Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Leadership competencies in early childhood (EC) education present an intricate policy and practice landscape. This article provides insights into these complexities and shares a novel survey evaluation tool that can be used in services for identifying leadership competencies and gaps for ongoing professional development. The research employed a two-phase approach involving thematic analysis of governing documents and focus group interview data. This resulted in the development of five core domains of leadership competencies represented throughout a survey tool. The subsequent validation of the survey revealed both self-identified roles and demonstrated competencies among educators in Western Australian EC services. The article sheds light on discrepancies between perceived and observed leadership, suggesting the need for tailored professional development and succession planning. Insights into these dynamics contribute to a deeper understanding of effective leadership practices, offering a foundation for ongoing discourse and continual enhancement of leadership competencies in the context of EC education.

Keywords

Leadership survey competency educator identity

Quality leadership is an integral component of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Leadership is instrumental in shaping services and teams, for providing high quality educational processes and outcomes, and for creating the conditions for educators to be successful in their important work with young children and families (Brooks & Normore, 2017). Critically, the ways in which leadership is understood and enacted in ECEC has significant implications for young children and how they experience pedagogy and practice in long-day-care services (Nicholson et al., 2018).

In Australia, the National Quality Framework (NQF) governs ECEC, incorporating the National Quality Standards (NQS), which set the benchmark and articulate expectations concerning quality service delivery in ECEC. These frameworks include provisions for effective leadership and governance of services, with an emphasis on culture-building, and shaping and sustaining quality environments that support young children’s wellbeing, learning, and development (Togher & Fenech, 2020). It is noted that leadership in ECEC is “complex, multi-faceted, and diverse” (ACECQA, 2024, p. 334), with certain unifying aspects identified. For instance, there is a consistent focus on quality leadership being characterised by collaboration and reflection. Further specific expectations are set out within Quality Area Seven - “Governance and leadership” - which addresses the role of effective leadership in building and promoting a positive culture and a professional learning community (Standard 7.2). Within Standard 7.2, key elements are delineated: continuous improvement, educational leadership, and development of professionals. In terms of educational leadership, the element signals the role of the educational leader and support required for the position (ACECQA, 2024). While specific leader responsibilities are contextual and vary across different service settings, the NQF maintains a strong focus on quality leadership as an essential dimension of providing quality education and care.

Emphasis on quality leadership is also apparent in the revised Australian Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF; Australian Government Department of Education [AGDE], 2022), which includes a new principle: “Collaborative leadership and teamwork.” Here, the EYLF emphasises the importance of leadership for all educators in their daily work and their ongoing ethical practice, with collaboration premised on “shared responsibility and professional accountability” (p. 19) for the care and education of children, engaging professionally, respectfully, and with a disposition toward critical reflection and collegial conversations (AGDE, 2022). Attention is also paid to peer mentoring and the collective contribution of colleagues toward each other’s professional learning and advancement.

While the NQS and EYLF provide some parameters around what may comprise quality leadership, recent research has highlighted limitations around its conceptualisation and potential points of conflict and ambiguity in the information and resources made available (Cross et al., 2022). There is a need to progress further research that explores leadership in ECEC by examining the challenges, and the experiences and expectations of leaders working in services.

It is evident that quality leadership is a pivotal factor in ensuring that all children have safe and sustainable access to excellent pedagogy and practice, which affords them the best possible opportunity to belong, learn, and flourish. This article explores the significance of leadership, its complex nature in ECEC, and provides a validated survey tool that can be used to compare educators’ self-perception of leadership responsibilities with their leadership competencies.

Literature review

Quality leadership by EC Educational Leaders (ECELs) is crucial for improving organisational culture and supporting professional learning for educators (ACECQA, 2019). Despite the growth in literature available, a disconnect with National Quality Standards causes confusion as to what leadership looks like in an ECEC service (Klevering & McNae, 2019). In the context of ECEC services, providing education and care to children aged birth to five years, a critical distinction emerges between organisational structure and organisational culture. Traditional leadership models in ECEC services, reinforced by the National Quality Standards, often feature hierarchical structures with designated positions and authority (Bøe & Hognestad, 2015; Fleet et al., 2015; Heikka & Hujala, 2013). Recent trends, however, emphasise dynamic, democratic and collaborative education environments (Brooks & Kensler, 2011; Brooks et al., 2007), with distributed leadership approaches (Bøe & Hognestad, 2015; Clarkin-Phillips, 2011; Krieg et al., 2014; Spillane, 2012). This highlights the need to explore educators’ perceptions of leadership in their work and service.

