IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Investigating the Major Effect of Principal’s Change Leadership on School
Teachers’ Professional Development

Dian-Fu Chang, Tamkang University, Taiwan
Sheng-Nan Chen, Yong Fu Elementary School, Taiwan
Wen-Ching Chou, Tamkang University, Taiwan

139

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Abstract
In a rapidly changing era, educational change has become one of the crucial tasks for better
student performance in schools. Potential and innovative leadership in schools is needed tokeep up with the fast-pace of change, and to achieve better learning results for students.
Therefore, how to construct a teacher’s professional development to fulfil the outcome-based
policy in schools is a new challenge for principals. This study focused on principals’ change
leadership as perceived by school teachers and explored which dimension of change might
impact on the teachers’ professional development. This study successfully invited 490
teachers from 41 elementary schools in New Taipei City (Taiwan) to participate in this study.
There were 453 valid questionnaires returned which represented a 92.4% return rate. Twentyfive indicators of change in leadership were classified into three dimensions, namely:“communicating and shaping change action”, “building a supported environment”, and“adjusting organization and performance”. The teachers’ professional development has been
defined by eight indicators which classified into “willing” and “effect” of participation. This
study employed the stepwise method to determine the major factors that impact a teachers’
professional development by using regression models. The results reveal both “building a
supported environment” and “adjusting organization and performance” in a principal’schange in leadership can explain 23.2% of the teachers’ professional development. Based on
the results of regression analysis, this study suggests that properly shaping a principal’schange leadership can prompt to enhancing a teachers’ professional development.
Furthermore, change leadership might be applied to wider practices to improve a teachers’
performance in various settings.
Keywords: change leadership; elementary schools; principal; professional development;
school teachers.

140

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Introduction
Various leadership styles have been thoroughly discussed. For example, contingency
leadership (Gelei, Losonci & Matyusz, 2015; Shao, Feng & Hu, 2016), distributed leadership(Cannatelli, Smith, Giudici, Jones & Conger, 2016), transitional leadership (Oplatka & Arar,
2016; Shao, Feng & Hu, 2016), transformational leadership (Chong, 2015; Shao, Feng & Hu,
2016), servant leadership (Liden, Panaccio, Meuser, Hu & Wayne, 2014a; 2014b; O’Reilly,
Doerr, Caldwell & Chatman, 2014; Panaccio, Henderson, Liden, Wayne & Cao, 2015), andothers. While facing rapid changes in technology and society, change-oriented leadership has
caused concern in different organizational settings (Gill, 2002). The “change is manageable”
bubble began to burst in the mid-1980s, and by the 1990s it became obvious that managing
change was becoming less and less possible (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson, 2001). Most
challenges come from the technological revolution, primarily fuelled by information andcommunication technologies, which increased the speed and scope of change so much thatthe process of change became significantly more complex.
This study assumes that while change might be manageable, it also requires effective
leadership to be successfully implemented and sustained. This is especially the case fortraditional and conservative organizations, for instance, as well as different levels of schoolsthat need to introduce a model of leadership for change to reflect their requirements. The
question of this research focuses on how we know if change-oriented leadership works in a
specific setting. If it works in schools, what kinds of dimensions are consisted of such kind ofleadership model? Obviously, it is not appropriate to ask the related questions from school
principals directly, while the teachers’ perceptions of principal change leadership will reflect
the real practices. Specifically, first, this study tries to realize the principals’ change
leadership perceived by school teachers, then to determine which dimensions of change
leadership might impact on teachers’ professional development. Finally, based on thefindings, this study provides suggestions about how to enhance leadership training programs.
Literature Review
As Fullan argues, the more complex society gets, the more sophisticated leadership must
become. He mentions the theoretical reasons and tactical skills for change, including moral
purpose, understanding change, developing relationships, knowledge building, and coherence
making (Fullan, 2001). Leaders must develop the skills they need to lead effectively, nomatter how fast the world around them is changing. In this section, this study reviewed
related literature to support the main themes of our study: change leadership and teacher’professional development.
Change Leadership in Organizations
Previous researchers assumed leaders would indeed provide leadership and make decisions,and assumed they would make those decisions in the best interests of the organization. In an
organization, most people are employees – that being in management or non-management
roles – and at any one moment in time they may initiate one change, support a second, andresist a third. Leaders and managers are change agents, and non-management employees
usually resist change. Hence, the non-management employees must be managed by managers
who themselves might never resist change (Anderson & Anderson, 2001; Anderson &Ackerman-Anderson, 2001). As a result, leadership is all about action and influence, and not
only the titles. Many leaders do not provide leadership, and many who do perform leadershipdo not perceive themselves as leaders.

