that differed from past behavior and caused by reform in the principal selection system. This study employed interviews to accumulate principals’ viewpoints about the change of principal designation and its effects on their leadership behavior. Questionnaires were used to collect teachers’ perceptions about the changes of principal leadership behavior in the different principal designation method in addition to directly getting the information from principals. The main results of the study indicated that the principal selection system conforms to society’s expectations and democratic basis and appointed principals’ leadership behavior tends to be transactional, while selected principals’ leadership behavior tends to be transformational. Recommendations are made for principals and education authorities.
AgboS. A. (2007). Addressing school-community relations in a cross-cultural context: A collaborative action to bridge the gap between First Nations and the school. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 22(8), 1-14.
2.
AlgaierC. J. (2003). Job satisfaction, leadership styles, and teaching practices among CNMI public elementary school teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Diego, San Diego, California.
3.
AmorosoP. F. (2002). The impact of principals’ transformational leadership behaviors on teacher commitment and teacher job satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey.
4.
BassB. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
5.
BassB. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and management managerial applications. New York: Free Press.
6.
BassB. M.AvolioB. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
7.
BassB. M.AvolioB. J. (2008). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
8.
BergB. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
9.
BoglerR. (2002). Two profiles of schoolteachers: A discriminant analysis of job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(6), 665-673.
10.
BorgesA. (2007). From patronage politics to community deliberation: The recent experience of democratic school management in Brazil. Public Administration and Development, 27(4), 273-282.
11.
BoveyW. H.HedeA. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: The role of cognitive and affective process. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(8), 372-382.
12.
BrymanA. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organization. London: Sage.
13.
ChangF. C. (2006). A study on education reform indicators. Taipei, Taiwan: Wunan.
14.
ChenC. F. (2004). The influencing factors of the early retirement of principals in national senior secondary high schools. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua.
15.
ChengY. C.ChenC. I. (2008). The context of Taiwanese managers’ leadership transformation in China. Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(1), 25-46.
16.
ChinJ. M. (2007). Meta-analysis of transformational school leadership effects on school outcomes in Taiwan and the USA. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(2), 166-177.
17.
Commission on Education Reform, Executive Yuan. (1996). Consultants’ concluding report on education reform. Taipei, Taiwan: Commission on Education Reform, Executive Yuan.
18.
DayC.HarrisA.MarkH. (2001). Challenging the orthodoxy of effective school leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(1), 39-56.
19.
DealT. E.PetersonK. D. (2000). The leadership paradox: Balancing logic and artistry in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
DirksK. T.FerrinD. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-628.
21.
DomL.VerhoevenJ. C. (2006). Partnership and conflict between parents and schools: How are schools reacting to the new participation law in Flanders (Belgium)?Journal of Education Policy, 21(5), 567-597.
22.
DuBrinA. J. (2004). Leadership: Research findings, practice, and skills. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
23.
EdmondsR. R. (1979). Effective school for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-27.
24.
FullanM. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.
25.
GasperJ. M. (1993). Transformational leadership: An integrative review of the literature. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(8A), 2619.
26.
GoldringE. B.SullivanA. V. (1996). Beyond the boundaries: Principals, parents, and communities shaping the school environment. In LeithwoodK. et al. (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 195-222). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
27.
GronnP.Rawlings-SanaeiF. (2003). Recruiting school principals in a climate of leadership disengagement. Australian Journal of Education, 47(2), 172-184.
28.
HarrisA. (2002). Effective leadership in schools facing challenging contexts. School Leadership & Management, 22(1), 15-26.
29.
HsiaoH. C.ChenM. N.YangH. S. (2008). Leadership of vocational high school principals in curriculum reform: A case study in Taiwan. International Journal of Educational Development, 28, 669-686.
30.
HuangN. Y.LinJ. F.WangJ. C. (2005). A study on curriculum leadership in higher vocational schools (a Commissioned Report for Ministry of Education). Taipei, Taiwan: National Taiwan Normal University, Education Research Centre Report.
31.
HuangZ. N.WuC. S. (2010). A study on the National Standards for Educational Leadership of ISLLC 2008 in the United States and its implication for preparation programs of the elementary and secondary school principals in Taiwan. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 6(1), 199-228.
32.
HuberS. G. (2004). Preparing school leaders for the 21st century: An international comparison of development programs in 15 countries. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
33.
KarkR.ShamirB.ChenG. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246-255.
34.
KwanP.WalkerA. (2009). Are we looking through the same lens? Principal recruitment and selection. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 51-61.
35.
LashwayW. (2002). Trends in school leadership (ED. 470969). Eugene, OR: Eric Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
36.
LeeS. U.ChenC. S.ChenE. S. (2007). A study about the influence of new principal selecting system on principal’s leadership and school effectiveness. In Proceedings of 2007 International Conference of Professional Development of Secondary and Elementary School Principals (pp. 357-382). Taipei, Taiwan: National Academy of Educational Research.
LeithwoodK. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.
39.
LiaoC. W.ChiangW. H.TienC. J. (2000, June). A strategic analysis of vocational school principals’ leadership. Paper presented at the 2000 Academic Conference on Cross-strait Vocational (Higher Vocational) Education, National Taipei University of Technology.
40.
MartinoA. M. (2003). Leadership styles, teacher empowerment, and job satisfaction in public elementary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University, New York.
41.
McColl-KennedyJ. R.AndersonR. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordinate performance. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 545-559.
42.
MyersJ. P. (2008). Democratizing school authority: Brazilian teachers’ perceptions of the election of principals. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 952-966.
43.
NorthouseP. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
OrrM. T. (2001, April). Transforming or running aground: Principals in systemic education reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Research Dissertation, Seattle, Washington.
45.
ParoV. H. (2001). Escritos sobre educação. São Paulo, Brazil: Xamã.
46.
PosnerB. Z. (2004). A leadership development instrument for students: Updated. Journal of College Student Development, 45(4), 443-456.
47.
RogersD. H. (1994). Perceived transformational leadership of elementary principals in effective schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University.
48.
SeidmanI. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
49.
SergiovanniT. J. (2005). The virtues of leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 112-123.
50.
SilinsH. C. (1994). The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and school improvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 272-298.
51.
SosikJ. J.KahaiS. S.AvolioB. J. (1998). Transformational leadership and dimensions of creativity: Motivating idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 111-121.
52.
StraussA. L. (1990). Qualitative analysis for social scientists (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
53.
TamW. M. (2005). School-community relations: Reality and tensions. Journal of Basic Education, 14(2), 1-20.
54.
TsaiC. H. (2000). The study of the relationship among transformational and transactional leadership styles, school culture, and school effectiveness in junior high schools in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
55.
WengF. S. (2004). A study of school leadership styles and school outcomes after the implementation of the principal selection system. School Administration Bimonthly, 29, 86-102.
56.
WiebeD. J. (1992). A survey of relationship between school effectiveness characteristics and student achievement as perceived by elementary school principals. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(1), 4181.
57.
YoungsP.KingM. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 643-670.
58.
YuK. C.ChangM. H. (2005). A practical study on transformational and transactional leaderships in schools: A case study on the process in promoting campus networking by a senior high school principal. Secondary Education, 53(1), 4-16.
