See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326945477

A comparative analysis on principal change leadership competencies in

Malaysian high- and mediocre-performing secondary schools

Article  in  Asia Pacific Journal of Education · August 2018

DOI: 10.1080/02188791.2018.1476319

CITATION READS

1 127

2 authors:

Tai Mei Kin Omar Abdull Kareem

Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI)
15 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Validating an Indigenous Model on Professional Learning Community of Secondary Schools in Malaysia View project

Validation of customer inspiration construct in Malaysian perspective View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tai Mei Kin on 03 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Asia Pacific Journal of Education

ISSN: 0218-8791 (Print) 1742-6855 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cape20

A comparative analysis on principal change

leadership competencies in Malaysian high- and
mediocre-performing secondary schools

Tai Mei Kin & Omar Abdull Kareem

To cite this article: Tai Mei Kin & Omar Abdull Kareem (2018): A comparative analysis on principal
change leadership competencies in Malaysian high- and mediocre-performing secondary schools,
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, DOI: 10.1080/02188791.2018.1476319

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2018.1476319

Published online: 09 Aug 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cape20
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2018.1476319

ARTICLE

A comparative analysis on principal change leadership

competencies in Malaysian high- and mediocre-performing
secondary schools
Tai Mei Kin and Omar Abdull Kareem
Department of Management and Leadership, Faculty of Management and Economics, Universiti Pendidikan
Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The study aimed to examine the levels and patterns of Principal Change Received 5 February 2017
Leadership Competencies (PCLC) in Malaysian High-Performing Secondary Accepted 8 April 2018
Schools (HPSS) and Mediocre-Performing Secondary Schools (MPSS). Data KEYWORDS
were collected from school principals, senior assistants, and teachers in Capacity building; defusing
HPSS and MPSS. A total of 1,010 respondents completed the survey. The resistance and conflict; goal
findings revealed that (1) school principals of HPSS and MPSS ranked them- framing; institutionalizing;
selves the highest in PCLC, followed by senior assistants and teachers; (2) principals change leadership
school principals, senior assistants, and teachers of HPSS also rated school competencies; school
principals high in PCLC in comparison with those reported by their counter- change
parts of MPSS, respectively; (3) school principals of HPSS scored higher than
school principals of MPSS in all the four domains of PCLC; (4) school principals
of HPSS were rated as competent in all the four domains of PCLC whereas
their counterparts of MPSS were rated as competent in three domains of PCLC
except Defusing Resistance and Conflict; (5) both school principals of HPSS
and MPSS achieved the highest mean score of PCLC in Goal Framing, followed
by Institutionalizing, Capacity Building, and Defusing Resistance and Conflict.
Factors why school principals of MPSS were found less competent than school
principals of HPSS in implementing change were discussed.

Introduction
Educational leadership and the importance of school improvement and school effectiveness have
been studied extensively over the past decades (Eacott, 2011; Fullan, 2007; Hoy & Miskel, 2008;
Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008; Leithwood & Louis, 2012; Robinson, 2010). Although it is
acknowledged that there is a growing need for school reforms, accompanied by increasing demands
for educational excellence and rapid changing global environment, most educational reforms have
not been completely successful at any place in the world (Levin, 2001; Ministry of Education Malaysia,
2013). The root cause of many change problems in schools has been the absence of leadership to
lead change (Fullan, 2007; Hall & Hord, 2001; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001).
Indeed, academic literature suggests that future effectiveness of all schools depends on the ability
of school leaders to manage change (Bush, 2007; Fullan, 2007; Leithwood et al., 2004; Murphy &
Datnow, 2002). There is also an increasing awareness that effective change does not occur in schools
unless the school principals initiate the change process competently, specifically in influencing
teachers to work towards the achievement of the change goal (Clarke, 2000; Lakomski, 2001;
Oplatka, 2003). Since school change is unavoidable, these views acknowledge the need to bring

CONTACT Tai Mei Kin taimeikin@fpe.upsi.edu.my Department of Management and Leadership, Faculty of
Management and Economics, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris 35900, Tanjong Malim, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia
© 2018 National Institute of Education, Singapore
2 T. M. KIN AND O. ABDULL KAREEM

educational leadership to a transformational edge (Fullan, 2002; Wallace Foundation, 2011). Hence,
effective change leadership in school systems is essential because school change can occur when
guided by leadership, which is the key to any change initiatives (Hallinger, 2004; Harris, 2004).
The Malaysian education system is entering an intensive period of change with the launching of
the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025. One important shift to transform the system is to
have a high quality principal in every school (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2013). The Ministry of
Education Malaysia invests heavily in preparing and training school principals, as they are the
transformational leaders expected to lead change effectively in line with the aspiration set out in
the Blueprint. Therefore, unless school principals are equipped with the crucial relevant compe-
tencies to initiate the change process, school reforms will ultimately fall short of the expectation
outlined in the Blueprint.
Against this background, there is a pressing need to evaluate whether school principals in
Malaysia possess relevant competencies in leading and executing change in school. This paper
aims to investigate Principals Change Leadership Competencies (PCLC) in Malaysian secondary
schools. A comparison was made between high-performing secondary schools and mediocre-
performing secondary schools.

Leadership of educational change

The leadership of educational change in school is complex and challenging. There are multiple
lenses to examine the complexity of the role of school principals in implementing change in
schools (Limbert, 2002). In the 1990s, the wealth of empirical studies undertaken in the school
leadership field showed that two main categories of leadership practices that had characteristics of
a transformational approach were proven to be useful in school reforms: Hallinger and Heck (1998)
emphasized on “purpose”, “people”, and “structures and social system”, and “organizational cul-
ture” (pp. 171–178) whereas Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach (1999) focused on “setting direc-
tions”, “developing people”, and “redesigning the organization” (pp. 55–98).
After year 2000, the notion of educational change leadership was further expanded. Instead of
instructional leadership, Fullan (2002) introduced the concept of cultural change principals: one
who is “attuned to the big picture, a conceptual thinker who transforms the organization through
people and teams” (p. 17). According to Fullan (2002), instructional leadership has led us in the
quest for continuous school improvement; that in a complex and rapidly changing environment, it
is time to focus on school principals as leaders in a culture of change. He identifies five essential
components of effective leaders in any knowledge society: moral purpose, understanding change,
improving relationships, knowledge creation, and sharing and coherence making. These are keys to
a sustainable education reform that goes beyond maintaining high standards.
Following this, Mulford (2006) conducted a research on leadership within a change context and
identified six features of effective transformational leader: developing a shared vision, setting high-
performing expectations, providing principal support, a building, caring and trustful culture, fostering a
participative school culture, and enhancing a conducive working environment. Clearly, a conducive
culture for change is emerging as a critical component for school leadership development. In fact,
educational theorists have reported that the school principal’s impact on learning is mediated through
school culture (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Macneil, Prater, & Busch, 2009).
In 2008, Williams (2008) reported on the importance of school leaders’ emotional and social intelli-
gence. She identified six important social competencies that outstanding school principals consistently
demonstrated: self-confidence, achievement orientation, initiative, organizational awareness, leadership,
and collaboration. Robinson (2010) further identified three areas of knowledge that effective school
principals possess: administrative knowledge that impacts learning outcomes, situational knowledge of
problem solving, and interpersonal skills in building a productive relationship with stakeholders. As such,
emotional and social intelligence can help school principals meet the complex challenges in school
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 3

change. In other words, school leadership is no longer task driven per se, but has to be emotionally
compelling.
In Malaysia, Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB), the leading body in designing and conducting
training courses for school principals, developed the School Leadership Competency Model as a
benchmark competency measure for school leaders. This model consists of 26 competencies of
effective school leaders that were categorized into six important dimensions: policy and direction,
instructional and achievement, managing change and innovation, resources and operation, people
and relationships, and personal effectiveness (Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB), 2012). In the context of
school leadership in change implementation, Tai, Omar, Muhamad Sahari, and Khuan (2014)
developed the Principal Change Leadership Competency Model to identify critical change leader-
ship competencies that would facilitate change within the Malaysian school change context. Four
important domains of competencies were identified: (1) Goal Framing, (2) Capacity Building, (3)
Defusing Resistance and Conflict, and (4) Institutionalizing.
Goal Framing emphasizes the importance of constructing a goal to direct the change effort,
presenting the rationale of the need for change, and having a clear direction of how to achieve the
goal. Capacity Building highlights the importance of school principals to prepare teachers with the
knowledge and skills to meet change requirements, especially in developing teachers’ competen-
cies in teaching and learning. Mitigating resistance and conflicts are the fundamental roles of the
school principals in the phase of Defusing Resistance and Conflict. Institutionalizing stresses the
importance of sustaining the achievements of the change. At its best, attention needs to be given
by school principals to consolidate a change and hold on to gains (Tai et al., 2014).

