• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

Empowering teachers: The influence of transformational leadership in Christian schools

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2011
Dissertation
Author: John Irungu Kirika
Abstract:
The object of this study was to investigate transformational leadership in Christian schools. The study investigated the perception of empowerment of K-12 Christian school teachers and its influence on organizational and professional commitment and job satisfaction. It explored correlations between teacher empowerment and selected demographic variables. The study also investigated how K-12 Christian school leaders and teachers perceive teacher empowerment. A combination of causal comparative and a correlational research method using a series of t-test, ANOVA, and multiple regression statistics was used for parametric statistical analyses. The research findings were mixed. While the study pointed to the prevalence of teacher empowerment in K-12 Christian schools, teachers did not feel empowered in certain dimensions or subscales of teacher empowerment.

Table of Contents

Dedication

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......

iv

Acknowledgements

................................ ................................ ................................ .........................

v

List of Tables

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .

vi

List of Figures

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................

xi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ .............................

1

Background of the Study

................................ ................................ ................................ ....

1

Statement of the Problem

................................ ................................ ......................

5

Purpose of the Study

................................ ................................ .............................

6

Significance of the Study

................................ ................................ ................................ ....

6

Research Questions

................................ ................................ ................................ .............

7

Statement of Hypotheses

................................ ................................ .......................

8

Definitions ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................

12

Summary of the Study

................................ ................................ ................................ ......

14

CHAP TER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

................................ ................................ .........

15

The Phenomenon o f Leadership: An Introduction ................................ ............................

15

Theor etical Framework of the Study

................................ ................................ ................

1 5

Transformational

Lea dership

................................ ................................ ..............

17

Transformational Leadership and Empow erment in Educational Setting

........................

20

Organiz ational and Personal Outcomes

................................ ................................ ............

21

Organizational Commitment

................................ ................................ ...............

22

Professional Commitment

................................ ................................ ...................

22

Job Satisfaction

................................ ................................ ................................ ...

22

viii

The Cons truct of Empowerment

................................ ................................ .........

23

An Overview of Pow er and Empowerment in Schools

................................ ....................

23

Transformational Leadership and Teacher Emp owerment in Christian Schools

.............

25

Leader ship: A Christian Perspective

................................ ................................ .................. 27

V isionary Christian Leadership

................................ ................................ ......................... 29

Leadership and Teacher Empowerme nt in General School Context

................................

31

Further Delineation of Empowerment in Corporate and Educational Settings

................

32

Be nefits of Teacher Empowerment

................................ ................................ ..................

33

Inner Leadership Qualities

................................ ................................ ................................

40

The Need for Organizational Commitment

................................ ................................ ......

42

The Need for Professional Commit ment (Job

Involvement)

................................ ............

43

The Need for Job Satisfaction

................................ ................................ ...........................

44

Leadership and Power

................................ ................................ ................................ .......

4 5

Negative Principal Practices

................................ ................................ .............................

4 6

Chapter Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ .............

4 8

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

................................ ................................ .....................

49

Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 49

Rest atement of Research Questions

................................ ................................ ..................

49

Restatement of Hypotheses

................................ ................................ ...............................

50

Research D esign ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 5 4

Participants

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 57

Settings

................................ ................................ ................................ ..............................

58

Research Instruments

................................ ................................ ................................ ........

58

ix

Instrument Reliability

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 62

Data Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................

63

Procedure

................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................

65

Data Collection Process

................................ ................................ ................................ ....

66

Data Preparation ................................ ................................ ................................ ................

6 8

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

................................ ................................ ................................ .....

6 9

Demographic Profile of the Population

................................ ................................ ............

6 9

Educational Attainment

................................ ................................ ......................

6 9

Year s of Service in School Setting

................................ ................................ .....

70

Gender

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 71

Size of School

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 71

Research Questions and Hypotheses Testing

................................ ................................ ...

72

Research Question 1

................................ ................................ ...........................

72

Research Question 2

................................ ................................ ...........................

75

R esearch Question 3

................................ ................................ ...........................

