1

International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice

Why trust the head? Key practices for transformational

school leaders to build a purposeful relationship of trust
DOI:10.1080/13603124.2013.844275

Paul Browning
Published online: 16 Jan 2014

Abstract
Trust is widely recognized as one of the key qualities that a successful leader needs to bring
about change within his/her organization. Literature has also shown that trust plays a pivotal role
in effective school leadership. However, little research has been undertaken to identify specific
actions of a transformational school leader enabling him/her to develop purposeful relationships
of trust with his/her staff and Chair of the schools governing body. Using a theoretical
framework of transformational leadership in the context of the independent schooling sector in
Australia, a multicase study of four highly trusted, transformational school leaders revealed 10
key trust building practices in the Headstaff dyad and three practices in the HeadChair dyad.
These practices were independent of the leaders personal attributes. The study also revealed an
inextricable link between trust and transformational leadership.

Introduction
Educational researchers have identified the importance and value of trust within schools and
school leadership: trust is a critical ingredient of the social context of schools because it
improves cooperation (Putnam, 1993; Tschannen-Moran, 2001); it enriches openness and health
in a school culture (Hoffman, 1994; Hoy, Tarter, & Witkoskie, 1992); it is essential to leadership
(Sergiovanni, 1992, 2005); and perhaps most importantly, it facilitates student achievement
(Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Goddard, Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2001; Hoy, 2002). Trust has
consequences for a range of activities in the school including the way that teachers cooperate and

work together, but trust is particularly important when the leader aims to take the staff
somewhere unknown, to bring about change (Sergiovanni, 2005).
The topic of trust is both intriguing and elusive. The idea of trust is hard to define but we
certainly know when it is missing. Baier (1986) noted we notice trust as we notice air, only
when it becomes scarce or polluted (p. 234). Betrayal and distrust are particularly insidious
behaviours because the mission and objectives of the organization are so easily undermined
(Geist & Hoy, 2004). Sadly, when trust is low, most people perceive danger and go into a selfprotective mode; they personalize everything and assess risks in dealing with everyone, tending
to cast themselves as the intended recipients of other peoples harmful actions (Reina & Reina,
2006, p. 25).
Our own understanding of the notion of trust will depend on the lens of our life experience, the
way that we view the world because of our past experiences (Caldwell & Hayes, 2007;
Rousseau, 1995). This notion was supported by Atkinson and Butcher (2003) when they claimed
that it is virtually impossible to have a universal definition of trust since it is a socially
constructed phenomenon. While there are numerous definitions of trust, this study used Mayer,
Davis, and Schoormans (1995) definition that trust is a willingness to depend on another party
as well as an expectation that the other party will reciprocate if one cooperates.
What organizational heads often fail to appreciate is how profoundly the organizational climate
(or culture) can influence outcomes (Goleman, 2000). Organizational climate in turn, is
influenced by leadership style; the way leaders motivate direct reports, gather and use
information, make decisions, manage change initiatives and handle crises. Leadership styles
account for 70% of organizational climate, which in turn leads to a 30% impact on organizational
performance (Goleman, 2000). Organizational culture is affected by trust. Trust can be fostered
or diminished by the behaviour of the leader (Tschannen-Moran, 2004).

Independent education in Australia

Australian school education is delivered by government and non-government schools. The nongovernment sector is made up of Catholic systemic schools and independent providers (some of
which are grouped in small systems). In 2011, there were 1020 independent schools in Australia
enrolling 500,558 students or 14.2% of total Australian school enrolments (Independent Schools
Council of Australia [ISCA], 2012). As not-for-profit entities, independent schools are eligible to
attract some government subsidies toward the cost of their students education; on average,