Professional development for school principals in Malaysia

A continued professional development for school principals is emerging as a fundamental and
crucial ingredient of successful school improvement and school effectiveness (Cowie & Crawford,
2007; Nicholson, Harris-John, & Schimmel, 2005). In Malaysia, school principals have to complete a
preparatory training programme called the National Professional Qualification for Headship
(NPQH). This has been conducted since 1999 and IAB is fully in charge of this programme.
To ensure school principals are able to lead school change under the new drive for school
reforms 2013–2015, the National Professional Qualification for Educational Leaders (NPQEL), the
new name for NPQH since 2008, was introduced as a mandatory qualification for all new school
principals from July 2014 (Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB), 2015). The main aim of NPQH/NPQEL is to
prepare the next tier of educational leaders to lead education institutions, especially schools,
towards excellence (Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB), 2016). Participants are selected from vice-
principals or equivalent ministry officers based on their performance track record and interviews
(Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB), 2015). The selection process is similar to the Leaders in Education
Program (LEP) conducted in Singapore in preparing aspiring principals for principalship (Ng, 2015).
The NPQH/NPQEL was developed based on the School Leadership Competency Model as
mentioned earlier. The training is structured according to the six domains of the model with 26
competencies – the standard quality for Malaysian school leaders to be effective based on the
research conducted by IAB (Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB), 2015). It employs a blended learning
approach that involves six weeks of lectures and workshops and 12 weeks of e-learning (Institut
Aminuddin Baki (IAB), 2016). The NPQH/NPQEL programme emphasizes competency-based learn-
ing in terms of leadership and management, which are inextricably intertwined (Chikoko, Naicker, &
Mthiyane, 2011). This is to enable the participants to gain the necessary functional knowledge,
skills, and abilities to perform their task and lead the school effectively (Anthony & Hamdan, 2010).
During the e-learning period, on top of the on-line quality discussion and professional learning,
participants are expected to conduct two consultation activities, the Benchmarking Program for
two weeks and the Attachment Program for eight weeks (Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB), 2016). For
the Benchmarking Program, each participant will be placed in one selected excellent school
4 T. M. KIN AND O. ABDULL KAREEM

throughout the programme. They receive guidance and support from the principal of the school
and the assigned supervisor from IAB. Their task is to benchmark successful innovative practices of
the school and gain significant insights into how effective management and leadership might be
put into practice. Participants are therefore encouraged to observe, explore, and learn through
meetings and conversations with the school principal, staff, and supervisor. At the end of the
programme, they are required to write a report on a school improvement programme towards
excellence in terms of leadership and management (Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB), 2015).
For the Attachment Program, participants are encouraged to link theory to practice; they are
attached to their own school but are required to conduct one innovative school-based project that
would help their current school improve the quality of the school performance. They are to carry
out the project based on what they have discovered during the Benchmarking Program and to
apply what they have learnt. Similarly, the school principal and an assigned supervisor from IAB will
give guidance and support to the participants and monitor the progress (Institut Aminuddin Baki
(IAB), 2014). This programme provides the platform to learn how to lead others to accomplish the
project together by finding best-fit solutions for problems that might arise during the attachment
period. The implementation and the accomplishment of the project are meant to challenge the
participants’ leadership and management capability; this will ultimately provide new and practical
knowledge that will take them to a higher level of effective development into leaders of innovation
and change (Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB), 2015).
The Benchmarking Program and the Attachment Program are organized such that participants
are exposed to situations which they are most likely to experience as school principals. According
to Bush and Glover (2004), effective leadership development is based on the participants’ leader-
ship context. Hence the starting point to frame this context and to maximize leadership learning is
through observing and participating in their own schools. Fullan (2010) pointed out that this kind
of learning reaps the greatest returns, as it is specific, situational, and social. In short, the design of
the NPQEL is congruent with the suggestions postulated by Gray and Bishop (2009), about the
success of leadership development initiatives, which are role-embedded learning that encompasses
high quality training and the on-the-job application of knowledge, skills, and practices.
It is important to note that a balanced and comprehensive professional development cannot be
achieved by a single approach. As Malaysian schools become more complex in fulfilling visions of
improved productivity and international competitiveness, another leadership development pro-
gramme for school leaders, the Program Residency and Immersion or PRIme, has been introduced
to those soon-to-be appointed principals. A study of school leadership development programmes
across 11 countries in the world revealed that creating effective transitions into the leadership role
is one out of the seven global issues critical for the preparation of school leaders in the future
(Hallinger, 2003). The transition period from an aspiring principal to a first year principal is a crucial
period of time where much assistance and support is needed (Ng, 2015).
PRIme facilitates this as it consists of a principal residency programme and an immersion
programme to support soon-to-be appointed principals in the transition period of becoming
school principals (Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB), 2015). The former is an on-boarding programme
whereby the soon-to-be appointed principal spends one month under the mentorship of the
principal who will be leaving. The immersion programme, on the other hand, is a formalization
of the voluntary coaching and mentoring programmes. The new principal will receive seven days
or 42 hours of direct coaching and mentoring from an experienced principal coach or district
School Improvement Partner (SiPartner+), once they have formally started their new role as
principal, for the first six months of the appointment (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2013).
According to Gray and Bishop (2009), mentoring is an important initiative to produce qualitative
change in leadership development and behaviour especially in facilitating the successful induction
of the beginning principals. Mentoring serves as a socialization strategy for acquiring knowledge,
skills and behaviours, particularly in adapting to a new environment and role (Silver, Lochmiller,
Copland, & Tripps, 2009). It provides supportive relationships in enhancing continuing skill
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 5

development and refining professional practices through useful advice and guidance (Daresh,
2001; Ng, 2015). As successful school leadership is often contextual (Ng, 2015), the mentors are
expected to provide on-going support and feedback on performance to the soon-to-be principal
and the newly appointed principal, especially in problem solving and decision-making. The
mentors may also help this principal understand and practise effective leadership behaviours to
drive on-going improvement and innovation for the betterment of the institution (Institut
Aminuddin Baki (IAB), 2015).
It can be argued that PRIme has been designed based on the complexity theory (Cunningham,
2000; Morrison, 2002) and the notion that the school is a complex and dynamic organization.
According to Ng (2015), the complexity of interaction, the uncertainty, the unpredictability, and
their relationship with diversity and creativity within an organization should be taken into considera-
tion amidst a fast-changing educational system in designing educational leadership programmes.
Clearly, the elements of complexity theory are incorporated into the leadership learning structures
which encourage deep interaction and active participation of the soon-to-be principal and the newly
appointed principal in communication, action learning, dialogue, and reflection with the principal
coach, the School Improvement Partner, the staff, and the local community (Institut Aminuddin Baki
(IAB), 2015). Undoubtedly, this enables the soon-to-be or newly appointed principals to take on a non-
linear manner of learning that maximizes learning impact as they grow in their school leadership skills.
According to Patterson and West-Burnham (2005) and Ng (2015), instead of prescribed, stan-
dardized, theoretical training courses, recent successful leadership development programmes focus
more on practical school-based programmes. In fact, educational leadership development pro-
grammes that have been held in Hong Kong and Singapore are participatory and interactive within
a community of professional practice. There is also the sharing of leadership and management
practices as well as on-going support and advice being offered by experienced school leaders or
mentors to soon-to-be or newly appointed school principals (Chikoko et al., 2011; Ng, 2015). The
PRIme programme shares similarities with the above programmes.
Besides, the Ministry also invests in improving the skills of existing principals through contin-
uous professional development (CPD) programmes and strengthening the link between perfor-
mance and competencies (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2013). For example, under the
stewardship of IAB, a wide range of courses and delivery methods including direct coaching and
mentoring have been developed for existing school principals in Malaysia (Institut Aminuddin Baki
(IAB), 2014, Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB), 2015, Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB), 2016). In ensuring
that the training programmes of IAB are always up-to date, the KOMPAS or the on-line School
Leadership Competency Instrument has been created by IAB to help school leaders identify their
current training and development needs. It provides instant, real-time feedback on the leadership
competencies that need improvement to enable school leaders to plan their CPD programmes
systematically (Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB), 2016). Obviously, it is a platform for continuous
professional development for school principals to help them handle different challenges in schools.