Identifying as a leader is crucial for developing leadership skills (Cruz-González et al., 2021; Miscenko et al., 2017; Yeager & Callahan, 2016). Those who see themselves as leaders are more likely to be empowered and engage in development opportunities and strengthen their own leadership foundations (Miscenko et al., 2017; Yeager & Callahan, 2016). Cooper (2020) studied this in a New Zealand ECEC Service, finding that teachers who embraced a leader identity aligned their teacher and leader roles confidently. Alternatively, teachers who did not identify as leaders felt uncertain about pursuing leadership identities and roles, often due to discomfort with perceived power dynamics. This research highlights the importance of leader identity in facilitating dynamic distribution of leadership (Bøe & Hognestad, 2017; Male & Palaiologou, 2015; Sims et al., 2017). Regardless of identity, fundamental leadership practices require a certain level of competency (Normore & Brooks, 2011).

McClelland (1973) introduced a model for identifying leadership competencies related to specific organisational roles, arguing against using tests to assess intelligence for job success. Instead, McClelland proposed that “tests should assess competencies involved in clusters of life outcomes” (p. 9). Hogan and Warrenfeltz (2003) examined existing models of leadership competencies to develop a comprehensive model, as depicted in Table 1.

Table 1.

Hogan and Warrenfeltz’s domain model of competencies (2003).

Domain	Definition and sample competencies
Intrapersonal	Internalised standards of performance; able to control emotions and behaviour (courage and willingness to take a stand; career ambition and perseverance; integrity, ethics, and values; core self-esteem and emotional stability; patience; tolerance of ambiguity)
Interpersonal	Social skill role-taking and role-playing ability; talent for building and maintaining relationships (political savoir faire, peer and boss relations, self-presentation and impression management, listening and negotiating, oral and written communications, customer focus, approachability)
Business	Abilities and technical knowledge needed to plan, budget, coordinate, and monitor organisational activity (business acumen, quality decision making, intellectual horsepower, functional/technical skills, organising ability, priority setting, developing effective business strategy)
Leadership	Influence and team-building skills (providing direction, support, and standards for accomplishment; communicating a compelling vision; caring about, developing, and challenging direct reports; hiring and staffing strategically; motivating others; building effective teams; managing diversity)

The model is comprised of four types of competencies: intrapersonal, interpersonal, business, and leadership. Each of these is related to an attendant set of knowledge and skills (Leithwood, 2007) and aligns with the expectations outlined within the National Quality Standards’ Quality Area 7.2: Leadership, whereby individuals are expected to demonstrate continuous improvement, educational leadership, and development of professionals. These guiding principles mirror the competency domains outlined by Hogan and Warrenfeltz (2003) as leaders in ECEC services develop and promote intrapersonal, interpersonal, business, and leadership skills. Hogan and Kaiser (2005), explored the leadership competencies model, emphasising three key dynamics. First, the model is developmental, with skills evolving over a lifespan. Second, it is hierarchically organised by trainability, with intrapersonal skills being the most difficult to train. Finally, it is comprehensive, incorporating all existing leadership competency models available at the time of development (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). However, it overlooks the complexities of ECEC leadership environments.

Leaders in the Western Australian ECEC sector face operational complexities due to internal and external factors, but critically, they are inextricably linked to the privatisation of the sector. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological perspective (1981) and Smith et al. (2017)’s work on instructional teacher leadership provide frameworks for understanding these challenges. However, while these models offer foundational insights, they fail to fully capture the complexities specific to the Western Australian EC environment. Our research adapts the leadership competencies model, integrating Hogan and Warrenfeltz’s domain model of competencies (2003) with the Western Australian ECEC sector’s ecology. Acknowledging the Australian Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) and the National Quality Framework (NQF), we developed and validated a multidimensional survey tool. This tool measures leadership competencies in Long Day Care services, addressing the specific complexities of the Western Australian ECEC environment.

Methods

This research adopted an ontological perspective that recognised reality as socially constructed, acknowledging the complex nature of the ECEC sector and the various factors that influence quality leadership practices (Adams, 2006). It employed interpretivist (Creswell, 2013; Rehman & Alharthi, 2016) and critical theories of education (Apple et al., 2009; Kellner, 1989; Young, 1990) to critique sector governance and relational dynamics.

This article aims to elaborate on the development and validation of a multidimensional survey tool which is capable of measuring an individual’s leadership competencies. The development and validation of the survey aligned to Hinkin’s (1998) six steps to survey development and validation. Exploratory, confirmatory, and discriminant factor analysis assessed the tool’s validity (Farrell & Rudd, 2009). Data included governing documents and focus group interviews. The methods are detailed in two phases: Phase 1: Item Generation, describing data collection and item creation, and Phase 2: Survey Validation, explaining the collection of survey data for tool validation.

Ethics approval was provided by Curtin University’s Human Research Ethics Committee prior to commencement of research activities (HRE2021-0705). All participating services provided informed consent from a service representative and participating staff members. To preserve participant and service provider anonymity, no identifying information is included in this article.