141

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Change can range from relatively simple short-term alterations to highly complex long-termtransformations, and is likely to involve many kinds of leadership and management
behaviours on the part of many different individuals and groups. Anderson and AckermanAnderson (2001) argue there are two types of transformation for change leadership inorganizations. One is the transformation happens in the organization in terms of the state ofawareness that leaders personally bring to change, which influences the actions they take.
The leaders ‘take’ to transformation impacts every aspect of their change leadershipcapability and experience, including their personal ability to change, the change strategies
they develop, their leadership and decision-making styles, their communication patterns, theirrelationships with stakeholders, their personal reactions, and, ultimately, their outcomes.
Therefore, expanded awareness is like getting the benefit of both a wide-angle lens and ahigh-powered telephoto lens at the same time. Through the wider view, leaders can see more
broadly the dynamics at play in transformation (Anderson & Ackerman-Anderson, 2001).
Figure 1 addresses the level of the wake-up call for such type of transformation.
The change exerted by leadership may emerge in line with the model in Figure 2. The model
can be used to explain the interaction between leaders and followers or members in theorganization. The leaders prepare the wake-up call for change, while the followers will
prepare to lead and implement the change.

Figure 1: Level of walk-up call for transformation
Source: Anderson & Ackerman-Anderson, 2001, p. 41.

142

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Figure 2: Change process for leading conscious transformation
Source: Anderson & Ackerman-Anderson, 2001, p. 171.
The majority of change leadership studies focus on the individual leader as the source ofchange outcomes (Ford & Ford, 2012). Following the arguments of Hughes and Ford (2016),
this study assumes that leadership is a personal possession of the leader rather than partners
in the co-creation of change outcomes.
The Effect of Principal’s Change Leadership on Teachers
Kin et al. (2017) claim that a principal’s change leadership competencies are significantly
related to teacher change beliefs as demonstrated by their SEM model. Their study implies
that if school principals equipped themselves with sufficient change leadership competencies,
teacher change beliefs can be enhanced. Teacher change beliefs were also significantly
related to teacher attitudes towards change, whereby the stronger the teacher change beliefs,
the greater the enhancement of teacher attitudes toward change. Therefore, enhancing teacher
change beliefs is one of the effective ways to increase the likelihood of teachers to embracechange. Principal’s change leadership is an influential factor in enhancing teacher attitudes
toward change (Kin, Kareem, Nordin & Khuan, 2017). This study assumes that how teachers
perceive principal’s change leadership might enhance teacher attitudes toward change. In
recent reform initiatives, building and lifting teachers’ professional development has become
one of the important tasks in schools (National Academy for Educational Research, 2016).
Based on the effect of principal’s change leadership on teacher’s professional development,
the result of this study will provide useful information for school leaders.
Fullan argues that there are strong reasons to believe that the five components of leadershiprepresent independent but mutual reinforcing forces for positive change. There are attending
to a broader moral purpose, keeping on top of the change process, cultivating relationships,
sharing knowledge, and setting a vision and context for creating coherence in organizations.