Methodology
Sample
For comparison purposes, data were collected from High-Performing Secondary School (HPSS) and
Mediocre-Performing Secondary School (MPSS) in Malaysia. In 2010, the School Improvement
Program was implemented in Malaysia in order to help raise performance of schools nationwide.
To facilitate the programme effectively, all public schools in Malaysia have been ranked into seven
performance bands. Schools in bands one and two were labelled as HPSS; schools in bands three,
four, and five were categorized as MPSS; those in bands six and seven were identified as LPSS or
low-performing secondary schools.
6 T. M. KIN AND O. ABDULL KAREEM

To perform the test adequately, five states were chosen at random from five research zones
namely the Eastern Zone (Kelantan, Terengganu, and Pahang), the Southern Zone (Negeri Sembilan,
Melaka, and Johor), the Western Zone (Perak, Selangor, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, and
Putrajaya), the Northern Zone (Perlis, Kedah, and Penang), and the East Malaysia Zone (Sabah,
Sarawak, and Federal Territory of Labuan). Terengganu, Johor, Selangor, Penang, and Sabah were
selected at random from each of the above five zones respectively for the survey (Table 1).
There were six HPSS and MPSS in every state involved in the test. Taken together, 30 HPSS and MPSS
were selected randomly for the test respectively, giving a total of 60 schools (30 x 2) engaged in the
survey. Additionally, in order to provide a better picture of the phenomenon examined, data triangula-
tion, which entails gathering data through a variety of respondents, was carried out. Data were collected
from school principals, senior assistants, as well as teachers. In each school, the school principal auto-
matically became the first respondent and two senior assistants and 15 teachers were chosen as
respondents at random. In sum, a total number of 60 school principals (30 x 2), 120 senior assistants
(60 x 2) and 900 teachers (60 x 15) or a total of 1,080 respondents were selected randomly for the survey
as shown in Table 1.

Survey instrument and administration

PCLC is measured using the Principals Change Leadership Competency Scale (PCLCS) which was
developed by Tai et al. (2014) in the Malaysian education setting based on four change management
models: Lewin (1958), Kotter (1999), Nilakant and Ramanarayan (2006) and Hayes (2010). As shown in
Table 2, it consists of four main domains namely: (1) Goal Framing; (2) Capacity Building; (3) Defusing
Resistance and Conflict; and (4) Institutionalizing with the composite reliability of 0.76, 0.76, 0.74 and
0.74, respectively. It constituted 12 items and all the items satisfied the cut off value of 0.70, ranging
from 0.80 to 0.90. Moreover, the Squared Multiple Correlations (SMC) of all was above the recom-
mended acceptance level of 0.5 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2006), the Averaged Extracted
Value (AVE) all surpassed 50% (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), thus providing evidence for convergent
validity. Besides, PCLCS also held discriminant validity since AVE of the factors was greater than 0.50
and Composite Reliability Index was greater than 0.70 (Tai et al., 2014).
The instrument was a six-point Likert scale. Respondents were asked to rank their responses from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Scoring was accomplished by assigning 1 to “strongly disagree”, 2
to “disagree”, 3 to “moderately disagree”, 4 to “moderately agree”, 5 to “agree”, and 6 to “strongly agree”.
Questionnaires were sent by post to the schools concerned. Although the main purpose of the study was
to compare the competence of school principals of HPSS and MPSS in executing change in schools, no
information was given to the respondents (HPSS and MPSS) about this intention. Respondents were only
requested to rate themselves (if school principals) or rate their school principals (if senior assistants and
teachers). This was to reduce the respondents’ biases, especially the possible stigma of being MPSS
respondents, which might influence their responses in the survey. All in all, the data collection was
completed in about two months.

Table 1. Total number of schools and respondents involved in the survey for each state.
High Performing Mediocre Performing
Secondary School Secondary School
Number of school for School Senior School Senior
States survey Principals Assistants Teachers Principals Assistants Teachers Total
Terengganu 6 6 12 90 6 12 90 216
Johor 6 6 12 90 6 12 90 216
Selangor 6 6 12 90 6 12 90 216
Penang 6 6 12 90 6 12 90 216
Sabah 6 6 12 90 6 12 90 216
Total 30 30 60 450 30 60 450 1080
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 7

Table 2. The principals change leadership competency scale.

Domains Associated Competencies
1. Goal Framing Setting A Clear Change Goal
a. Developing an attainable goal for the school
b. Presenting the rationale of a need for change
c. Having a clear direction of how to achieve the goal
2. Capacity Building Building Competence to Meet Change Requirements
a. Seeking ways to develop the staff’s competencies in teaching and
learning
b. Providing training in coaching among the staff
c. Ensuring the staff are able to perform the new task
3. Defusing Resistance and Conflict Mitigating Resistance and Conflict
a. Anticipating the resistance behaviour that threatens the change efforts
b. Making individuals who resist change feel confident
c. Managing change conflict effectively by seeking an agreement from
every party
4. Institutionalizing Evaluation for Continuous Improvement and Institutionalizing
a. Analysing objectively the final change outcomes
b. Creating opportunities for sharing best practices among the
departments
c. Ensuring staff members continue to contribute to changes that were made

Data analysis
Of the 1,080 sets of questionnaires sent out by post or distributed by the researchers to the visited schools,
a total of 1,018 questionnaires were obtained, with a response rate of 94.26%. Eight questionnaires were
excluded for further analysis because they had more than 25% errors and illegible responses. In brief, a
total of 1,010 questionnaires were retained for the analysis. These included 60 for school principals (30 x 2),
120 for senior assistants (60 x 2), 433 teachers from HPSS and 397 teachers from MPSS. Descriptive
statistical analysis was employed in this study whereby data were computed to obtain scores and means.
Based on the significance level of 0.05, the t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were also
employed to test the significance of the difference on the concerned variables.

Demographic characteristics
The sample composed of 34.26% (N = 346) male and 65.74% (N = 664) female. As for the respondents’ age
groups, those aged 41 to 50 years (N = 403, 39.90%) was the largest group, followed by the age groups 31
to 40 years (N = 298, 29.50%), 21 to 30 years (N = 164, 16.24%) and the smallest age group, 51 to 60 years,
(N = 145, 14.36%). The majority of the respondents had worked or taught between one year and five years
(N = 227, 22.48%). The second largest group comprised of respondents attached to the present school for
more than 20 years (N = 214, 21.19%). The next group were those who had worked or taught between 11
and 15 years (N = 203, 20.10%), followed by those in the six to 10 years group (N = 194, 19.20%). The
smallest group were respondents who had worked in the present school between 16 and 20 years
(N = 172, 17.03%). Respondents from HPSS comprised 51.78% (N = 523), and those from MPSS formed
48.22% (N = 487). As the focus of the study was to measure the extent of how school principals were able
to lead school change, only school principals, senior assistants, and teachers who held the post in the
present school for at least one year were chosen for the survey. The average number of years attached to
the current school was 2.25, 3.45, and 3.06 for school principals, senior assistants, and teachers
respectively.
 8

Table 3. Independent sample t-test between schools of band one and band two for school principals, senior assistants, and teachers.
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference Lower Upper
School Principals GF Equal variances assumed .012 .914 −.286 28 .777 −.04444 .15556 −.36309 .27420
Equal variances not assumed −.286 27.931 .777 −.04444 .15556 −.36312 .27423
CB Equal variances assumed .680 .416 −.442 28 .662 −.08889 .20088 −.50037 .32259
Equal variances not assumed −.442 27.804 .662 −.08889 .20088 −.50050 .32273
DRC Equal variances assumed .050 .824 −.200 28 .843 −.04444 .22270 −.50062 .41173
Equal variances not assumed −.200 27.875 .843 −.04444 .22270 −.50071 .41182
T. M. KIN AND O. ABDULL KAREEM