government recurrent funding for students attending independent schools is less than half that for
students in government schools (ISCA, 2012).
Independent schools are so described because, while subject to government regulation, they
operate autonomously of centralized bureaucracies. Many of these independent schools operate
under the Carver Model of Governance, that is, the strategic direction of the school, development
of policy, accountability and monitoring and supervision is provided through a Board or Council
(Carver, 2002). The primary role of the Council in an independent school is to appoint and work
through the CEO, or Head of the school (Carver, 2002).
An independent school Head is accountable to the schools governing body for the day-to-day
running of the school including: human resource management, financial management (including
payroll, superannuation, funding, loans and fees), asset development, governance management,
public relations, crisis management, risk and compliance, philanthropy, student management, and
directions in curriculum and pedagogy. However, the primary responsibility of Heads in
independent schools is implementation of the vision and strategic plan set by the governing body.
Vision is a view of the future of the organization, usually viewed as three to five years from the
present. It provides a future direction, an overall framework for the organizations mission and
goals and an energizing force for employee participation and commitment (Morris, 1987).
Strategy is the plan for achieving that vision.
Independent school Heads are usually employed under a fixed-term contract, often five years in
length. Their tenure and contract renewal is dependent on their ability to deliver key performance
outcomes linked to the vision and strategy set by their governing body. They work closely with
the Chair of the governing body, preparing regular reports and updates on the progress of the
plan. Therefore the relationship between the Head and his/her Chair of the governing body is
pivotal not only for the purposes of school improvement but also for their employment security.
So it is vital that a Head fosters a positive relationship betweenhimself/herself and their Chair.

Transformational leadership
The theoretical framework for this study is transformational leadership: firstly, the governance
structures found in many independent schools and subsequent contractual requirements for the
Head to deliver key strategic performance targets provide an internal imperative for
transformational leadership; secondly, the rapid social and technological change driving calls for
urgent educational reform (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010) and the increased propensity for many
national governmentsand certainly the Australian Governmentto legislate reform to meet
their own policy agendas constitute strong external imperatives for change leadership.
Transformational leadership can be defined in terms of articulating a compelling vision for
followers (Bass, 1985). It energizes people by providing them with an exciting vision for the
future rather than providing them with rewards and punishments (Bartram & Casimir, 2007). It
occurs when leaders and followers are united in their pursuit of higher-level goals which are
common to both (Sergiovanni, 2005). Burns (1978) states, such leadership occurs when one or
more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to
higher levels of motivation and morality (p. 20). Transformational leadership involves
intellectually stimulating followers, encouraging them to learn new ways of doing their work
(Bass, 1985) and ultimately improving their performance (Bartram & Casimir, 2007).
Bass (1985) describes four components, or attributes and behaviours that have been isolated by
numerous survey research analyses that describe transformational leadership from the

perspective of a leaders colleagues: charisma or idealized influence; inspirational motivation;

intellectually stimulating; and individually considerate. Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman, and
Fetter (1990) expanded Basss original four-component framework to offer six transformational
leadership behaviours or factors: identifying and articulating a vision, providing an appropriate
role model, fostering an acceptance of group goals, high performance expectations, providing
individualized support, andintellectual stimulation.
Basss (1985) four components and Podsakoff et als. (1990) six-factor framework imply that a
strong relationship needs to occur among all participants, a relationship that needs to be built
around trust to be truly effective (Jung & Avolio, 2000; Kotter, 1996; Tschannen-Moran, 2004).
This implication is supported by Taylor (2000), who states that the creation and facilitation of an
environment of trust between the transformational leader and his/her staff is necessary for
leadership-driven learning to occur. Staff members need to trust the leader in order to feel
positively about them and to exert the extra effort to perform and achieve the vision (Bartram &
Casimir, 2007); followers need to trust their leader because of the uncertainty inherent in
changing the status quo.
Leithwood, Leonard, and Sharratt (1998) have bridged the work of Bass into the educational
context to create the most specified model of transformational school leadership, one that has
been the object of several dozen empirical studies (Leithwood, 2005, p. 10). However it was not
selected to underpin the current study for two reasons. Firstly, they do not offer a diagnostic tool
to measure transformational leadership; Podsakoff et al. havethe Transformational Leadership
Measurement tool (TLM). Secondly, Leithwoods model is not exclusively descriptive of the
transformational leadership style. His model does not assume that the Head alone provides the
leadership to create the conditions or dimensions described, but the Head shares leadership with
teachers; that is, it incorporates the construct of distributed leadership (Hallinger, 2003; Stewart,
2006).
While trust is important for the achievement of vision, Dirks and Ferrin (2002) report that
transformational leadership is a strong predictor of trust. According to Gillespie and Mann (2004,
p. 590), however, empirical work on the relationship between specific transformational
leadership behaviours and trust in the leader shows mixed and inconsistent findings. This
research sheds more light on the relationship between transformational leadership and trust and
identifies specific practices that promote trust.