Phase 1

Participants

In the initial stages, five diverse ECEC services were selected through ACECQA’s National Service Register (ACECQA, n.d). Focusing on centre-based long-day-care providers in Western Australia, we enriched the dataset by collecting organisational structure data from the Australian Business Register (n.d) and the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission Registration (n.d). This distinction was crucial, as ECEC services in Australia operate as businesses, impacting their approach to service delivery. A representative sample was chosen from this refined database, as detailed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Phase 1: Western Australian services.

Service	Organisational structure	QA7 rating	Location	Focus group participants (n)
A	For profit	Exceeding	Metropolitan	5
B	Community	Meeting	Metropolitan	4
C	Not for profit	Meeting	Metropolitan	4
D	For profit	Meeting	Regional	3
E	Community	Working towards	Metropolitan	3

Data collection

The initial research phase involved generating survey items through data collection (Burton & Mazerolle, 2011). Data sources included governing documents and focus group interviews. We examined leadership documents, policies, procedures, organisational structures, and position descriptions from five participating services, obtained via email and desktop audit. Additionally, five focus group interviews explored leadership policies, organisational structures, and their impact, offering educators’ perspectives on quality leadership and ECEL roles.

Data analysis

Governing documents and focus group interviews underwent thematic analysis through inductive and deductive coding (Braun & Clarke, 2012), helping identify latent codes which reflected a more in-depth and implicit level of meaning (Braun et al., 2019). Inductive coding led to the development of coding categories, followed by deductive recoding using the initial inductive codes (Braun & Clarke, 2012; Braun et al., 2019). These codes assisted in identifying themes. These themes were then used for cross-case analysis, employing NVivo software’s coding matrix. This data informed the generation of survey questions.

Results

Data from governing documents and focus groups, collected in the initial research phase, informed item generation and was thematically analysed using both inductive and deductive approaches (Braun & Clarke, 2012). Six themes were identified related to the competencies of a quality leader in an ECEC service: communication and support, educational programs, mentorship, service operations, collaboration, and knowledge. These themes were substantiated with descriptors and illustrative quotes.

The most frequently occurring codes across the data from governing documents and focus groups related to leaders being communicative and supportive, as indicated in Table 3.

Table 3.

Emerging theme 1: Communication and support.

	National quality framework	Service documents	Focus groups
References	7	5	58
Illustrative quote	“Effective leaders are clear about the purpose of education and care services and have the skills to effectively communicate shared goals and expectations.”	“A wide range of skills are applied in this position including coaching, communication, and interpersonal that support building positive relationships.”	“It’s really important to have an open door and to listen to people, value them, and take on board what they’re saying, even when sometimes it’s difficult.”

Table 3 reveals the differing emphasis on leaders’ communication and support within governing documents and focus groups. While governing documents lack focus on this aspect, the 58 references in focus groups underline its significance to ECEC service professionals. The expectation of the ECEL to monitor educational programs and practices was indicated through the second emerging theme: educational programs and practices, as represented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Emerging theme 2: Educational programs and practices.

	National quality framework	Service documents	Focus groups
References	23	11	14
Illustrative quote	“Support educators to effectively implement the cycle of planning to enhance programs and practices.”	“The educational leader is supported and leads the development and implementation of the educational program and assessment and planning cycle.”	“The educational leader role, she’s in charge of all the educational learning in all areas of the centre.”

Table 4 highlights the different emphasis placed on educational leaders monitoring the educational programs and practices. The NQF refers to this expectation on 23 occasions, whereas service documents only refer to this expectation on 11 occasions and the focus groups on 14. The third emerging theme relating to mentorship and professional development is outlined in Table 5.

Table 5.

Emerging theme 3: Mentorship and professional development.

	National quality framework	Service documents	Focus groups
References	21	8	15
Illustrative quote	“A willingness to mentor and support educators from diverse backgrounds and with varying levels of knowledge and experience.”	“Mentoring other educators by leading quality practice.”	“Building their knowledge and skills and sharing what I know instead of me doing everything.”

The data presented in Table 5 indicates emphasis placed on leaders for mentoring and supporting the professional development of their teams. Specifically, this theme was referenced on 21 occasions within the NQF, 15 within the focus groups and eight within service documents. The fourth emerging theme, pertaining to a leader’s responsibility for oversight of service operations, is explored in Table 6.

Table 6.

Emerging theme 4: Service operations.

	National quality framework	Service documents	Focus groups
References	0	14	5
Illustrative quote	-	“You will develop your business administration skills to gain a deep understanding and proactively contribute to the Centre’s performance across all targets.”	“Especially during the morning and at night-time on close, a responsible person should have another person that assists them. They are in charge of checking everything’s done.”

Table 6 provides evidence for the emerging theme, service operations. This theme was referenced 14 times through service documents and five times during the focus groups. The fifth emerging theme, which explores collaboration and professional learning, is elaborated through Table 7.