7 9

Research Question 4

................................ ................................ ...........................

80

Research Question 5

................................ ................................ ...........................

84

Summary of Research Results

................................ ................................ ............

85

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS

................................

87

Discussion of Research Findings

................................ ................................ ......................

87

Hypothesi s 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........

87

Hypothesis 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........

90

Hypothesis 3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........

92

x

Hypothesis 4 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........

93

Hypothesis 5 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........

95

Implications of the Study

................................ ................................ ................................ ..

9 6

Other Incidental Findings

................................ ................................ ...................

97

Limitattions of the Study

................................ ................................ ................................ ..

98

Summary of the Findings

................................ ................................ ................................ . 100

Recommendations for Future Research

................................ ................................ ........... 103

REFERENCES

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 104

APPENDICES

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................

1 19

Appendix A - School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES)

................................ .......

11 9

Appendix B -

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ)

................................ .

12 2

Appendix C -

Bolin's (1989) Teacher Empowerment Scale

................................ ............

12 4

Appendix

D -

Job Involvemet Questionnaire (JIQ)

................................ .........................

12 5

Appendix E -

Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire -

Job Satisfaction Subscale (MOAQ - JSS)/ Overall Job Satisfaction

................................ ..... 1 27

Appendix F - Demographics Questionnaire

................................ ................................ .....

1 28

Appendix G -

Invitation and Informed Con sent

................................ ............................... 1 29

Appendix H -

Permission to Use School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES)

......... 1 31

Appendix I. -

Permission to Use Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ)

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 1 33

Appendix J -

Liberty University Internal Review Board (IRB) Research Approval

........ 1 35

Appendi x K -

Request to Participate in Dissertation Research Email

.............................. 1 37

xi

List of Tables

Table 1:

Reliability of Instruments

................................ ................................ ...................

6 3

Table 2: Highest Level of Education

................................ ................................ .................

70

Table 3:

Participants’ Years of Service in School Setting

................................ ................

71

Table 4: Size of School Based on Tota l Student Enrollment

................................ ...........

72

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for the School Participant Empowerment Scale

.............

73

Table 6: Zero - Order Correlations

................................ ................................ ....................

7 8

Table 7: Regression Coefficients for Teacher Empowerment / Demographic s

...............

80

Table 8: Summary of Results

................................ ................................ .........................

85

xii

Lis t of Figures

Figure 1: Significant Levels of Perceived Empowerment

................................ ...........

75

Figure 2: Effects of Teacher Empowerment

................................ ...............................

77

Figure 3: Dimensions (or Subscales) of Teacher Empowerment

...............................

83

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

There is a rich body of researc h literature in the province of leadership, primarily encompassing corporate entities and public institutions (Bennis & Nanus, 2003).

In the domain of education, empirical literature reveals that a good number of studies have explored the leadership pract ices of public school principals (Bass, 1990; Bass & Avolio, 1990; Fiedler, 1967; Hickman, 1998; Yukl, 1998), but none of these examined Christian school systems within a conceptual framework (Shee, Ji, & Boyatt , 2002).

It is, therefore, apparent that res earch on leadership practices forged in Christian schools has been lacking.

This study was instituted primarily to address this research void.

In light of the growing number of Christian schools in America and the challenges of Christian school leadershi p, the need for gaining understanding about leadership practices prevailing in these schools, through empirical inquiry, cannot be overstated.

This present study was carried out to investigate the prevalence of teacher empowerment as a construct of transf ormational leadership and its impact on K - 12 Christian school teachers’ behaviors regarding their job satisfaction and commitment to both their schools and the profession.

Background of the Study

The rationale f or conducting this empirical study is based on a number of factors. First, educational reforms have largely been the domain of public schools, and little attention has been directed at private schools in the research arena.

This is congruent with observat ions made by Braggs (2008) to the effect that there were too many gaps in the understanding of transformational leadership or empowerment and its

benefit to

2

Christian

schools.

As a result, private schools and the experiences of teachers in those schools h ave been largely ignored in the preponderance of educational reform literature.