Purpose of the study

The study sought to add to the current research into actions that a leader can practise which
effectively inspire, build and maintain trust in schools. Through literature review or research
several previous studies have identified broad behaviours that a leader can demonstrate.
Examples include: benevolence, honesty, openness, reliability and competence (Hoy &
Tschannen-Moran, 1999); collegial leadership (Hoy, Smith & Sweetland, 2002); wisdom,
educational ideals and care (Day, 2009); and servant leadership (Sendjaya & Pekerti, 2010).
More recently, studies have begun to emerge looking more specifically at the actions and
behaviours that inspire trust. However, those recent studies are limited, with most having being
focused on instructional leadership in small school settings (Kagy, 2010).
No identified study has sought to examine the actual trust actions used by a transformational
school leader within the context of Australian independent education. This study aimed to fill the
gap in the research by asking the question: What leadership practices contribute to the creation

and maintenance of trust between a transformational school leader and (1) his/her staff and (2)
Chair of governing body?
While the context for this study is the Australian independent sector, it is noteworthy that
transformational leadership dominated the preferred model of school leadership in the United
Kingdom during the early 2000s (Gunter, 2001). Gurr (2002), in a study of transformational
leadership behaviours in 19 Victorian government schools, believes that transformational
leadership has much to offer education, creating a useful platform for understanding the complex
phenomenon of educational leadership. It is anticipated therefore, that the findings of this study
will have much broader implications, both nationally and internationally.

Research design
The research design to achieve this aim was a qualitative, multicase study based on the case
study methodology described by Stake (1995). The purpose of the study was not to explain or
predict why some people are more trusted than others, but to understand what transformational
leaders do to effectively generate trust. It was therefore important to draw on a purposeful
sample of cases, that is, cases based on their ability to provide the most relevant and useable
information (Stake, 1995). This study therefore was undertaken in two phases. Phase One was
the identification of the four cases to be studied, that is, four highly trusted transformational
leaders; Phase Two was the multicase study of those four highly trusted leaders.

Selection of cases
Cases for the study were drawn from the Australian independent education sector. To take into
account other potential variables that can impact trust, Heads were selected according to the
following criteria:
They were transformational leaders;
They were leading schools with a staff greater than 120. Trust is easy to establish in
smaller communities because trust is often implicitly built upon the development of
personal relationships (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Putman, 2000);
Their schools had an open employment policy. Some 84% of Australian independent
schools have a religious affiliation (ISCA, 2012), which may impact employment and
student enrolment policies. According to Putman (1993) and Uslaner (2002), religion has
an uneasy relationship with trust; and
They were highly trusted.
Some 385 independent school Heads from across Australia were invited to participate in the
study. Of these, 177 met selection criteria 2 and 3. To determine alignment with criteria 1 and 2,
the researcher was allowed to administer to volunteer Heads the TLM tool developed by
Podsakoff et al. (1990), and Nyhan and Marlowes (1997) Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI)
with their Chair of Council and members of staff.
The TLM was selected because it has high internal consistency reliabilities (coefficient alphas)
that met or exceeded Nunnallys (1978) recommended level of .7 (i.e. = .78 .91) and it has
been successfully used in other studies, most recently in Schaubroeck, Lam, and Pengs (2011)
research into cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behaviour. The OTI
was developed to measure an individual's trust in their supervizor and work organization. The