Table 7.

Emerging theme 5: Collaboration and professional learning.

	National quality framework	Service documents	Focus groups
References	4	0	14
Illustrative quote	“Approved providers and nominated supervisors might consider how they provide support for the educational leader… some key features include… ensuring the role is well-resourced. Resources may include time, professional learning materials and opportunities…”	-	“As a company, we had EL days and I get to go out of the centre to head office and meet other ELs. We would have a good workshop there and I’ll come back and say ‘right I’ve learned these three things.’ It’s amazing.”

The theme collaboration and professional learning emerged across the NQF and focus group data exclusively, as represented in Table 7. Specifically, references made to this theme occurred four times in the NQF and 14 times in the focus groups. The final theme identified through thematic analysis pertained to quality leaders being knowledgeable, as represented in Table 8.

Table 8.

Emerging theme 6: Knowledgeable.

	National quality framework	Document analysis	Focus groups
References	6	4	0
Illustrative quote	“An approved provider/nominated supervisor might consider the following skills, knowledge, and attributes in nominating and developing the educational leader: Comprehensive knowledge of theory that relates to EC education and care.”	“Extensive knowledge of the NQF, early years learning framework, and other approved learning frameworks.”	-

Table 8 reflects the exploration of a leader’s knowledge as a competency for quality leadership. This theme was referenced on six occasions within the NQF and four within the service’s documents. Both data sources specifically focused on the importance of leaders within the ECEC sector being knowledgeable about standards and learning, development, and leadership theories. These findings were compared across participant positions, as demonstrated in Table 9.

Table 9.

Themes across participants.

Theme	Centre director		ECEL		Lead educator		Assistant educator
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Communication and support	15	50	18	29	14	61	8	50
Educational programs and practices	1	3	9	15	2	9	1	6
Mentorship and professional development	1	3	8	13	2	9	4	25
Service operations	2	7	2	3	1	4	1	6
Collaboration and professional learning	2	7	11	18	2	9	0	0
Knowledge	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

NB: n = frequency of codes.

Table 9 presents the findings from themes among the participants from various positions that participated in the focus groups. Due to unequal participant numbers representing each position, percentages were calculated to ensure accurate comparisons. These findings highlight the diverse perspectives on quality leadership characteristics, which informed the generation of items for the survey tool. Notably, the analysis showed that a leader’s communication and support was the most frequently discussed characteristic of a quality leader across all participant positions. These emerging themes underpinned the generation of items included within the survey tool. This is further elaborated through the discussions of this article.

Phase 2

Participants

Survey participants were selected based on meeting criteria of working in long-day-care services assessed and rated after 2018 in Western Australia. Hinkin (1998) advised a minimum of 200 participants for robust analysis. Recruitment occurred in small groups to encourage relationships and support during data collection. Participant details are documented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Survey Participants (n = 216). NB: *ECEL = early childhood educational leader.

Participants self-nominated their Quality Area 7 ratings, with 16 (20%) choosing Excellent and one opting for Significant Improvement Required. However, no Western Australian ECEC services had these ratings per National Service Registers at the time. Therefore, this result is considered ‘unknown.'

Data collection

In the second phase, we validated the survey tool through data collection, starting with two pilot surveys. Insights from these pilots refined the final survey, which was then distributed to eligible ECEC services and educators. The researcher visited many services in person, while others were contacted via email, virtual meetings, or provided with an anonymous Qualtrics link for independent completion.

Data analysis

The survey data underwent thorough validation, encompassing exploratory factor analysis, and tests of convergent and discriminant validity (Hinkin, 1998). Variables with correlations below 0.4 were excluded to reduce potential errors (Churchill, 1979; Kim & Mueller, 1978). Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha, with a coefficient of 0.7 indicating strong item covariance and satisfactory domain representation (Nunnally, 1976; Price & Mueller, 1986).

Confirmatory factor analysis, employing the chi-square statistic, evaluated whether educators without leadership identification possessed leadership competencies, as depicted in Table 10 (Cochran, 1952; Lancaster & Seneta, 2005). The study calculated average scores for five competency domains, reflecting four types of leaders: competent, developing, curious, and reluctant, to support this analysis.

Table 10.

Chi-square goodness of fit test.

Consideration	Decision
Null hypothesis	An individual’s leadership competency is reflected in their self-identification of formal and informal leadership responsibilities
Alternate hypothesis	An individual’s leadership competency is not reflected in their self-identification of formal and informal leadership responsibilities
Level of significance	5%
Degree of freedom	7

In the absence of similar construct measures, principal component analysis was employed for discriminant validation (Hinkin, 1998). This technique analysed inter-correlated dependent variables to extract key information and represent it as orthogonal principal components (Abdi & William, 2010).