INS Equal variances assumed 2.449 .129 −.210 28 .835 −.04444 .21149 −.47766 .38877
Equal variances not assumed −.210 24.232 .835 −.04444 .21149 −.48071 .39182
PCLC Equal variances assumed 4.394 .054 −.349 28 .729 −.05556 .15896 −.38117 .27006
Equal variances not assumed −.349 25.161 .730 −.05556 .15896 −.38284 .27173
Senior Assistants GF Equal variances assumed 2.533 .117 1.283 58 .205 .15556 .12126 −.08717 .39828
Equal variances not assumed 1.283 57.248 .205 .15556 .12126 −.08724 .39835
CB Equal variances assumed .296 .589 1.585 58 .118 .23333 .14719 −.06130 .52796
Equal variances not assumed 1.585 57.725 .118 .23333 .14719 −.06133 .52799
DRC Equal variances assumed .531 .469 .281 58 .780 .04444 .15808 −.27199 .36088
Equal variances not assumed .281 53.743 .780 .04444 .15808 −.27252 .36141
INS Equal variances assumed .863 .357 .808 58 .422 .12222 .15130 −.18063 .42507
Equal variances not assumed .808 57.251 .423 .12222 .15130 −.18071 .42516
PCLC Equal variances assumed 1.510 .224 1.160 58 .251 .13889 .11974 −.10080 .37858
Equal variances not assumed 1.160 57.005 .251 .13889 .11974 −.10089 .37867
Teachers GF Equal variances assumed .604 .438 −.691 431 .490 −.05066 .07334 −.19481 .09350
Equal variances not assumed −.690 429.965 .490 −.05066 .07336 −.19485 .09354
CB Equal variances assumed .998 .318 −.628 431 .531 −.04845 .07719 −.20017 .10327
Equal variances not assumed −.627 430.232 .531 −.04845 .07721 −.20021 .10331
DRC Equal variances assumed .913 .340 −.851 431 .395 −.07077 .08311 −.23413 .09259
Equal variances not assumed −.851 427.820 .395 −.07077 .08317 −.23425 .09271
INS Equal variances assumed .173 .678 −.224 431 .823 −.01618 .07224 −.15818 .12581
Equal variances not assumed −.224 429.795 .823 −.01618 .07227 −.15823 .12586
PCLC Equal variances assumed .843 .359 −.689 431 .491 −.04651 .06754 −.17926 .08623
Equal variances not assumed −.688 429.500 .492 −.04651 .06757 −.17931 .08629
Note. GF = Goal Framing; CB = Capacity Building; DRC = Defusing Resistance and Conflict; INS = Institutionalizing; PLCL = Principal Change Leadership Competency
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 9

Findings
As mentioned earlier, HPSS consisted of schools in bands one and two whereas MPSS covered schools in
bands three, four, and five. Hence, a first run of the data was conducted to examine whether there were
varying results among the above different school bands on PCLC and its dimensions. As shown in Table 3,
results of the t-tests revealed that there was no difference in PCLC and its dimensions between schools in
bands one and two for school principals, senior assistants, and teachers as all the p-values were greater
than 0.05. Likewise, as depicted in Table 4, the results of One-way ANOVA demonstrated that the
difference in PCLC and its dimensions among schools in bands three, four, and five for school principals,
senior assistants, and teachers were not significant as all the p-values were greater than 0.05. As the results
showed that no difference was found on PCLC and its dimension among the schools in different bands of

Table 4. One-way ANOVA of PCLC and its dimensions for school principals, senior assistants and teachers.
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
School Principals GF Between Groups .141 2 .070 .919 .411
Within Groups 2.067 27 .077
Total 2.207 29
CB Between Groups .319 2 .159 .679 .516
Within Groups 6.333 27 .235
Total 6.652 29
DRC Between Groups .763 2 .381 1.223 .310
Within Groups 8.422 27 .312
Total 9.185 29
INS Between Groups .496 2 .248 1.546 .231
Within Groups 4.333 27 .160
Total 4.830 29
PCLC Between Groups .324 2 .162 1.989 .156
Within Groups 2.200 27 .081
Total 2.524 29
Senior Assistants GF Between Groups .744 2 .372 .835 .439
Within Groups 25.394 57 .446
Total 26.139 59
CB Between Groups 1.404 2 .702 .978 .382
Within Groups 40.922 57 .718
Total 42.326 59
DRC Between Groups 3.837 2 1.919 2.464 .094
Within Groups 44.378 57 .779
Total 48.215 59
INS Between Groups 1.493 2 .746 1.313 .277
Within Groups 32.394 57 .568
Total 33.887 59
PCLC Between Groups 1.684 2 .842 1.622 .206
Within Groups 29.587 57 .519
Total 31.271 59
Teachers GF Between Groups .011 2 .005 .007 .993
Within Groups 299.353 394 .760
Total 299.364 396
CB Between Groups 2.975 2 1.488 1.765 .172
Within Groups 332.054 394 .843
Total 335.029 396
DRC Between Groups 3.032 2 1.516 1.330 .266
Within Groups 449.079 394 1.140
Total 452.111 396
INS Between Groups .607 2 .304 .335 .715
Within Groups 356.596 394 .905
Total 357.203 396
PCLC Between Groups 1.092 2 .546 .718 .488
Within Groups 299.685 394 .761
Total 300.777 396
Note. GF = Goal Framing; CB = Capacity Building; DRC = Defusing Resistance and Conflict; INS = Institutionalizing;
PLCL = Principal Change Leadership Competency
10 T. M. KIN AND O. ABDULL KAREEM

5.69
6 5.44
5.47 5.4 5.31
4.99 5 5.08
4.79
5 4.57 4.4 4.7

0
Goal Framing Capacity Building Defusing Institutionalizing
Resistance &
Conflict
School Principals Senior Assistants Teachers

Figure 1. PCLC of HPSS across domains.

HPSS and MPSS, it was valid to carry out the following analysis by combining the data of different school
bands under the name of HPSS and MPSS respectively to ease the analysis.
Firstly, from the perspective of the school principals of HPSS (Figure 1), the mean scores of the four
domains of PCLC namely Goal Framing (M = 5.69), Capacity Building (M = 5.40), Defusing Resistance and
Conflict (M = 5.31), and Institutionalizing (M = 5.44), were higher than 4.80, the threshold that school
principals are considered as competent in managing change in schools (the above threshold was adopted
by taking 80% of the Likert Scale of 6 [80/100 x 6]). In other words, the school principals from HPSS rated
themselves as competent in managing school change in all the four domains of PCLC. For MPSS (Figure 2),
an almost similar picture was obtained in comparison with HPSS whereby school principals of MPSS also
rated themselves high in Goal Framing (M = 5.63), Capacity Building (M = 5.25), Defusing Resistance and
Conflict (M = 5.10), and Institutionalizing (M = 5.17).
Secondly, from the perspective of the senior assistants of HPSS, except in Defusing Resistance and
Conflict with a mean score of 4.79 (which was close to the suggested standard of 4.80), the school
principals were seen as competent in the other three domains of PCLC – Goal Framing (M = 5.47), Capacity
Building (M = 5.00), and Institutionalizing (M = 5.08) (Figure 1). For MPSS, the school principals were
reported as competent in Goal Framing (M = 5.11) and Institutionalizing (M = 4.90). However, the mean
scores of Capacity Building (M = 4.79) came near to the suggested threshold of 4.80 whereas Defusing
Resistance and Conflict (M = 4.63) was lower than 4.80 (Figure 2).

5.63
6
5.25 5.1 5.17
5.11 4.79 4.9
5 4.75 4.63
4.43 4.28 4.54

0
Goal Framing Capacity Building Defusing Institutionalizing
Resistance &
Conflict
School Principals Senior Assistants Teachers

Figure 2. PCLC of MPSS across domains.