OTI is a 12-item scale, with eight items measuring trust in the supervizor and four items
measuring trust in the organization. It also has high internal reliabilities (i.e. = .92 .96) and
has been used in other studies examining trust including the work of Pillai, Schriesheim, and
Williams (1999).
Nineteen schools returned significantly reliable data from the TLM and OTI. The four highest
scoring schools on both those tools were then invited to participate in Phase Two, the multicase
study.
The researcher visited each of the four schools for a week to understand the context and to gather
data. Data was gathered through:
Interviews with the Chair and staff using a semi-structured approach (DiCicco-Bloom &
Crabtree, 2006; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009).
Observation. As an observer-as-participant, the researcher was able to validate data
collected from the interviews (Baker, 2006).
Staff members at each school were invited to be part of a focus group. Groups generally
consisted of a mixture of teaching and administrative staff so as to gain a perspective of the
leadership practices that engender trust from a wide range of people employed by the
organization. The number of interviews and the size of the groups varied from school to school.
Some individuals wished to meet with the researcher in a one-on-one interview to convey a very
personal story; the researcher allowed this to occur but ensured the anonymity of each person/s.
The iterative process of data collection and analysis eventually led to a point of data saturation;
that is, no new information emerged from the focus group interviews (McCraken, 1988). This
typically occurred around the fourth and fifth interview but for one case it did not occur until the
eighth interview. To examine the trust relationship between the Head and the Chair, the
traditional one-on-one interview form was used.
The final stage of each interview was the analysis. Qualitative data analysis ideally occurs
concurrently with the interview as the researchers generate an emerging understanding about the
research topic (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). Therefore, the last stage of the interview
involved the researcher analysing the data using a technique known as meaning condensation
(Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). Meaning condensation entails an abridgment of the meanings
expressed by the participants in the focus groups; long statements are rephrased by the researcher
and compressed into briefer statements. These were then reiterated to the group for confirmation
and clarity of understanding.
After the interview was concluded the condensed statements were coded (Kvale & Brinkmann,
2009). The codes for the data analyzis were derived from the Podsakoff et al. (1990) six factor
transformational leadership framework. A seventh category, other, was added for statements that
could not be linked to any of the six transformational behaviours in the framework. These were
analysed at a later point.
In conjunction with the interviews with staff and the Chair the researcher spent time as an
observer-as-participant, shadowing the Head to gather information about their daily interaction
with their staff. The purpose of shadowing was to observe the Heads interactions with staff and
to see first-hand the practices that engender trust as described in the interviews.
Construct validation of the collected data occurred with a triangulation exercise to see how well
the information collected interpreted and supported the phenomenon of trust being studied.
Specific practices observed by the researcher, or discovered during the interviews, were collated
into a survey and distributed to staff at each school. Staff members were asked to confirm that
they had observed the identified practice of their Head and then indicate on a three point Likert-

scale their personal value of the action in terms of it building their trust in their leader. The
intention of this exercise was to omit any of the practices from the final report on each case if
they had only been observed by a few staff members (less than 20) or if staff did not rate them
very highly.

Findings
Four cases of highly trusted transformational school leaders were studied in isolation revealing
the key practices the individual Heads used to generate trust between themselves and their staff
and Chair of Council. A cross-case analyzis of those four cases then occurred, where the
researcher looked for the binding concepts, themes or functional relationships that linked the
cases together and shed light on the most prominent practices that engender trust between a Head
and his/her staff, and a Head and his/her Chair of Council. The most important findings were
conveyed as assertions.

Assertion 1: A High level of trust existed in four different contexts and was not
dependent on the personal attributes of the leader
The commonality of context of all four cases selected was that Heads were leading large, nonsystemic independent schools in Australia; however, the history, structure, purpose, values and
vision of each school was very different. Each school had its own complexities and situational
differences. The contextual background of each of the four cases is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 Four different schools (contexts).