Results

Data collected from 216 responses supported the validation of the survey tool, across multiple statistical approaches, beginning with exploratory factor analysis (EFA). To begin the EFA process, the survey items were analysed to understand how they related to each other. If the items did not demonstrate sufficient similarity (an interitem correlation lower than 0.4), they were removed (Churchill, 1979; Kim & Mueller, 1978). The survey began with five main areas (constructs) being measured, each containing ten items (questions). Interitem correlation calculations identified items for removal or re-distribution to more suitable construct areas. After this process, there were 9 items in the intrapersonal construct, 10 in interpersonal, 11 in business, 9 in society, and 3 in governance.

After interitem correlation calculations had concluded, exploratory factor analysis was undertaken to understand how the questions grouped together, using principal axis factoring, Kaiser criterion (KMO), and scree testing Table 11 outlines the results from principal axis factoring.

Table 11.

Principal axis factoring results.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy		0.965
Bartlett’s test of sphericity	Approx. Chi-square	67201.537
	df	741
	Sig	0.000

Table 11 displays results from KMO and Bartlett’s tests. KMO yielded a robust result surpassing the 0.6 threshold, while Bartlett’s Test significance was <0.001, indicating significant item correlation. All items exhibited anti-image correlation and communality exceeding 0.5. Exploratory factor analysis guided by quantitative results and theory (Hinkin, 1998) determined factors retained, without a specified number. The KMO and scree testing, per Hinkin (1998), confirmed researcher expectations. KMO testing identified five components with eigenvalues over 1, a finding supported by scree testing (Figure 2). Relevant literature and theory were also scrutinised to justify the retained factors.

Figure 2.

Scree test results.

The results of scree testing corroborated KMO test results showing that the survey contained five main areas (constructs), in alignment to what was expected based on preliminary analysis of theory. As such, all leadership competency domains were retained within the survey tool.

The exploratory factor analysis assessed internal consistency, crucial for survey tool validation (Kerlinger, 1986). To ensure that the survey was reliable, Cronbach’s alpha was used (Price & Mueller, 1986). A high alpha, recommended by Nunnally (1976) as 0.7, signifies robust item covariance, ensuring adequate domain representation. This threshold serves as the minimum for new instruments, considering sensitivity to item count (Cortina, 1993). The 39 items in the tool achieved a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.982, surpassing the 0.7 minimum for sufficient domain representation in a new survey tool. As such, this testing showed a high level of consistency across the items and confirmed that the items covered the five areas (constructs) well. This marked the completion of EFA testing, paving the way for the initiation of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Confirmatory factor analysis, the fourth step in survey development, ensures that the survey tool measures what it is supposed to (validity). Previous survey development steps enhance validation and reliability, but Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is crucial for affirming their thoroughness. The chi-square statistic, assessing goodness of fit, validates if the theoretical distribution aligns with sample data (Cochran, 1952; Lancaster & Seneta, 2005). This project applied the chi-square approach to test whether educators not identifying as leaders exhibit leadership competencies.

This research calculated total scores for participants’ self-identified formal leadership positions, aligned with planned values, against the number of individuals recognised as competent leaders, depicted in the actual figure. These values are detailed in Table 12.

Table 12.

Hypothesis testing for competent leaders.

Position	Counts	Planned (%)	Expected	Actual
Centre director	20	100	20	9
Assistant centre director	8	100	8	2
ECEL	12	92	11	6
EC teacher	12	67	8	2
Room leader	51	92	47	25
Assistant educator	76	17	13	23
Float	10	10	1	0
Other	27	63	17	9

Data presented in Table 12 underpinned the values for testing chi-square goodness of fit and the rejection region. This is presented in Table 13.

Table 13.

Chi-square goodness of fit testing.

Alpha	0.05
Count	8
Degrees of freedom	7
p-value	1.11994E-06
Critical value	14.06714045
Test statistic	40.26510482

The chi-square goodness-of-fit test established a rejection threshold of 14.07. With a test statistic of 40.27, the null hypothesis was rejected, suggesting the plausibility of the alternate hypothesis. Through these stages of testing, it was confirmed that the survey identifies leadership competencies, even among individuals who do not see themselves as leaders. The final stage of validation involved discriminant validation; a check used to ensure the survey accurately measures different components of leadership. This research employed a principal component analysis approach to discriminant validation.

Discriminant validity in the competence domains was rigorously assessed using a principal components analysis. The resulting five-factor structure, supported by Nunnally (1976)’s criterion, demonstrated clear distinctions. Notably, one factor captured all Society items (except one), while Intrapersonal items revealed nuanced facets across three factors. Interpersonal items loaded on two factors, and Business and Governance items on two and one factor, respectively. Therefore, discriminant validity analysis confirmed that the survey contains five distinct competence domains (constructs) and measures each one individually.