Second, given the growing role of transformational leadership, with its effects on school outcomes (and with empowerment of teachers being its mainstay), it is important to e xamine and understand how teachers view themselves within these efforts. In a nutshell, it is important to examine empirically the level of teacher empowerment in Christian schools and its implications for their organizational commitment and shared leaders hip, otherwise referred to as transformational leadership. These variables were chosen because they predict school effectiveness (Howell & Dorfman, 1996; Rosenholtz, 1991).

This study sought to understand whether teachers in Christian schools are empowere d enough to be partners in shared school leadership. It also investigated Christian school teachers’ organizational commitment to their schools. These four constructs ( teacher empowerment , organizational commitment , professional commitment, and job satisfa ction ) are presumed to shed light on benefits of effective and authentic transformational leadership.

This study will add to the limited body of literature currently available in the domain of teacher empowerment or leadership in Christian schools.

Furth er, the findings may benefit school leaders, teachers, and other stakeholders in Christian schools as they adapt the concepts of teacher empowerment as a new paradigm for good school leadership and predictably better academic outcomes. The future and the s uccess of K - 12 Christian education rest on organizations and their ability to train and attract those with the best in leadership qualities to lead a purpose - driven movement toward the prevailing

3

and coming challenges, while earning honor, respect, and leg itimacy among the American population (Braggs, 2008).

Never before has there been such a critical need for leadership in both private and public schools. The Nation at Risk Report

of 1983, which was conducted under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Ed ucation, brought to the nation's attention the fact that all was not well with American public education. The findings revealed

debilitating problems in those things that constitute the bone and marrow of education: curriculum content, standards and expect ations, time, teacher quality, leadership, and financial support. The report further served as an indictment of educational officials, school leaders, and the American public for complacency. The university presidents, eminent scientists, policymakers, and

educators who made up the commission refused to provide

a false depiction of the eroding quality of American education. The commission said that Americans had become self - satisfied about the country’s leading position in the world and had lost sight of th e basic purposes of schooling and of the high expectations and disciplined effort needed to attain them (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). This grim reality helped engineer a myriad of reform movements bent on infusing changes in schoo l leadership, curriculum, and academic standards. The advocacy for and the implementation of a site - based school leadership model, the Teacher Empowerment Act, and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 are prime examples of these efforts.

In 2008, the U.S. Department of Education revisited the issue with the new report titled A Nation Accountable Twenty - five Years After a Nation at Risk .

Although there was some progress noted in the new report (mainly in the area of student assessment), the

4

bulk of the fi ndings were still dismal.

According to the report, America remained a nation at risk, albeit also a nation informed, a nation accountable, and a nation that recognized there was much work to be done. The report highlighted the fact that America was at eve n greater risk than in 1983. In addition, the report posited that the rising demands of the global economy, together with demographic shifts, required that the United States educate more students to higher levels than ever before.

In spite of this reality , the American education system was observed as not keeping pace with the growing demands.

The epic challenges faced by educators call for dynamic, transformational leaders.

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1790, Abigail Adams wrote, “These are hard t imes in which a genius would wish to live. Great necessities call forth great leaders” (as cited in Bennis & Nanus, 2003, p.1).

It is apparent that hard times demand great leaders who can steer people out of the plethora of problems they are facing. In pa rticular reference to the realm of education, both public and private schools are in critical need of leadership more than ever before due to growing concerns over performance and improvement (Fullan, 2007).

For schools to meet the needs of American socie ty in the 21 st

century, they will need to transform themselves from institutions bent on compliance and attendance to ones that nurture commitment and attention (Fullan, 2007). Therefore, the school’s core business should consist of those things on which i ts attention is fastened and its energy directed toward the attainment of optimal personal and organizational outcomes (Schlechty, 2002).

This, in practice, will foster a transformation that not only defines the school’s critical roles, but will also expa nd the role of teachers to include a stake in the decision - making process (Schlechty, 2002).

In order for this to happen,

5

school leaders must empower teachers, and teachers must accept the responsibility that comes with empowerment (Schlechty, 2002).