143

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Then, leaders will be empowered to deal with complex change (Fullan, 2001). Leadership,
then, is not mobilizing others to solve problems that they already know how to solve, butrather to help them confront problems that have never been successfully addressed. Basically,
schools are beginning to discover that new ideas, knowledge creation, and sharing are
essential to solving learning problems in a rapidly changing society. When the principals facechange, the leadership they exert might contain the following five domains (Fullan, 2001;
Hall &, Hord, 1987):
•
•
•
•
•
•

Creating a sense of crisis;
Communicating and shaping version;
Adjusting and reinforcing organizational structure;
Building a supportive environment;
Deeping change culture.
Previous studies have reported the related effect of principal’s change leadership,
while the effect of specific dimensions on teachers’ professional development is still
unclear.

Teachers’ Professional Development
The professional development of teachers to enhance teacher’s knowledge and skills has
become a top priority in schools. In Taiwan, the curriculum reform initiated by the Ministryof Education has been implemented. The significant change is that the paradigm of new
curriculum and teaching has shifted from a knowledge-oriented curriculum to one thatstresses more activities and practices to bring about knowledge acquisition (National
Academy for Educational Research, 2016). However, like other countries, a considerable
proportion of school teachers may have been trained in more traditional ways (Chu, Reynolds,
Tavares, Notari & Lee, 2017). Moreover, just as every student learns differently, teachers
also have many different learning styles and face a variety of circumstances in the classroom.
Most professional development today is ineffective because it neither changes teachingpractices nor improves student learning. For example, professional development training
events are sometimes inappropriate in size and scope, and without the structure to support
learning new ideas or skills. They may also lack support for teachers’ implementation of new
instructional practices. The situation in schools is similar to that of the CPE’s report – aprofessional development initiative that neither recognizes how “teaching is inherently
complex and nuanced” nor promotes the empowerment of teachers via professional learning
communities (Gulamhussein, 2013). With the aim to provide stronger educational support toin-service teachers in their adoption and development of new skills in teaching, the principal
has been expected to initiate school-based professional development more effectively.
Continual professional development may give teachers time to learn and implement newteaching strategies. Therefore, providing ongoing instruction for a significant duration of timeis necessary. Providing support addresses the challenges associated with changing aclassroom practice. Previous studies have suggested active learning opportunities for school
teachers. The activities can include readings, role-play, open-ended discussions, livemodelling, and classroom visits. Many forms of active learning help teachers decipher
concepts, theories, and research-based practices in teaching, and modelling the new practice(Zarrow, 2014). With a rapidly changing era, educational change has become one of the
crucial components for better performance in schools. Innovative leadership in schools has
been expected to fit the fast-paced of change to achieve better learning results for students.
Therefore, how to build teachers’ professional development to fulfil the outcome-based

144

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

policy in schools has grown into a new challenge for principals. The linkage between
leadership and professional development has become an important component in schools.
Based on the discussions in previous studies, this study assumes the leadership for
professional development in schools exerted by principals might impact on the change ofteachers. This study selected New Taipei City as the target group to collect data in 2016. The
reason for this selection is that New Taipei has become the largest city with the largest school
system in Taiwan. This study selected the quantitative approach to explore the topic. SPSS
has been used to conduct the statistical analysis. In this section, the research framework,
sampling, and verified the research tool will be addressed.
Research Framework
This study attempts to realize the relationship between the principal’s change leadership andteachers’ professional development. To start, the principal’s change leadership and teachers’
professional development will be assessed by using gender, teaching experiences, and school
scale to determine their differences. Then, this study employs the stepwise method todetermine the major factors impacting on teachers’ professional development in regression
models. The principal’s change leadership may include various dimensions which will beverified by factor analysis. The teachers’ professional development has been defined bywilling to participating the related enhancing activities and the effect of the professional
development. The testing model has been presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Research framework
Sampling
Based on the criteria for survey, a population over 5,000, the proportion of samples could be
20 percent of the target group (Gay, 1992). More precisely, this study estimated the samples
from target group in terms of 16,201 elementary school teachers in New Taipei City with
95% confident level and possible error control under .05. In this case, the satisfied samples
for study are 400. According to the sampling formula proposed by Dillman (2000), the fittest
estimated samples are as follows:

145

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

N: 16201 elementary school teachers; n: fittest samples; d: error of toleranceThis study also considers the school scale, and so the samples were classified by following
the rules: under 12 classes (14 schools), 12-30 classes (7 schools), 31-60 classes (10 schools),
and over 61 classes (10 schools). With 80 percent return rate, we expected to distribute 490
copies of questionnaires for teachers. The detail distribution of 490 samples has beenpresented in Table 1.
Table 1: Elementary scale and sampling distribution in New Taipei City.
School scale (classes)

Under 12

13~30

31~60

Over 61

Total

Number of schools (%)

68
(33%)
14

36
(17%)
7

51
(25%)
10

50
(25%)
10

205
(100%)
41

1,246
(8%)
70

1,910
(12%)
70

4,984
(30%)
150

8,061
(50%)
200

16,201(100%)
490

5

10

15

20

Target schools (25%)
Number of teachers (%)
Samples
Average samples of schools

Source: Bureau of Education, New Taipei City. (2016). Educational statistical data in New
Taipei City in 2015. Retrieved from http://www.ntpc.edu.tw/_file/2052/SG/25532/D.html
This study successfully invited 490 teachers from 41 elementary schools in New Taipei City
(Taiwan) to participate in this study. It resulted in 453 valid questionnaires, a 92.4% return
rate made up of 165 (36.4%) male and 288 (63.6%) female teachers.
Research Tools
Both self-developed change leadership and professional development questionnaires havebeen verified by factor analysis. Twenty-five indicators of change leadership have beenclassified into three dimensions, named “communicating and shaping change action” (11items), “building supported environment” (9 items), and “adjusting organization andperformance” (5 items). The Cronbach’s α is counted .917 in the designed questionnaires. It
represented the items that have good reliability in term of satisfied internal consistence.
Factor analysis with Varimax extraction reveals there are three factors in the change
leadership and totally can explained 76.29% variance, see Table 2. The rotation of threefactors has been presented in Table 3. The teachers’ professional development has been
defined by the willing and effect of participating which includes eight indicators.
Table 2: Factor analysis for developing valid principal’s change leadership questionnaire(Extraction: Varimax).

146

IAFOR Journal of Education

Factor

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Initial Eigen values
Totalvariance cum
%
%
18.06
72.25
72.25
3
1
1
.920
3.678
75.93
0
.798
3.192
79.12
2
.593
2.374
81.49
5
.482
1.928
83.42
3
.448
1.793
85.21
6
.347
1.387
86.60
3
.300
1.202
87.80
5
.289
1.155
88.96
0
.260
1.040
90.00
0
.252
1.010
91.00
9
.241
.962
91.97
2
.216
.866
92.83
7
.206
.823
93.66
0
.198
.793
94.45
3
.191
.765
95.21
8
.179
.718
95.93
6
.161
.643
96.57
9
.143
.573
97.15
2
.136
.543
97.69
5
.132
.526
98.22
1
.127
.508
98.72
9
.121
.485
99.21
4
.108
.431
99.64
5
.089
.355
100.0
0

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Extracted sum of square
Total
varianCumce %%17.818 71.274
71.274Circulate sum of square
Total
variance Cum %%7.799
31.19631.196

.657

2.628

73.901

6.225

24.89956.095

.597

2.386

76.2885.048

20.19376.288147

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Table 3: The rotation of the factor matrix.
Items
A7
A6
A2
A3
A8
A4
A5
A9
A10
A1
A23
A20
A19
A18
A24
A16
A17
A22
A25
A21
A12
A13
A14
A11
A15

1
.762
.747
.709
.705
.681
.672
.664
.650
.647
.647
.575

Factors
2

3

.733
.683
.669
.633
.605
.604
.584
.570
.554
.777
.723
.653
.622
.595

Note. Extraction: Varimax; Rotation: Kaiser’s Varimax
Results
The results demonstrate the group differences in principal’s change leadership and teachers’
professional development. The main effect of principal’s change leadership impacted on theteachers’ professional development will be addressed. This study considered the teachers’
perception may have gender, teaching experiences, and school scale differences. The teachingexperiences have been classified into four groups by 5, 10, 15, and over 15 years. School
scales have been defined by four groups: Under 12 classes, 13-30 classes, 31-60 classes, andover 61 classes to verify their differences.