 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 11

Thirdly, from the perspective of the teachers of HPSS (Figure 1), except for Goal Framing with a mean
score of 4.99, the school principals in HPSS were seen as incompetent in Capacity Building (M = 4.57),
Defusing Resistance and Conflict (M = 4.40) as well as Institutionalizing (M = 4.70) as their mean scores
were less than 4.80. For MPSS, the school principals were rated as incompetent in all the four domains of
PCLC – Goal Framing (M = 4.75), Capacity Building (M = 4.43), Defusing Resistance and Conflict (M = 4.28),
and Institutionalizing (M = 4.54) as all the mean scores were lower than 4.80 (Figure 2).
Fourthly, as shown in Figure 3, from the total perspectives of school principals, senior assistants
as well as teachers, school principals of HPSS scored higher than their counterparts of MPSS in
every domain of PCLC which encompasses Goal Framing (M = 5.38 [HPSS]; M = 5.16 [MPSS]),
Capacity Building (M = 4.99 [HPSS]; M = 4.82 [MPSS]), Defusing Resistance and Conflict (M = 4.83
[HPSS]; M = 4.67 [MPSS]), and Institutionalizing (M = 5.07 [HPSS]; M = 4.87 [MPSS]).
Fifthly, school principals of HPSS were rated as competent in managing school change in all
the four domains of PCLC, namely, Goal Framing (M = 5.38), Capacity Building (M = 4.99),
Defusing Resistance and Conflict (M = 4.83), and Institutionalizing (M = 5.07) as all the mean
scores of the domains were greater than the threshold of 4.80. However, school principals of
MPSS were rated as competent only in three domains of PCLC, namely, Goal Framing
(M = 5.16), Capacity Building (M = 4.82), and Institutionalizing (M = 4.87). Principals of MPSS
were rated as incompetent in Defusing Resistance and Conflict (M = 4.67) as the mean score
was lower than the threshold of 4.80.
A sixth finding revealed that both school principals of HPSS and MPSS achieved the highest
mean score of PCLC in the domain of Goal Framing followed by Institutionalizing, Capacity
Building, and Defusing Resistance and Conflict.
In summary, the findings were,

(1) Although a variation of ranking for PCLC was observed across three different perspectives
that is, school principals, senior assistants, and teachers of HPSS and MPSS, the patterns of
the variation were consistent. School principals of HPSS and MPSS ranked themselves the
highest in all the domains of PCLC followed by senior assistants and teachers of HPSS and
MPSS.
(2) School principals, senior assistants, or teachers of HPSS also rated school principals high in
PCLC in comparison with those reported by their counterparts of MPSS, respectively.
(3) From the total perspectives of school principals, senior assistants, and teachers, school
principals of HPSS scored higher than school principals of MPSS in all the four domains of
PCLC.
(4) School principals of HPSS were rated as competent in all the four domains of PCLC whereas
their counterparts of MPSS were rated as competent in three domains of PCLC except
Defusing Resistance and Conflict.

5.6
5.38
5.4
5.2 5.16
5.07
4.99
5 4.83 4.87
4.82
4.8 4.67
4.6
4.4
4.2
Goal Framing Capacity Defusing Institutionalizing
Building Resistance &
Conflict

HPSS MPSS

Figure 3. Comparison of PCLC of HPSS and MPSS across domains.

12 T. M. KIN AND O. ABDULL KAREEM

(5) Both school principals of HPSS and MPSS achieved the highest mean score of PCLC in Goal
Framing, followed by Institutionalizing, Capacity Building, and Defusing Resistance and
Conflict.

Discussion
These findings have led to several significant observations. Although a variation of ranking for PCLC
was observed across three different perspectives that is, school principals, senior assistants, and
teachers of HPSS and MPSS, the patterns of the variation were consistent. Firstly, as change agents,
school principals of HPSS and MPSS ranked themselves the highest in all the domains of PCLC in
comparison with those reported by senior assistants and the teachers. This is not surprising, as
people tend to view themselves differently from how others see them. Also, introspective assess-
ment tends to be more subjective than objective as pointed out by Harris and Schaubroeck (1988),
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) who observed that self-ratings are affected by
egocentric biases, adding that self-report measures are likely to reflect perceived instead of actual
performance levels.
Secondly, the scores reported by the senior assistants of HPSS and MPSS on PCLC were not at the
extreme end, that is, the highest or the lowest in comparison with those reported by the school
principals and teachers, but were ranked in between the two. This may be due to the fact that the
senior assistants, working closely with the principals on a daily basis to facilitate the smooth operation
of the school change, might have been able to observe and evaluate PCLC at a closer range as
compared to the teachers. In addition to this, they also have leadership and management experiences
and can understand the daily struggles of school principals in implementing school change (Sharma,
Sun, & Kannan, 2012); thus they did not rate PCLC at the extreme end of the scores.
Thirdly, teachers as the front-line change implementers viewed PCLC from a distance in
comparison with the senior assistants. Interestingly, both teachers from HPSS and MPSS also
rated PCLC at the other extreme end – the lowest scores in comparison with those reported by
the school principals and the senior assistants. This finding is congruent with the study conducted
by Hunter-Boykin and Evans (1995) that most school principals were perceived as ineffective by
their teachers. Similarly, in examining Chinese principal leadership capacities, Luo and Najjar (2006)
also found that the master teachers’ rating of school principals was “somewhat negative” (p. 5).
Another consideration is the conflicts of interest that exist between change agents (principals)
and change implementers (teachers) in the change process; hence the different perspectives
between the teachers and the senior assistants when evaluating PCLC. Also, teachers may lack
the leadership and management experience to fully understand the routine work of school
principals. As a result, they may make subjective judgements and stereotypical comments about
principals who are different from their role as teachers (Sharma et al., 2012).
Apart from the above similar pattern of ranking variation, another striking observation was that
school principals, senior assistants, or teachers of HPSS also rated school principals high in PCLC in
comparison with those reported by their counterparts of MPSS respectively. Looking at HPSS and
MPSS as two different entities, their distinct organizational culture can be seen as an important
factor contributing to this phenomenon. According to Underwood (2002), members of an organi-
zation influence each other in terms of values, beliefs, and behaviours and shape organizational
culture. Over time, members in organizations respond to the organizational culture and alter their
behaviours to meet the needs and requirements of organizational contingencies. They then
gradually assimilate the mental construct of the culture, and accept and reproduce cultural mean-
ings and practices accordingly (Underwood, 2002). In other words, their thoughts, values, and
beliefs of the members in that organization are derived from the cultures in which they function
(Hegel, 1977). As such, members from different organizations demonstrate distinct behaviours due
to the fact that organizational cultures differ substantially (Tsai, 2011).
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 13