St atement of the Problem

Empowerment of teachers is a critical element of reform efforts to improve schools and, consequently, to foster superior educational outcomes (Eckley, Rinehart, & Short, 1999).

Eckley, Rinehart, and

Short

(1999) further observed th at the most important attempt in creating empowering school environments is the model of leadership the principal perpetuates. Kelly (2000) observed that the quality and the improvement of American public schools are threatened by crises in school leadersh ip. Christian schools are also not immune to these perennial leadership problems.

Davies (1993) observed that many Christian schools appear to operate within an organizational structure that is consistent with the bureaucratic and hierarchical model propo unded by Weber in 1924.

Max Weber, a German sociologist, propounded a theory of authority structures in which he identified an organizational format he named bureaucracy ( as cited in Davies, 1993 ) .

The striking feature of a bureaucracy was a definition of

roles within a hierarchy, where employees were appointed on merit, required to follow rules, and expected to behave impartially (Cole, 2004).

For Christian school lea ders to avoid the problems of discipline, dismal academic performance, crime, school dr op outs, teacher retention , and dissatisfaction, they have to adopt the concepts that have been proven to be critical for school success (Demuth & Demuth, 2007; Noll, 2003). These concepts are enshrined in transformational leadership and include the persona l and organizational outcomes associated with it. In this vein, the prevalence of teacher empowerment and both organizational and personal commitment,

6

as attributes of transformational leadership in K - 12 Christian schools, requires empirical scrutiny.

Purp ose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the construct of teacher empowerment and its influence on teachers’ commitment to their schools and their profession and on their job satisfaction. The study sought to investigate what dimension s of empowerment (autonomy, decision - making, impact, self - efficacy, and professional growth) can best predict the aforementioned variables.

Finally, the study sought to examine any disparity between school le aders’ and teachers’ perception

of teacher empo werment.

The Significance of the Study

The implications of this study for the practice of education and pedagogy of transformational leadership and teacher empowerment are paramount. The study provides elucidation on the construct and practices of transfo rmational leadership. The study is poised to add to the understanding of teacher empowerment construct as an outcome of transformational leadership and any link with job satisfaction and organizational and professional commitment within the setting of K - 12

Christian schools. The quantitative findings collected should add to the limited data currently available in the arena of Christian schools and transformative leadership. Furthermore, the research findings will inform school leaders and other stakeholder s of the dynamic resources and benefits of transformational leadership and teacher empowerment, both of which can be harnessed to achieve excellent school outcomes.

7

The results of this study will assist Christian leaders in the transformation of their sch ools to achieve excellent educational outcomes and exemplary professional growth through the empowerment of teachers.

By empowering teachers, leaders can help create synergistic learning communities.

In reality, progressive schools in the 21st century sh ould be seen as communities of learners capable of transforming themselves and shaping both the community and school culture (Fullan, 2007).

Empowered teachers are more resourceful and more committed to their schools (Ingersoll, 2003). Therefore, transform ing principal leadership and the empowerment of teachers that accrues from it should be regarded as an essential paradigm in schools, and Christian school leaders who desire to transform their schools in order to achieve excellent educational outcomes and professional growth should foster an enabling environment of teacher empowerment. School leaders should seek to empower teachers through informal sharing of power, delegation, and consultative decision - making (Davies, 1993).

In addition, Davies (1993) pos tulated that authentic information sharing among teachers instills a sense of corporate belonging and invigorates them to effectively strive toward corporate goals.

Research Questions

1.

What are the perceptions of K - 12 Christian school teachers regarding tea cher empowerment?

2.

What are the effects of perceived teacher empowerment on their job satisfaction and commitment to both their schools and the teaching profession?

8

3.

Do es a teacher’s

gender, level of education, years of educational experience, school type, and school size affect his/her perceptions regarding teacher empowerment?

4.

W hat dimensions of perceived teacher empowerment (autonomy, decision -

making, impact, professional growth, self - efficacy, and status) can best predict teachers’ commitment to their s chools and their profession, and

teachers’

job satisfaction?