148

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Principal’s Change Leadership
According to factor analysis, twenty-five indicators of change leadership can be classified
into three dimensions. Principal’s change leadership has shown gender differences (t=2.065,
p=.039), male teachers perceived higher change leadership from their principals than female
teachers. This phenomenon also shows in “building supported environment” (t=2.001, p=.046)
and “adjusting organization and performance” (t=2.073, p=.039), while there is no significant
difference in “communicating and shaping change action” (t=1.920, p=.055), see Table 4.
Table 4: The principal’s change leadership perceived by teachers with different gender.
Gender difference
Principal’s change leadershipcommunicating and shaping change actionbuilding supported environment
adjusting organization and performance

Male
FemaleMale
FemaleMale
FemaleMale
FemaleNtdfp (two tails)

165
288
165
288
165
288
165
288

2.065

451

.039

1.920

451

.055

2.001

451

.046

2.073

451

.039

One way ANOVA demonstrated that the various groups of teachers’ teaching experiences
have shown different perceptions on principal’s change leadership (F(3,449)=3.342, p=.019).
The differences show in “communicating and shaping change action” (F(3,449)=4.121, p=.007)
and “building supported environment” (F(3,449)=3.039, p=.029). But there is no significant
difference in “adjusting organization and performance” (F(3,449)=1.635, p=.176), see Table 5.
Specifically, the differences come from under 5 years group and 5 years group (p=.034), andalso displays the differences in 5 years group and over 15 years group (p=.023). In this case,the teaching experience differences did not consist in their explanation of principal’s change
leadership. Moreover, this study reveals there is no significant difference of principal’schange leadership comparing the various school scales.
Teachers’ Professional Development
Teachers’ professional development has been classified two dimensions: willing toparticipating related activities and effect of professional development. Table 6 demonstrates
the results of teachers’ willing to participate and the effect of participating in related activities.
The results of teacher’s willingness to participate in the learning group or learning
community are highly based on their means.

149

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Table 5: Principal’s change leadership perceived by teachers with different teachingexperiences.
Different teaching experiences
Principal change
Betweenleadershipgroup
Within group
Total
Communicating and
Between group
shaping change
Within group
actionTotal
Building supported
Between groupenvironment
Within group
Total
Adjusting
Between grouporganization andWithin groupperformanceTotal

Sum of square
4382.768df
3

Mean square
1460.923

F
3.342

p
.019

196263.263
200646.031
955.49534698.558
35654.053
631.083
31082.789
31713.872
107.6849749.539
9857.223

449
452
3
449
452
3
449
452
3
449
452

437.112318.498
77.280

4.121

.007

210.361
69.227

3.039

.029

35.89521.714

1.653

.176

Mean

SD

Rank

4.01

0.85

7

3.79

0.96

8

4.11
4.05

0.81
0.75

5
6

4.18
4.22

0.62
0.64

2
1

4.13

0.73

4

4.15

0.69

3

Table 6: Teacher’s professional development reported by teachers.
Indicators
Willing to participate
1. Willing to engage in group or learning community topromote teaching skills
2. Willing to participate class observation activities for
improving teaching
3. Willing to participate workshop activities in or off campus
4. Willing to keep study and innovation in teaching
Effect of participating
5. I can consider student’s needs and design teaching
6. I can promote student learning and enhancing theircapability
7. I can face the students with low motivation and activethem
8. I have satisfied discipline knowledge and still pursuit tolearn something new

Gender did not display significant differences in their will to participate (t=-.217, p=.828) andeffect of participate the related learning activities (t=.552, p=.581). There is no significant
difference in willing to participate with the teacher’s teaching experiences (F(3,453)=1.745,
p=.157). The effect of participant related teaching activities has also shown no significant
differences with the teachers’ teaching experiences (F(3,453)=2.221, p=.085). While this study
demonstrates that teachers in small schools with 12 classes or less are more willing toparticipate in the related professional development activities (F(3,453)=3.563, p=.014). Thereis no significant difference in the effect of participating professional development activities(F(3,453)=.694, p=.556).