The study not only found substantive differences in each of the contexts, or schools, but also in
the personalities of each of the Heads. Whereas each Head was a highly trusted transformational
leader, each with more than 11 years leadership experience, they had their own particular
personality traits and idiosyncrasies: two introverts who have a clear boundary between
professional and personal and two extraverts who blur the boundary; two people who have to
work very hard on their inter-personal skills and two for whom interacting with people comes
naturally; three who have a deep sense of care and compassion for people and one who values
professionalizm above being liked; one who has been at their school for a year and three who
have served their communities for more than 11 years. Data from this study showed that trust in
a transformational leader was not dependent on personal attributes or an individuals ability to
develop relationships. This was particularly ostensible between the two most highly trusted
Heads who have two distinctly different personalities; one is an introvert who does not do the
social discussions, the chats well while the second is an extrovert who is a peoples person.

Assertion 2: Multiple practices were employed by the leader to engender the

trust of their staff

The study differed from many others in that it examined the concept of trust from the perspective
of the people who offered it to the leader, the staff members. They were aware of the purpose of
the focus group interview prior to attending. This provided the participants with at least five days
to reflect on the behaviour of their leader. Many came to the interview with notes in readiness to
share. The opening question of each interview asked staff members to articulate their
understanding of trust. As Hall (2009) found when she undertook a study into the meaning of
trust, the understanding of the concept differed considerably from participant to participant. This
in turn impacted on the identification of the practices that were important for each interviewee.
For example, if trust was defined as keeping confidences, then keeping confidences was a
practice that the person identified. Further examples are (the staff members definition of trust is
in italics followed by a practice they identified later in the interview):
Trust is knowing that the person is there to support you and that you can count on them.
Someone you can go to if you need help[I trust John because] he stood by me on an issue with
a member of staff; that really meant a lot to me. (Emily, Administration staff, Case 1)
Trust would be to trust somebody to allow them to use their own initiative, their own judgement,
to follow through on something without stepping in and coming over the top of them to say, do
it this way.I trust her because [Ella] trusts me. She doesnt come in over the top of my faculty
and tell me what to do. She has put me in charge of it and she lets me be in charge of it. (Sally,
Dean of Faculty, Case 2)
As each person has his/her own life experience and understanding of the concept of trust, it
follows that no one leadership practice alone will engender the collective trust of a staff. One
practice may be of value to one person but have no value to another. To engender a greater
number of peoples trust, a leader must therefore employ a range of practices. This finding was
further supported with the data collected from the confirmation survey. In each of the four
confirmation surveys there were incidences of a number of staff who had seen the practice but
did not place any value in it in terms of their offering of trust, or they only rated the practice as
being of some value.
The four Heads who were the focus of this study each employed between 11 and 15 practices.
However, while the evidence suggests that a range of practices should be employed, more
practices did not equate to a higher level of trust. Indeed, the most trusted Head employed 12
practices, while the fourth most trusted Head used 15 practices to engender trust. It cannot be
concluded from this study how many, or which practices are more important, or which
combinations of practices have greater impact on the generation of trust.

Assertion 3: There were 10 practices most commonly evident in the Headstaff

dyad
As the researcher studied four highly trusted transformational school leaders a consistency
emerged. In all, 21 practices that engender the staffs trust in the Head were identified. Of the 21,
five practices were common across all four cases, five were common in three of the cases, five
were common in two cases; and the remaining six were only evidenced in a single case. All but
one of the practices could be coded against the transformational leadership framework of
Podsakoff et al. (1990).
The research set about to identify the key practices commonly used by highly trusted
transformational school leaders. Among the four cases there were 10 commonly used practices.
The practices peculiar to one or two cases are not included in the final assertion. While those

practices were important for the development of trust between the staff and the Head in that
particular context, they were not commonly evident across the cases.
Openly admits mistakes;
Offers trust to staff;
Actively listens;
Provides affirmation;
Makes informed/consultative decisions;
Is visible around the school;
Remains calm and level-headed;
Mentors and coaches staff;
Cares for staff; and
Keeps confidences.