5.

Is there a significant difference between teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of teacher empowerment?

Statement of the Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses and sub - hypotheses were formulat ed to test the research variables noted above.

Hypothesis 1

H o 1 1

There is no significant level of perceived teacher empowerment related to decision - making

as measured by School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES) .

H o 1 2

There is no significant level of p erceived teacher empowerment related to autonomy

as measured by School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES) .

H o 1 3

There is no significant level of perceived teacher empowerment related to professional growth

as measured by School Participant Empowerment Sc ale (SPES) .

9

H o 1 4

There is no significant level of perceived teacher empowerment related to impact

as measured by School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES) .

H o 1 5

There is no significant level of perceived teacher empowerment related to status

as measured by School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES) .

H o 1 6

There is no significant level of perceived teacher empowerment related to self - e fficacy

as measured by School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES).

Hypothesis 2

The perception of empowerment of K - 12 Chr istian scho ol teachers has no significant correlation with their commitment to their schools and their profession, and their job satisfaction as measured by Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire - Job Satisfaction Subscale

(MOAQ - JSS) , Organization al Commitment Questionnaire

(OCQ) , and the Job Involvement Questionnaire

(JIQ) .

H o 2 1

The perception of empowerment of K - 12 Christian school teachers has no significant correlation with commitment to their schools.

H o 2 2

The perception of empowerment of K - 12 Christian school teachers has no significant correlation with commitment to their profession.

H o 2 3

The perception of empowerment of K - 12 Christian school teachers has no significant correlation with their job satisfaction.

10

Hypothesis 3

The K - 12 schoo l teacher’s gender, level of education, school type, and school size have

no significant effect on the perception of their empowerment as measured by School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES).

H o 3 1

Gender does not have a significant effect on a teacher’ s

perception of their empowerment.

H o 3 2

Level of education does not have a significant effect on a teacher’s

perception of their empowerment.

H o 3 3

School type does not have a significant effect on a teacher’s

perception of their empowerment.

H o 3 4

Size of school does not have a significant effect on a teacher’s

perception of their empowerment.

Hypothesis 4

The teachers’ perceived empowerment dimensions of autonomy, decision making, impact, professional growth, self - efficacy, and status are not s ignificant predictors of their organizational commitment, professional commitment, and job satisfaction as measured by School Participant Empowerment Scale

(SPES) , Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) , Job Involvement Questionnaire (JIQ) (Profess ional Commitment), and Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Subscale (MOAQ - JSS).

H o 4 1

The teachers’ perceived empowerment dimension of autonomy is not a significant predictor of their organizational commitment.

11

H o 4 2

The teacher s’ perceived empowerment dimension of autonomy is not a significant predictor of their professional commitment.

H o 4 3

The teachers’ perceived empowerment dimension of autonomy is not a significant predictor of their job satisfaction.

H o 4 4

The teachers’ per ceived empowerment dimension of decision making is not a significant

predictor of their organizational commitment.

H o 4 5

The teachers’ perceived empowerment dimension of decision making is not a significant predictor of their professional commitment.

H o 4 6

T he teachers’ perceived empowerment dimension of decision making is not a significant predictor of their job satisfaction.

H o 4 7

The teachers’ perceived empowerment dimension of impact is not a significant predictor of their organizational commitment.

H o 4 8

T he teachers’ perceived empowerment dimension of impact is not a significant predictor of their professional commitment.

H o 4 9

The teachers’ perceived empowerment dimension of impact is not a significant predictor of their job satisfaction.

H o 4 10

The teache rs’ perceived empowerment dimension of professional growth is not a significant predictor of their organizational commitment.

12

H o 4 11

The teachers’ perceived empowerment dimension of professional growth is not a significant predictor of their professional co mmitment.

H o 4 12

The teachers’ perceived empowerment dimension of professional growth is not a significant predictor of their job satisfaction.

H o 4 13

The teachers’ perceived empowerment dimension of self - efficacy is not a significant predictor of their orga nizational commitment.