150

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Table 7: Teacher’s professional development differences with school scale.

Willing toparticipate

Effect ofparticipate
learning activities

School scale

N

M

SD

F

p

Turkey12 classes orless13-30 classes

62

4.14

0.59

3.563*

.014

>

58

4.02

0.63

31-60 classes

147

3.84

0.68

61 classes orover12 classes orless13-30 classes

186

3.88

0.68

62

4.28

0.50

.694

.556

58

4.17

0.53

31-60 classes

147

4.19

0.57

61 classes or
over

186

4.17

0.55

The Effect of Principal’s Change Leadership
Based on the regression analysis, the teachers’ professional development can be explained byprincipal’s change leadership 23.3% of the variance (R2=.232, F(1,451)=135.973, p=.000). This
study also considered the two dimensions of teacher profession development: one is willingto participate in related activities, the other is the effect of participating in professional
development activities in regression models. First, the result reveals that the teachers’ willing
can be explained by principal’s change leadership only in the “building supported
environment” dimension. The regression model shows the R2 =.217, it means only 21.7%
variance can be explained in this model (F(1,451)=124.628, p=.000). Second, this study foundthe effect of teachers’ professional development can be explained by principal’s change
leadership only 18.1% with “building supported environment” and “adjusting organizationand performance” (F(2,450)=49.605, p=.000). Table 8 presents the details of the two regression
models.
Table 8: The effect of principal’s change leadership on teachers’ professional development
explained by regression models.
Models (Dep/In dep.
var.)
1. Willing(consta
nt)
CL2

B

SE

Bet
a

2.50
7
.038

T

p

Toleran
ce

VIF

.13
18.4
.00
6
33
0
.00
.46
11.1
.00
1.000
1.00
3
5
64
0
0
2. Effect(constan
3.10
.11
27.2
.00
t)
0
4
.23
71
0
.243
4.11
CL2
.016
.00
9
2.75
.00
.243
2
CL3
.024
6
.20
7
6
4.11
.01
1
2.32
.02
2
0
1
1
Note. CL2= building supported environment; CL3= adjusting organization and performance151

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017Conclusion
Over a period of time, the government has initiated school-based reform to promote
innovative teaching in order to better student performance. Principals have been expected toexert more influence in leadership for changing the school culture. Focusing on theprincipal’s change leadership and teachers’ professional development, this study designed thesurvey tools to verify the assumption that the principal’s change leadership can makedifferences in schools. In this study, the results reveal the five domains of principal’s change
leadership did not verify. According to the factor analysis, the idea of a principal’s change
leadership can be explained by “communicating and shaping change action”, “building a
supported environment”, and “adjusting organization and performance”. The effect of aprincipal’s change leadership has shown significantly related to the teachers’ professional
development in terms of “willing to participate related activities” and “effect of professional
development”.
Based on the survey, the elementary schools in New Taipei City have shown satisfactorychange leadership and high engagement in professional development. This study
demonstrates a positive relationship between the principal’s change leadership and teacher’s
professional development. The results reveal that when the perceived principal’s change
leadership existed in schools, it can reinforce teachers’ professional development in terms of
their willingness to participate in teaching-related enhancing activities and the expected effectof participation. Even though the study focuses on only elementary school settings, thefindings can endorse the knowledge of the specific field.
For further studies, this study suggests focusing on how to enhance the capability ofprincipal’s leadership in the changing era. Principal’s change leadership competencies are
more influential than teachers’ self-influence in enhancing teacher attitudes toward change.
Therefore, concerted effort may be given to prioritize the continuous development ofprincipal’s change leadership in effective change management. The pre-service training
program for principals needs to focus on the topic of change leadership. In addition, more
complicated research design may provide details of information to interpret the theoreticalframework, for example a workable SEM model.