Discussion

Phase 1: Item generation

The first phase of this research involved an exploration of the competencies required for quality leadership in ECEC services. Leveraging data from governing documents and focus groups, we conducted a thematic analysis, drawing on both inductive and deductive approaches (Braun & Clarke, 2012). The emerging themes informed the development of a survey tool designed to measure leadership competencies compared to leadership position identification. The findings of the thematic analysis identified six emerging themes: communication and support, educational programs and practices, mentorship and professional development, service operations, collaboration and professional learning, and knowledge.

Communication and support were identified as central competencies through thematic analysis. The focus group data highlighted a distinct emphasis on the expectation that leaders should be communicative and supportive (Brooks & Normore, 2017). Despite this focus, governing documents demonstrated a relatively low focus on these competencies. The discrepancy between identified competencies and emphasis on these skills underlines the importance of interrogating existing ECEC leadership literature to capture the diverse nature of leadership competency across the sector landscape (Fenech, Giugni, & Bown, 2012). Emergent themes highlighted the diverse competencies expected of quality leaders in ECEC services and guided the development of survey items. Insights from this phase informed a framework for effective leadership in ECEC education (Sims et al., 2017), adapting Hogan and Warrenfeltz’s Domain Model of Competencies (2003) to include five competency domains: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Business, Governance, and Society. The survey, comprised 63 items, including 10 items per domain, demographic questions, and an open-ended question, prior to validation.

Phase 2: Survey Validation

The second phase of the research focused on validating the survey tool derived from the thematic analysis. With a dataset comprising 216 responses, the validation process involved a series of statistical analyses, commencing with EFA. The EFA began by examining interitem correlations, leading to the refinement of the survey tool. Items with correlations below 0.4 were excluded, resulting in leadership competency domains (constructs) with varying item counts: 9 in intrapersonal, 10 in interpersonal, 11 in business, 9 in society, and 3 in governance.

To ensure the data’s suitability for factor analysis, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure were applied. The KMO value surpassed the 0.6 threshold, and Bartlett’s test results were significant, confirming the data’s appropriateness for EFA. The analysis confirmed five components, aligning with the hypothesised constructs based on Hogan and Warrentfeltz’s (2003) Domain Model of Competencies adaption and thematic analysis. The high Cronbach’s alpha of 0.982, indicated strong internal consistency within the survey tool. This demonstrated the robustness of the items and affirmed the reliability of the survey tool.

Following EFA, CFA was used to validate the theoretical constructs. The chi-square goodness-of-fit test assessed whether the theoretical distribution aligned with the sample data. The rejection of the null hypothesis indicated that an individual’s leadership competency was not reflected in their self-identification of formal and informal leadership responsibilities, supporting the validity of the survey. Significantly, this process highlighted a noteworthy observation: all participating Centre Directors and Assistant Centre Directors self-identified with formal and/or informal leadership responsibilities (Woodrow, 2013). However, the manifestation of leadership competency was less prevalent among individuals occupying these roles. Conversely, a minority of Assistant Educators acknowledged either formal or informal leadership responsibilities, yet a greater proportion of these participants exhibited evident leadership competency. These findings highlight the need for improved professional development and recognition of leadership competencies, especially for assistant educators.

Discriminant validity was addressed through principal components analysis (Farrell & Rudd, 2009), showing clear separation among the competency domains. Society items grouped into one factor (except one), while Intrapersonal items spanned three factors, and Interpersonal, Business, and Governance items loaded on distinct factors. This analysis confirmed the model’s robustness and the distinctiveness of each competence construct.

Limitations and recommendations

The research is limited by sampling bias within Western Australian ECEC services. It is recommended that the survey is deployed nationally and internationally to establish broader validity and reliability (Mellinger & Hanson, 2020). Additionally, self-report measures may introduce bias, with participants possibly providing socially desirable responses (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002). A follow-up study could include an observational checklist to reduce self-reporting bias and triangulate results (Zenk et al., 2007).

Two key recommendations emerged: tailored professional development and succession planning interventions (Ryan & Gallo, 2011). Survey validation revealed gaps in leadership competence, stressing the need for bespoke professional learning programs in the Australian ECEC sector (Thornton & Cherrington, 2019). Further research should explore Assistant Educators’ self-efficacy, focusing on formal succession plans and enhancing potential leaders’ identity and capacity (Liou & Daly, 2020). Mentorship and targeted training could support quality leadership in ECEC services (Kupila et al., 2017).

