School Principal's Leadership Style and Teachers' Self-Efficacy.

Introduction In 1995, Kristine Hipp and Paul Bredeson published a study that looked at the relation between schoolteachers' self-efficacy (SE) and school principal's leadership style. The basic assumption of this publication and of two others that followed based on the same study (Hipp, 1996, 1997) is that school principal's leadership style and personal teacher efficacy (PTE) are directly linked. The empirical evidence that connected several aspects of the transformational leadership style and PTE led the researchers to conclude that it is in the power of transformational leaders to promote PTE. Although this conclusion is tempting, a deeper look at the empirical foundation of this study raises a number of concerns that may undermine the generalization of its findings. First, the evidence reported is based on a relatively small sample of schools and school principals (n = 10). It focuses on a single leadership style (i.e., the transformational style) rather than on the full range of leadership behaviors. The analysis is based on teachers and not on the school as the unit of analysis as is commonly used in research on leadership. The research design provides no control for role variables that previous studies have identified as correlated with PTE such as role satisfaction, autonomy, stress, and conflict. And finally, the strength of the relationship found between the transformational leadership components and PTE is relatively low. Therefore, in considering that the existing literature lacks additional evidence to support the assumed connection between school principals' leadership style and PTE, the following study attempts to reassess Hipp and Bredeson's finding. Using a larger sample of schools and a research design that controls for role variables correlated with PTE and leadership styles, this study explores whether PTE varies across leadership styles and what is the added value of the principal's leadership style for PTE when job related variables are statistically controlled. Theoretical Background In the last couple of decades the concept of self efficacy (SE) has captured much attention as being a significant measure for understanding and predicting human behavior and its assumed consequences. SE is defined as "people's judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances" (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). SE beliefs influence thought patterns, emotions, and actions in which people expend substantial effort in pursuit of goals, persist in the face of adversity, and exercise some control over events that affect their lives (Bandura, 1986, 1993, 1997). Individual achievements require not only qualifications and skills, but also a personal belief in one's ability to successfully perform a particular action. In this sense, SE is a moderating factor between an individual's potential and actual performance, and a stimulator that directs individual potentials towards the accomplishment of personal goals (Bandura, 1997, p. 37). Research reveals that individuals with low SE have limited ambitions and low accountability regarding the assignments they try to achieve, while those with high SE tend to consider complex assignments a challenge and are highly motivated and more likely to initiate highly challenging and innovative goals (Allinder, 1994; Guskey, 1984; Smylie, 1988) to which they remain accountable. It appears that those with high SE accomplish more and are better able to cope with pressure and stress (Greenwood, Olejnik, & Parkay, 1990; Parkay, Greenwood, Olejnik, & Proller, 1988). Studies have also shown that individual SE develops over time and stressed the importance of the environment as a key element in establishing individual perceptions of SE (Bandura, 1982; Holroyed et al., 1984; Matsui, Matusi, & Ohnishi, 1991; Lent, Lopez, Brown, & Gore, 1996; Slater, 1989). It was found that individual SE is content and context specific (Cevrone & Peake, 1986) and, therefore, individuals might have various perceptions of SE related to different assignments in various circumstances (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, & Hoy 1998). …