152

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

References:
Anderson, D., & Ackerman-Anderson, L. S. (2001). Beyond change management: Advanced
strategies for today’s transformational leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Anderson, L. A., & Anderson, D. (2001). The change leader’s roadmap: How to navigate
your organization’s transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bureau of Education, New Taipei City. (2016). Educational statistical data in New Taipei
City in 2015. Retrieved from http://www.ntpc.edu.tw/_file/2052/SG/25532/D.html
By, R. T., Hughes, M., & Ford, J. (2016). Change leadership: Oxymoron and myths. Journalof Change Management, 16(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2016.1137425
Cannatelli, B., Smith, B., Giudici, A., Jones, J., & Conger, M. (2016). An expanded model of
distributed leadership in organizational knowledge creation. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.10.002
Chong, A. (2015). Political leadership in Singapore: Transitional reflections amidst thepolitics of bifurcation. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 46(1), 111–118.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463414000630
Chu, S. K. W., Reynolds, R. B. Tavares, N. J., Notari, M., & Lee, C. W. Y. (2017). Teachers’
professional development. In S. K. W. Chu, R. B. Reynolds, N. J. Tavares, M. Notari &C. W. Y. Lee, (Eds.), 21st century skills development through inquiry-based learning(pp. 109–129). Singapore: Springer.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Internet and mail surveys: The tailored design method. New York,
NY: John Wiley.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2012). The leadership of organizational change: A view fromrecent empirical evidence. In W. Pasmore, R. Woodman & A. Shani (Eds.), Research inorganization change and development (pp. 1–36). Bingley: Emerald Publishing.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gay, L., R. (1992). Educational research: Competence for analysis and application. New
York, NY: Macmillan.
Gelei, A., Losonci, D., & Matyusz, Z. (2015). Lean production and leadership attributes: Thecase of Hungarian production mangers. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 26(4), 477–500.
Gill, R. (2002). Change management--or change leadership? Journal of Change Management,
3(4), 307–318. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/714023845
Gulamhussein, A. (2013). Teaching the teachers: Effective professional development in an
era of high stakes accountability. Center for Public Education. Retrieved fromhttp://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Staffingstudents/Teaching-theTeachers-Effective-Professional-Development-in-an-Era-of-High-StakesAccountability/Teaching-the-Teachers-Full-Report.pdf
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. New York:State University of New York Press.
Kin, T. M., Kareem, O. A., Nordin, M. S., & Khuan, W. B. (2017). Principal change
leadership competencies and teacher attitudes toward change: the mediating effects ofteacher change beliefs. International Journal of Leadership in Education (online).
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2016.1272719

153

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Liden, R. C., Panaccio, A., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., & Wayne, S. J. (2014a). Servant
leadership: Antecedents, processes, and outcomes. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 357–379). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014b). Servant leadership andserving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy ofManagement Journal, 57, 1434–1452. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0034
National Academy for Educational Research. (2016). The Republic of China education
yearbook 2014. New Taipei City, Taiwan: Author.
O’Reilly, C. A, I. I. I., Doerr, B., Caldwell, D. F., & Chatman, J. A. (2014). Narcissistic
CEOs and executive compensation. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 218–231.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.08.002
Oplatka, I., & Arar, K. (2016). The field of educational administration as an arena ofknowledge production: Some implications for Turkish field members. Research in
Educational Administration & Leadership, 1(2), 161–186.
Panaccio, A. Henderson, D. J. Liden, R. C. Wayne, S. J., & Cao, X. (2015). Toward anunderstanding of when and why servant leadership accounts for employee extra-role
behaviors.
Journalof
BusinessandPsychology,
30(4),
657–675.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9388-z
Shao, Z., Feng, Y., & Hu, Q. (2016). Effectiveness of top management support in enterprisesystems success: A contingency perspective of fit between leadership style and system
life-cycle. European Journal of Information System, 25(2), 131–153.
https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2015.6
Zarrow, J. (2014). Strategies for better teacher professional development. Retrieved fromhttp://www.teachthought.com/pedagogy/5-strategies-better-teacher-professionaldevelopment

Corresponding author: Wen-Ching Chou
Email: sauichou1226@gmail.com

154