Even though HPSS and MPSS are secondary schools in Malaysia, there are differences in terms of
their organizational culture. As mentioned earlier, to facilitate the School Improvement Program
which was implemented in 2010, all public schools in Malaysia have been ranked into seven
performance bands which were subsumed into three categories of schools: HPSS, MPSS, and
LPSS. The above categorization was made based on a composite score ranging from 80 to 100,
50 to 79, and less than 40 as a threshold respectively (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2010). Grade
Point Average (GPA) and Decision Self Rating School (DSRS) were two measures taken into account
for the composite scores. The GPA mainly examines school academic performance whereas the
DSRS was assessed based on the Malaysian Education Standard Quality which comprises four main
dimensions of the schools namely, vision and mission, organizational management, educational
programme management, and student accomplishment (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2010).
It is obvious that there were differences among these three types of schools in terms of
academic performance, school management, leadership as well as improvement needs.
Therefore, the expectations towards school principals, teachers, and students vary considerably
as a result of the cultural forces in the organizations in which they function (DeGrosky, 2009). Hoy,
Tarter, and Bliss (1990) argued that effective schools promote high academic standards, appro-
priate leadership, and collegiality whereas non-effective schools are normally deterred in their
mission and goals by parental and public expectations (Hoy & Tarter, 1997). Macneil et al. (2009)
believe that a strong school culture has better motivated teachers and vice versa.
Indeed, Tai and Omar (2013) in conducting a survey on PCLC in Malaysian HPSS found that PCLC
was reliably related to the type of HPSS that includes Fully Residential Secondary School, Day
Secondary School, and Religious Secondary School. They concluded that different organizational
cultures of HPSS shape leadership and performance differently. This may explain why school
principals, senior assistants, or teachers of HPSS rated school principals high in all the domains
of PCLC in comparison with those reported by their counterparts of MPSS.
If considering the total perspective from school principals, senior assistants, and teachers, the
finding also revealed that school principals of HPSS not only scored higher than school principals of
MPSS in all the four domains of PCLC, they were also rated as competent in all the four domains of
PCLC; school principals of MPSS were only rated competent in Goal Framing, Capacity Building, and
Institutionalizing. It can be concluded that principals of HPSS who were able to implement change
in schools were equipped with subsequent competencies and initiated the process more compe-
tently in comparison with school principals of MPSS.
Contributory factors to this phenomenon include school principals’ preparation and develop-
ment programmes that affect the subsequent leadership practice and behaviour (Mitgang, 2012;
Orr & Orphanos, 2011). Other factors are the disconnection between theory and practice, inexper-
ienced trainers, or weak recruitment criteria (Chapman, 2005; Mitgang, 2012), and the incidence or
frequency of school principals being exposed to the training programmes (Mitgang, 2012; Singh,
2009). If the incidence of school principals attending training programmes was relatively low, this
would certainly impact their competencies in leading change. Leadership competencies can be
taught and learned (Boak & Coolican, 2001; Cairns, 2000). By gaining new knowledge, skills, and
ability, one can become a better leader (Tubbs & Schulz, 2006).
The effectiveness and relevancy of the programmes attended by school principals may also be
viewed as one important root cause. To be effective, training must meet the needs of school
principals from HPSS and MPSS respectively . It is difficult to maximize positive impact if interven-
tions are irrelevant. This is especially true with training programmes that employ a one-size-fits-all
approach (Joyce & Calhoun, 2010). Hence, it is important to customize training courses that meet
the distinct needs of school principals from different backgrounds.
The above finding may also stem from the contextual differences between HPSS and MPSS. For
example, a study conducted by Tai and Omar (2016) in examining teacher attitudes towards change in
Malaysian secondary schools found that teachers of HPSS possess more positive attitudes towards
school change than teachers of MPSS. Teachers of HPSS are enthusiastic, passionate, and proud about
14 T. M. KIN AND O. ABDULL KAREEM

the school change. They display palpable energy, excitement, and hope for school reforms. However,
although most of the teachers from MPSS believe that a change is necessary, in terms of behaviour,
they only do what is required in the change. A significant 17% of them do not believe change can bring
any positive impact to the school (Tai & Omar, 2016). There is no buy-in to the change resulting in the
failure to practise that change. Consequently, these teachers become obstacles in the change process.
The above findings provided evidence that school principals of MPSS face challenging problems
in promoting positive attitudes towards change among teachers in managing school change.
According to Dunham, Grube, Gardner, Cummings, and Pierce (1989), Oreg (2003) and Piderit
(2000), the individual’s attitudes towards change are considered as one major determinant of their
intention to embrace or resist change. In fact, resistance to change is closely linked with the
development of attitudes towards change (Hayes, 2010; Kotter, 1999; Lewin, 1958; Nilakant &
Ramanarayan, 2006). This suggests that the problems faced by the school principals of MPSS in
mitigating change resistance are complex and unique and require relevant competencies to be
effective in handling change. Again, if the training is not specifically targeted to meet the distinct
needs of the school principals from MPSS and HPSS, who also have culturally distinctive school
contexts, it is difficult to competently carry out effective interventions.
In moving forward to help school principals handle change problems more effectively,
training strategies need to move away from horizontal development (the development of
new skills, abilities, and behaviours) so as to increase focus on vertical development (the
cognitive development) (Petrie, 2014). There is a clear correlation between higher levels of
vertical development and higher levels of effectiveness (Petrie, 2014). Vertical development
emphasizes on transforming the school principals’ mind-set and grows their capacity of think-
ing. For example, school principals at higher levels of cognitive development are able to
perform more effectively as they have the capacity to make wise and intelligent responses
and the latitude to innovate and secure change.
Most of the school principal leadership programmes in Malaysia have been based on horizontal
development. Not surprisingly, there seems to be a general reluctance among school principals to
embrace change, and a lack in skills to act creatively and independently, and to solve problems
effectively in the interest of school improvement. Therefore, it would seem relevant and even
timely to grow school principals through horizontal and vertical development programmes
simultaneously.
Another important observation was that school principals of HPSS and MPSS achieved the
highest mean score of PCLC in Goal Framing, followed by Institutionalizing, Capacity Building, and
Defusing Resistance and Conflict. The score where school principals of HPSS and MPSS were most
competent in Goal Framing implied that they were most competent in constructing the change
goal that provides focus for attention and action to direct the change efforts. They were competent
in three associated significant competencies for Goal Framing: to develop an attainable goal for the
school, to present the rationale of need for change, and to have a clear direction of how to achieve
the goal (Table 1). This was congruent with the notion of “Purpose”, “Visioning Strategies”, and
“Setting Directions” as suggested by Hallinger and Heck (1998) and Leithwood et al. (1999), all of
whom confirm that identifying direction and purpose of the change is the most important step in
initiating any school change. As school principals of HPSS and MPSS were mostly competent in
Goal Framing, the likelihood of them mobilizing teachers to change action would be relatively
high.
Institutionalizing was identified as the second most competent domain in managing school
change by the school principals of HPSS and MPSS. This implied that school principals of HPSS and
MPSS had given attention to the importance of sustaining the achievements of the change or
made the change stick. For example, they were able to analyse whether the change was imple-
mented as intended and whether the implemented change was having the desired effects (Tai
et al., 2014). They also created opportunities for sharing best practices among the departments and
made sure that the new ways of working and the subsequent improved outcomes became the
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 15

norm for the whole organization. Kotter (1999) believes that change sticks when it is rooted in the
organization’s social norms. Besides, school principals of HPSS and MPSS were able to ensure
teachers contribute to the changes made. These included building a mechanism to refine and
continuously improve the new state, celebrate and reward the teachers’ achievement, and ulti-
mately reinforce the new culture further (Tai et al., 2014).
Next, school principals of HPSS and MPSS achieved the third highest mean score in Capacity
Building. The findings showed that the principals of HPSS and MPSS were competent in Capacity
Building, reflecting their efforts in creating and sustaining a positive climate that enhances
teachers’ self efficacy, build support mechanisms, and promote learning to ensure that the change
was put in place effectively (Tai et al., 2014). The finding fits well with the notion proposed by
Hallinger and Heck (1998) and Leithwood et al. (1999) on the importance of capacity building in
“People” and “Developing People” in school development. In other words, school principals of
HPSS and MPSS know how to enlarge teachers’ capacity and improve the organization’s readiness
to succeed in the change. Their initiatives can enhance teachers’ efficacy to make the change
successful (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood et al., 1999).
Another significant observation noted in the study was that the principals of HPSS and MPSS also
achieved the lowest main score in Defusing Resistance and Conflict. In fact, resistance to change is the
number one reason why organization change initiatives fail (Deloitte & Touche, 1996). This finding
indicated that school principals of HPSS and MPSS failed to anticipate the resistance behaviours that
threatened the change efforts (Tai et al., 2014). Instead of getting buy-in from the teachers in implement-
ing change, they are generating negative emotions such as anger, resentment, frustration, anxiety, stress,
or fear among the teachers, which was a general conclusion by Lines (2005), Martin, Jones, and Callan
(2006), Oreg (2006) and Piderit (2000). This is particularly true in the early stages whereby change is more
an emotional rather than a rational process (Fullan, 2000; Hayes, 2010; Kotter, 1999).
People generally do not like change (Hayes, 2010; Kotter, 1999; Lewin, 1958; Nilakant & Ramanarayan,
2006; Oreg, 2003). Change is a stressor (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Hayes, 2010; Kotter, 1999) since
change involves moving from the known towards the unknown (Bovey & Hede, 2001; Coghlan, 1993;
Lewin, 1958). Individuals experience uncertainty about the new processes and unclear demands from the
change, probably having difficulties and fears on how to cope with the new challenges (Hayes, 2010;
Kotter, 1999; Lewin, 1958; Nilakant & Ramanarayan, 2006). Oreg (2003) in his development of the
Resistance to Change Scale to measure an individual’s dispositional inclination to resist change identified
the level of reluctance to give up old habits, reluctance to lose control, and lack of psychological resilience
as among the important factors that affect individual evaluation judgement towards any change initiative.
The failure to recognize this critical people factor on the resistance to change may explain why
most organizational change initiatives fail. Lewin’s (1958) three-step change model is still a highly
influential model that underpins many of the change management models and techniques today
(Bamford & Forrester, 2003; Burnes, 2004). The model pointed out that there are two opposing sets
of forces within any social system, the driving forces that promote change and the resisting forces
that maintain the status quo. Where there are increasing driving forces towards change, the greater
the tension towards low levels of constructive behaviour. However, if the resisting forces are
removed, the result will be a decrease in tension and relatively high levels of constructive
behaviour (Hayes, 2010).
In reality, instead of diminishing resisting forces that maintain the status quo, most change
agents in the organizations tend to focus on increasing driving forces that promote change as this
is viewed as more effective in managing change in the organization (Bourne & Bourne, 2012; Hayes,
2010). Clearly, it is totally distinct with the understanding that was addressed by Lewin’s (1958) in
his change management model. As a result, most change agents who need to deal with many
human conflicts and political dynamics in the organization fail to get buy-in from the change
implementers because they are unable to mitigate change resistance and conflicts along the
process of change (Hayes, 2010). School is a complex human organization; thus principals of
HPSS and MPSS certainly face challenges in overcoming resistance. They need to recognize the
16 T. M. KIN AND O. ABDULL KAREEM