Conclusion

This research has contributed our understanding of ECEC educational leadership by digging into the complexities of leadership competencies in ECEC services, and by shaping and validating a survey tool validated through robust statistical analysis. Notably, the findings explored the nature of leadership within diverse roles. The identified limitations emphasise avenues for future research to broaden the scope. Recommendations for tailored professional development and succession planning interventions offer actionable strategies that may support and enhance leadership across the sector. As the exploration of leadership in the ECEC sector continues, this survey tool contributes a foundation for ongoing discourse, encouraging a deeper understanding of effective leadership practices and fostering the continual enhancement of leadership competencies in EC education.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Emma Cross

Madeleine Dobson

References

Abdi

William

L. J.

(2010). Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 2(4), 433–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.101AJE

Adams

(2006). Exploring social constructivism: Theories and practicalities. Education, 34(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270600898893

Apple

M. W.

Gandin

L. A.

(Eds.), (2009). The Routledge international handbook of critical education. Taylor & Francis.

Australian Business Register . (nd). ABN lookup. https://abr.business.gov.au/

Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission . (nd). Search for a charity. https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/charities

Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority [ACECQA] . (nd). National registers. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/resources/national-registers

Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority [ACECQA] . (2019). Educational leader manual. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-04/ACECQA_Educational_Leader_Manual_WEB.pdf

Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority [ACECQA] . (2024). Guide to the national quality framework. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-03/Guide-to-the-NQF-web.pdf

Australian Government Department of Education [AGDE] . (2022). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia (V2.0). Australian Government Department of Education for the Ministerial Council.

10.

Bøe

Hognestad

(2015). Directing and facilitating distributed pedagogical leadership: Best practices in early childhood education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1059488

11.

Braun

Clarke

(2012). Thematic analysis. In Cooper

Camic

P. M.

Long

D. L.

Panter

A. T.

Rindskopf

Sher

K. J.

(Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004

12.

Braun

Clarke

Hayfield

Terry

(2019). Thematic analysis. In Liamputtong

(Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 843–860). Springer.

13.

Bronfenbrenner

(1981). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

14.

Brooks

J. S.

Jean-Marie

Normore

A. H.

Hodgins

(2007). Distributed leadership for social justice: Exploring how influence and equity are stretched over an urban high school. Journal of School Leadership, 17(4), 378–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460701700402

15.

Brooks

J. S.

Kensler

L. A.

(2011). Distributed leadership and democratic community. The SAGE handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research, and practice, 55.

16.

Brooks

J. S.

Normore

A. H.

(2017). Foundations of educational leadership: Developing excellent and equitable schools. Routledge.

17.

Burton

L. J.

Mazerolle

S. M.

(2011). Survey instrument validity part I: Principles of survey instrument development and validation in athletic training education research. Athletic Training Education Journal, 6(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.4085/1947-380x-6.1.27

18.

Churchill

G. A.

(1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150876, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3150876

19.

Clarkin-Phillips

(2011). Distributed leadership: Growing strong communities of practice in EC centres. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 26(2), 14–25. https://hdl.handle.net/10289/6076

20.

Cochran

W. G.

(1952). The χ2 test of goodness of fit. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23(3), 315–345. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729380

21.

Cooper

(2020). Teachers grappling with a teacher-leader identity: Complexities and tensions in early childhood education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 26(1), 54–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1744733

22.

Cortina

J. M.

(1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.78.1.98, https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-19965-001

23.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design (3rd ed.). Sage.

24.

Cross

Dobson

Walker

Lower

(2022). Leading for Quality in Western Australian EC services: An emerging framework. Issues in Educational Research, 32(4), 1321–1341. https://www.iier.org.au/iier32/cross.pdf

25.

Cruz-González

Rodríguez

C. L.

Segovia

J. D.

(2021). A systematic review of principals’ leadership identity from 1993 to 2019. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(1), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219896053

26.

Donaldson

S. I.

Grant-Vallone

E. J.

(2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1019637632584

27.

Farrell

A. M.

Rudd

J. M.

(2009). Factor analysis and discriminant validity: A brief review of some practical issues. In Australia and New Zealand marketing Academy conference 2009. Anzmac.

28.

Fenech

Giugni

Bown

(2012). A critical analysis of the National Quality Framework: Mobilising for a vision for children beyond minimum standards. Australasian Journal of EC, 37(4), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911203700402

29.

Fleet

Soper

Semann

Madden

(2015). The role of the educational leader: Perceptions and expectations in an era of change. Australasian Journal of EC, 40(3), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F183693911504000305

30.

Heikka

Hujala

(2013). Early childhood leadership through the lens of distributed leadership. European EC Education Research Journal, 21(4), 568–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2013.845444

31.

Hinkin

T. R.

(1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106

32.

Hogan

Kaiser

(2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.169

33.

Hogan

Warrenfeltz

(2003). Educating the modern manager. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2003.9324043

34.

Kellner

(1989). Critical theory, Marxism, and modernity. Polity Press.

35.

Kerlinger

(1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). Rinehart & Winston. https://scirp.org/reference/referencespapers.aspx?referenceid=1361593

36.