H o 4 14

The teachers’ perceived empowerment dimension of self - efficacy is not a significant predictor of their professional commitment.

H o 4 15

The teachers’ perceived empowerment dimension of self - efficacy is not a significant predictor

of their job satisfaction.

H o 4 16

The teachers’ perceived empowerment dimension of status is not a significant predictor of their organizational commitment.

H o 4 17

The teachers’ perceived empowerment dimension of status is not a significant predictor of the ir professional commitment.

H o 4 18

The teachers’ perceived empowerment dimension of status is not a significant predictor of their job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 5

H o 5

There will be no significant difference in how principals and

teachers perceive teacher em powerment as measured by Bolin’s Teacher Empowerment Scale.

13

Definitions

The following are definitions important to this study.

1.

Empowerment

is defined as “investing teachers with the right to participate in the determination of school goals and policies and to exercise professional judgment about what and how to teach” (Borin, 1989, p. 82). It consists of “enabling experiences provided within an organization that fosters autonomy, choice, control, and responsibility” (Short & Rinehart, 1992a, p. 952). Fur ther, it is also associated with terms such as shared governance, shared decision making, and teacher leadership.

2.

A Christian school

in this study is defined as a school that strives to honor Jesus Christ in all it does by using the Word of God (the Bible)

as the guide and rule for every area of philosophy and education, including planning, policies, curriculum, and interaction among teachers, parents, students, and administration (Lee, 2005). It is further defined by membership in the Association of Chris tian Schools International (ACSI, 2009).

3.

Organizational commitment

was defined by Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) as a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values; a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the org anization; and a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization.

4.

Status

refers to the teacher’s sense of esteem and professional respect, given to the teacher by students, parents, supervisors, and the community (Ashton & Webb, 1986).

14

5.

Job involve ment

is defined as "psychological identification with a job" (Kanungo, 1982, p. 97). This definition implies that a job - involved person sees her or his job “as an important part of his self - concept” (Lawler & Hall, 1970, p. 311) and that jobs “define one’s

self - concept in a major way” (Kanungo, 1982, p. 82).

6.

Autonomy as a dimension of an empowerment model refers to the teachers’ belief that they have the control of important aspects of their lives (Short & Rinehart, 1992a).

7.

Teacher impact

is defined as the teachers’ perceptions that they have influence over their work life (Short & Rinehart, 1992a) .

8.

Global score is the mean score of School Participant Empowerment Scale’s six subscales or dimensions: decision making, autonomy, status, professional growth, and

impact .

Summary of the Study

This study was conducted to provide insight on teacher empowerment as a construct of transformational leadership and its effect on job satisfaction

and both organizational and professional commitment. The insight gleaned from

this study will assist leaders in K - 12 Christian schools to become dynamic, transforming leaders who are capable of effectively empowering their teachers.

It is also hoped that such leaders will nurture and inculcate a culture of transforming behaviors. Outstanding leadership has been observed to be a key characteristic of successful schools, and the schools that are seeking quality education must embrace and nurture exemplary leadership and attach paramount importance to the development of potential lead ers (Beare, Caldwell, & Millikan, 1989).

15

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The Phenomenon of Leadership: An Introduction

Maxwell’s (2007) observation that everything rises and falls on leadership is axiomatic. This axiom attests to the paramount importan ce of leadership. It is a universal concept that pervades every facet of human enterprise, including business, government, church, and education (Fullan, 2007).

Full document contains 149 pages
Abstract: The object of this study was to investigate transformational leadership in Christian schools. The study investigated the perception of empowerment of K-12 Christian school teachers and its influence on organizational and professional commitment and job satisfaction. It explored correlations between teacher empowerment and selected demographic variables. The study also investigated how K-12 Christian school leaders and teachers perceive teacher empowerment. A combination of causal comparative and a correlational research method using a series of t-test, ANOVA, and multiple regression statistics was used for parametric statistical analyses. The research findings were mixed. While the study pointed to the prevalence of teacher empowerment in K-12 Christian schools, teachers did not feel empowered in certain dimensions or subscales of teacher empowerment.