importance of reducing the restraining forces in preference to a pro-active approach that increases
the driving force for change.
Besides, principals of HPSS and MPSS achieved the lowest in the domains of Defusing Resistance
and Conflict, which further reaffirmed that winning over the hearts and minds of the change
recipients is the most challenging thing in managing change. Fullan (1993) argued that the heart of
managing change is managing people. He added that focusing on people is the most effective way
to lead change successfully. Infrastructure and material development do not bring about change,
people do. When people within an organization changed, the organization will adopt change. This
also resonates with Juechter, Caroline, and Alford (1998) that the most potent leverage for
significant and sustainable change resides within the human system. Therefore, school principals
have to consider the human factor in the change process, and be equipped with competence in
Defusing Resistance and Conflict as this is critical to turn the change goal into reality.

Limitations and directions for future research

As HPSS and MPSS were the sites chosen for the study, there needs to be further exploration of PCLC in
low-performing secondary schools to capture a fair representation of all the schools in Malaysia, gain a
better understanding and interpretation of the findings, and ascertain the extent to which the findings
can be generalized. Secondly, longitudinal research is needed to triangulate the findings so as to gain a
more comprehensive view. Understanding PCLC through a survey study alone may provide insufficient
clues on how school principals manage and make change happen. Thirdly, other factors such as the
frequency of school principals being exposed to training programmes, the programmes’ relevance, as well
as the accompanying organizational cultures and behaviours need further investigation on how these
affect school change.

Conclusion
In the pursuit of educational change and reform, the Ministry of Education Malaysia provides
NPQEL, PRIme and the CPD programmes for aspiring, soon-to-be appointed, newly-appointed, and
existing school principals to enable them to acquire competencies to face and effectively meet the
demands of leading change in schools. The findings revealed that school principals of HPSS were
competent in all the four domains of PCLC whereas their counterparts of MPSS were rated as
competent in three domains of PCLC, thus indicating that the above school principals leadership
development programmes are basically sufficient to develop school principals’ capacities to drive
change and improvement in schools. These results align with the Ministry’s effort and aspiration to
improve school leadership as outlined in the Blueprint 2013–2025.
As school principals of MPSS were found incompetent in Defusing Resistance and Conflict and
both school principals of HPSS and MPSS also achieved the lowest mean score in Defusing
Resistance and Conflict, the study also concluded that the heart of embedding change is managing
people; the human factor indeed remains the central pivot in managing change. This should signal
the urgent need to raise competency in the area of managing people and warrants further
investigation by the Ministry of Education Malaysia, especially IAB as this is an important compe-
tency in managing any resistance to change. The findings also provide a strong foundation for
advancing school principals’ understanding about the importance of human factor in managing
change and greater attention should be given to the human side of the change process. This
includes being more attentive to how they interact with teachers, to consciously temper their
predisposition against change, and to take initiatives to gain their support for the change. This
would help school principals nurture a healthy change climate in schools and enable them to exert
influence to involve and transform teachers to work through the change process.
As a whole, existing literature on the significance of the human factor in change management
has expanded our understanding of the resistance processes in the public sector. Thus, this is an
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 17

important step forward for organizational studies into this phenomenon and may even move the
organizational change literature to a more coherent theoretical perspective. This present study
provides a timely finding for relevant parties to better understand and to craft relevant preparation
programmes for skilled principalship. In lifting the quality of school leadership, transforming school
performance towards excellence can certainly be a not-too-distant reality.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Tai Mei Kin is currently an associate professor in the Department of Management and Leadership, Faculty of
Management and Economics, Sultan Idris Education University, Malaysia. She graduated with a Bachelor of Arts
degree in Humanities, Master as well as PhD in Educational Management. Her interests of research are in the field of
school change management, emotional leadership, school leader and teacher professional development.
Omar Abdull Kareem is a Professor in the Department of Management and Leadership, Faculty of Management and
Economics, Sultan Idris Education University, Malaysia. He served as the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic and
Internationalisation) in this university from 2011 to 2014. He has conducted research, presented papers and published
books and journal articles on educational leadership and human resource development. He also involves in training
consultancy projects locally and internationally.

References
Anthony, A.R., & Hamdan, S. (2010). Educational leadership preparation program for aspiring principals in Malaysia.
University Teknologi Malaysia, Edu Press. Retrieved from http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/14932/1/Educational_
Leadership_Preparation_Program_For_Aspiring_Principals_in_Malaysia.pdf
Armenakis, A.A., & Bedian, A. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of
Management, 25(3), 293–301.
Bamford, D.R., & Forrester, P.L. (2003). Managing planned and emergent change within an operations management
environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(5), 546–564.
Boak, G., & Coolican, D. (2001). Competencies for retail leadership: Accurate, acceptable, affordable. Leadership and
Organizational Development Journal, 22(5), 212–220.
Bourne, M., & Bourne, P. (2012). Successful change management in a weak. London: McGraw-Hill.
Bovey, W., & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: The role of cognitive and affective processes.
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 22(1), 372–382.
Burnes, B. (2004). Managing change: A strategic approach to organizational dynamics (4th ed.). Pitman: London.
Bush, T. (2007). Educational leadership and management: Theory, policy, and practice. South African Journal of
Education, 27(3), 391–406.
Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2004). A preparation for school leadership: International perspectives. Educational Administration
and Management, 30(4), 417–429.
Cairns, M. (2000). Competency theory leadership. In H.B. Smit & L. Carstens Eds., The influence of leadership role
competencies on organization change outcome in the manufacturing industry in South Africa (pp. 45–52). New Straits
Times-Management Times. Retrieved from http://www.sajhrm.co.za/index.php/sajhrm/article/download/16/16
Chapman, J.D. (2005). Recruitment, retention, and development of school principals (Education Policy Series). Paris:
UNESCO.
Chikoko, V., Naicker, I., & Mthiyane, S.E. (2011). Leadership development: School principals’ portfolios as an instrument
for change. Education As Change, 15(2), 317–329.
Clarke, S.R.P. (2000). The principal at the centre of reform: Some lessons from the field. International Journal of
Leadership in Education, 3(1), 57–73.
Coghlan, D. (1993). A person-centred approach to dealing with resistance to change. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 14(4), 10–14.
Cowie, M., & Crawford, M. (2007). Principal preparation: Still an act of faith? School Leadership and Management, 27(2),
129–146.
Cunningham, R. (2000). Chaos, complexity and the study of eduation communities. Retrieved from http://www.ioe.ac.
uk/ccs/conference2000/papers/tpm/papers/cunningham.html
18 T. M. KIN AND O. ABDULL KAREEM