Kim

Mueller

C. W.

(1978). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to do it. Sage. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wayne-Velicer/publication/19793365_Relation_of_Sample_Size_to_the_Stability_of_Component_Patterns/links/09e4150b684d485e50000000/Relation-of-Sample-Size-to-the-Stability-of-Component-Patterns.pdf

37.

Klevering

McNae

(2019). Making sense of leadership in early childhood education: Tensions and complexities between concepts and practices. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 33(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.21307/jelpp-2018-002

38.

Krieg

Davis

Smith

K. A.

(2014). Exploring the dance of early childhood educational leadership. Australasian Journal of EC, 39(1), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911403900110

39.

Kupila

Ukkonen-Mikkola

Rantala

(2017). Interpretations of mentoring during early childhood education mentor training. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 42(10), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2017v42n10.3

40.

Lancaster

H. O.

Seneta

(2005). Chi-square distribution. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. Wiley & Sons.

41.

Leithwood

(2007). What we know about educational leadership. In Burger

J. M.

Webber

C. F.

Klinck

(Eds.), Intelligent leadership: Constructs for thinking education leaders (Vol. 6, pp. 41–66). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6022-9_4

42.

Liou

Y. H.

Daly

A. J.

(2020). Investigating leader self-efficacy through policy engagement and social network position. Educational Policy, 34(3), 411–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818773904

43.

Male

Palaiologou

(2015). Pedagogical leadership in the 21st century: Evidence from the field. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(2), 214–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213494889

44.

McClelland

D. C.

(1973). Testing for competence rather than for “intelligence”. American Psychologist, 28(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034092

45.

Mellinger

C. D.

Hanson

T. A.

(2020). Methodological considerations for survey research: Validity, reliability, and quantitative analysis. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series–Themes in Translation Studies, 19, 549. https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v19i0.549

46.

Miscenko

Guenter

Day

D. V.

(2017). Am I a leader? Examining leader identity development over time. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(5), 605–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.004

47.

Nicholson

Kuhl

Maniates

Lin

Bonetti

(2018). A review of the literature on leadership in EC: Examining epistemological foundations and considerations of social justice. Early Child Development and Care, 190(2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430

48.

Normore

A. H.

Brooks

J. S.

(2011). Developing and preparing globally competent educational leaders. In SoongHee

Zuzeviciute

Kim

(Eds.), Managing and developing core competencies in a learning society (pp. 73–87). Seoul National University Press.

49.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1976). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill. https://www.scirp.org/(S(czeh2tfqyw2orz553k1w0r45))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=453912

50.

Price

J. L.

Mueller

C. W.

(1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Pitman. https://www.lichaoping.com/wp-content/Ijm9704305.pdf

51.

Rehman

A. A.

Alharthi

(2016). An introduction to research paradigms. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 3(8), 51–59.

52.

Ryan

T. G.

Gallo

(2011). A descriptive examination and synthesis of leadership succession. International Journal of Educational Reform, 20(2), 132–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678791102000203

53.

Sims

Waniganayake

Hadley

(2017). Educational leadership: An evolving role in Australian EC settings. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(6), 960–979. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217714254

54.

Smith

Hayes

Lyon

(2017). The ecology of instructional teacher leadership. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2016.12.005

55.

Spillane

J. P.

(2012). Distributed leadership. John Wiley & Sons.

56.

Thornton

Cherrington

(2019). Professional learning communities in early childhood education: A vehicle for professional growth. Professional Development in Education, 45(3), 418–432.

57.

Togher

Fenech

(2020). Ongoing quality improvement in the context of the National Quality Framework: Exploring the perspectives of educators in ‘Working Towards’ services. Australasian Journal of EC, 45(3), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939120936003

58.

Woodrow

(2013). Discourses of professional identity in EC: Movements in Australia. In Dalli

Urban

(Eds.), Professionalism in EC education and care (pp. 138–149). Routledge.

59.

Yeager

K. L.

Callahan

J. L.

(2016). Learning to lead: Foundations of emerging leader identity development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(3), 286–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422316645510

60.

Young

R. E.

(1990). A critical theory of education. Teachers College Press.

61.

Zenk

S. N.

Schulz

A. J.

Mentz

House

J. S.

Gravlee

C. C.

Miranda

P. Y.

Miller

Kannan

(2007). Inter-rater and test-retest reliability: Methods and results for the neighborhood observational checklist. Health & Place, 13(2), 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2006.05.003

Leadership competencies in early childhood education: Design and validation of a survey tool

Abstract

Keywords

Literature review

Methods

Phase 1

Participants

Data collection

Data analysis

Results

Phase 2

Participants

Data collection

Data analysis

Results

Discussion

Phase 1: Item generation

Phase 2: Survey Validation

Limitations and recommendations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References