Daresh, J.C. (2001). Leaders helping leaders: A practical guide to administrative mentoring (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
DeGrosky, M. (2009). Lost in translation. Retrieved from http://wildfiremag.com/command /cultural-context-leadership-
200907/
Deloitte & Touche. (1996). Executive survey of manufacturers. Retrieved from http://www. dtcg.co/research
Dunham, R.B., Grube, J.A., Gardner, D.G., Cummings, L.L., & Pierce, J.L. (1989). The development of an attitude toward
change instrument. Unpublished discussion paper 124, Strategic Management Research Center, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Eacott, S. (2011). New look leaders or a new look at leaders? International Journal of Educational Management, 25(2), 134–143.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error and
statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(August), 382–388.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces probing the depths of education reform. London: The Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (2000). The return of large-scale reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1, 1–23.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16–21.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (2010). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gray, C., & Bishop, Q. (2009). Leadership development: Schools and districts seeking high performance need strong
leaders. JSD, 30(1), 28–32.
Hair, J.F., Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Hall, G.E., & Hord, S. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away.
Leadership and Policy in School, 4(3), 221–239.
Hallinger, P. (2004). Meeting the challenges of cultural leadership: The changing role of principals in Thailand.
Discourse, 25(1), 61–73.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R.H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R.H. (1998). Next generation methods for the study of leadership and school improvement. In J.
Murphy & K.S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 141–162). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Harris, A. (2004). Editorial - School leadership and school improvement: A simple and a complex relationship. School
Leadership and Management, 24(1), 3–5.
Harris, M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel
Psychology, 41, 43–61.
Hayes, J. (2010). The theory and practice of change management (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hegel, G.W.F. (1977). Phenomenology of spirit. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hoy, W.K., Tarter, T.C.J., & Bliss, J.R. (1990). Organizational-climate, school-health, and effectiveness: A comparative-
analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26, 260–279.
Hoy, W.K., & Miskel, C.G. (2008). Educational administration: Theory, research and practice (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Hoy, W.K., & Tarter, C.J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook for change, elementary and middle
school edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Hunter-Boykin, H.S., & Evans, V. (1995). The relationship between high school principals’ leadership and teachers’mor-
ale. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 22(2), 152–163.
Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB). (2012). Laporan Tahunan IAB 2012 [IAB Annual Report 2012]. Genting Highlands: Institut
Aminuddin Baki.
Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB). (2014). NPQEL Menjana Kepemimpinan Masa Hadapan: Menggilap Permata [NPQEL
Generating Future Leaders: Burnishing Gems]. Genting Highlands: Institut Aminuddin Baki.
Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB). (2015). Training programmes 2014. Genting Highlands: Institut Aminuddin Baki.
Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB). (2016). Training programmes 2015. Genting Highlands: Institut Aminuddin Baki.
Joyce, B., & Calhoun, E. (2010). Models of professional development: A celebration of educators. California: Thousand
Oaks.
Juechter, W.M., Caroline, F., & Alford, R.J. (1998). Five conditions for high performance cultures. Training and
Development, 52(5), 63–76.
Kotter, J.P. (1999). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Lakomski, G. (2001). Organizational change, leadership and learning: Culture as cognitive process. The International
Journal of Educational Management, 15(2), 68–77.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School
Leadership and Management, 28, 27–42.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Earl, L., Watson, N., Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership for large-scale reform:
The case of England’s national literacy and numeracy strategy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 24(1),
57–79.
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 19

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Buckingham, UK: Open
University Press.
Leithwood, K., & Louis, K.S. (2012). Linking leadership to student learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Levin, H.M. (2001, May). Learning from school reform. Paper presented at the International Conference on Rejuvenating
Schools through Partnership, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Lewin, K. (1958). Group decisions and social change. In G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb, & E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in
Social Psychology (pp. 62–73). New York, NY: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.
Limbert, L. (2002). Beyond instructional leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37–40.
Lines, R. (2005). The structure and function of attitudes toward organization change. Human Resource Development
Review, 4(1), 8–32.
Luo, M., & Najjar, L. (2006). The Chinese principal leadership capacities as perceived by master teachers. Academic
Leadership: The Online Journal, 4(3), 1–10.
Macneil, A.J., Prater, D.L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73–84.
Martin, A.J., Jones, E.S., & Callan, V.J. (2006). Status differences in employee adjustment during organizational change.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(2), 145–162.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2010). School Improvement Programme. Kuala Lumpur: Author.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025. Putrajaya: Author.
Mitgang, L. (2012). The making of the principal: Five lessons in leadership training. New York, NY: The Wallace
Foundation.
Morrison, K.R.B. (2002). School leadership and complexity theory. London: Routledge Falmer.
Mulford, B. (2006). Leading change for student achievement. Journal of Educational Change, 7(1), 47–58.
Murphy, J., & Datnow, A. (2002). Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reforms. Thounsand Oaks,CA: Corwin
Press.
Ng, F.S.D. (2015). Leadership learning for complex organizations. Cogen Education. doi:10.1080/2331186X.2015.1017312
Nicholson, B., Harris-John, M., & Schimmel, C.J. (2005). Professional development for principals in the accountability era.
Charleston, WV: Edvantia Inc.
Nilakant, V., & Ramanarayan, S. (2006). Change management: Altering mindset in a global context. New Delhi: Response Books.
Oplatka, I. (2003). School change and self renewal: Some reflections from life stories of women principals. Journal of
Education Change, 4(1), 25–43.
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4),
680–693.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73–101.
Orr, M.T., & Orphanos, S. (2011). How graduate-level preparation influences the effectiveness of school leaders: A
comparison of the outcomes of exemplary and conventional leadership preparation programs for principals.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 18–70.
Patterson, F., & West-Burnham. (2005). Developing beginning leadership. In M.J. Coles & G. Southworth (Eds),
Developing leadership: Creating the schools of tomorrow (pp. 108–126). Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University
Press.
Petrie, N. (2014). Future trends in leadership development. Colorado Springs: Center for Creative Leadership.
Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W., & Cameron, K.S. (2001). Studying organizational change and development:
Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 697–713.
Piderit, S.K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward
an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783–794.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Robinson, V.M.J. (2010). From instructional leadership to leadership capabilities: Empirical findings and methodologi-
cal challenges. Leaderhsip and Policy in Schools, 9(1), 1–26.
Sharma, S., Sun, H., & Kannan, S. (2012). A comparative analysis on leadership qualities of school principals in China,
Malaysia and India. International Online Journal of Educational Science, 4(3), 536–543.
Silver, M., Lochmiller, C.R., Copland, M.A., & Tripps, A. (2009). Supporting new school leaders: Findings from a
university-based leadership coaching program for new administrators. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in
Learning, 17(3), 215–232.
Singh, G.S.B. (2009). The National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH) Programme for Secondary School Head
Teachers in Malaysia: An Evaluative Case Study. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Birmingham.
Tai, M.K., & Omar, A.K. (2013). Principals change leadership competencies: A study in Malaysian high performing
secondary school. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(27), 101–116.
Tai, M.K., & Omar, A.K. (2016). Teacher attitudes toward change: A comparison between high- and mediocre-
performing secondary school in Malaysia. International Studies in Educational Administration, 41(1), 105–128.
20 T. M. KIN AND O. ABDULL KAREEM

Tai, M.K., Omar, A.K., Muhamad Sahari, N., & Khuan, W.B. (2014). The development of principal change leadership
competency model: A structural equation modelling (SEM) approach. International Studies in Educational
Administration, 42(2), 3–44.
Tsai, Y.F. (2011). Relationship between organizational culture, leadership behavior and job satisfaction. Retrieved from
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/11/98
Tubbs, S.L., & Schulz, E. (2006). Exploring a taxonomy of global leadership competencies and meta-competencies. The
Journal of American Academy of Business, 8(2), 35–47.
Underwood, C. (2002). Belief and attitude change in the context of human development, in sustainable human
development, from Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO,
Eolss Publishers, Oxford,UK, [http://www.eolss.net]
Wallace Foundation. (2011). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to teaching and learning. Louisville, KY:
Author.
Williams, H.W. (2008). Characteristics that distinguish outstanding urban principals: Emotional intelligence, social
intelligence and environmental adaptation. Journal of Management Development, 27(1), 36–54.

View publication stats