Admit mistakes
Leaders are not infallible. As one member of staff described her Head:
He is very human; he displays a human error side of him He is happy to admit when he makes
mistakes. (Sam, teacher, Case 1).
How leaders deal with their mistakes sets the tone for the rest of the organization and is a key
factor in the creation of trust (Reina & Reina, 2006). A leaders willingness to display his/her
vulnerabilities, both personally and professionally, engendered staffs admiration and trust. Staff
members viewed this not as a weakness but as a key strength of leadership, connecting them to
their Head on a very human level:
Often she says when she finds [something] a problem, she doesnt always have to know the
answer, or be right, she will often express when she is confused about the way forward. (Silvia,
support staff, Case 3)

Offer trust to staff members

One of the most powerful actions for gaining the trust of others is to firstly give it. This was
certainly evidenced in comments made by staff members: she trusts me, and that is huge
(Jack, Director of Faculty, Case 2). Tozer (1997) states that to gain the trust of others we first
have to give it; for leaders this means taking a risk and trusting in others first. All four Heads saw
a key responsibility of their role as being the empowerment of staff through the offering of trust;
the role of the Head is not to interfere with a staff members work, but to provide feedback,
mentoring and support if required. Consequently staff members valued being appreciated and
treated like colleagues and professionals, knowing that the Head was there in the background if
they needed support and advice.

Actively listen
All four Heads practised what Covey (1989) defined as empathic listening, or active listening.
This type of listening is about opening oneself to the talker, seeking to identify what they are
truly trying to say, to the point where one can actually feel what they are feeling.

10

You feel like he is listening to you and talking to you, whereas you know some people, they
listen to you but they dont. (Janet, teacher, Case 4)
In the eyes of the staff the Head listens far more than he/she speaks. The Head has the ability not
to be distracted, to give eye contact, ask clarifying questions, and listen carefully not just to what
is said audibly by the staff member, but also for the words that are not uttered. The Head was
then able to demonstrate that he/she had heard by repeating back to the person what was said,
identifying succinctly the issue and the emotions felt.

Provide affirmation
Humans have an innate desire to be appreciated and valued. Recent research has shown that
organizations that excel at employee recognition are 12 times more likely to generate strong
business results than those that do not (Bersin & Associates, 2012). Chris, the Head of Case 4,
spends much of his time seeking ways to value the staff of his school, because if you have got
good teachers, you have got a good school If they [the staff] know that you value the work
they do, theyre far happier.
All four Heads employed a range of appreciation strategies including publicly thanking a
member of staff at a staff meeting, sending an email or a handwritten thank you note, leaving a
basket of fruit in a staff room to thank people for extra effort, or simply personally speaking to
the person to affirm them. Acknowledgement was not only given for the significant contributions
but also for the small things a person had done. Staff members found affirmation very
motivating, leading to a strengthening of trust because it left them with the impression that their
leader knew them and the work they did.

Make informed and consultative decisions

Followers look to their leader to provide clear direction; to form that direction decisions have to
be made. Several staff at each school spoke of previous Heads who were not good decisionmakers which subsequently left staff members feeling directionless, or in no-mans land,
wondering what has happened and if it [the issue] [had] been swept under the carpet (Renaye,
Dean, Case 2).
Some decisions were made promptly. Staff members often needed an answer in the moment and
invariably their Head was able to do that for them if the issue warranted it. For larger decisions,
or decisions that would potentially impact on others, the Head used a consultative process,
ensuring that the views of all stakeholders were taken into account. Trust was not linked to the
need to receive an affirmative decision; trust was linked with the Heads ability to make a
decision and enact it. Trust is the knowledge that the leader is not going to make some arbitrary,
off the cuff decision that impacts staff without involving them in the process (Barna, 2009).
Staff members at each school participating the in study knew that their opinions would be
considered carefully and respectfully by the Head: I trust her decisions because she consults
with staff before making them, but I also trust her judgement (Lauren, Administrative Staff,
Case 2). Reina and Reina (2006) state that a good leader is one who has enough self-trust and
self-confidence to involve others and ask for input in the decision-making process.

Be visible around the school

11

Being visible to the school community is an effective strategy for building trust between a Head
and their staff. Kouzes and Posner (2003) described this strategy as being part of leadership
credibility. Many staff interviewed reported how much they valued seeing the Head around the
school grounds, speaking with parents, students and individual staff, modelling and reinforcing
behaviours and expectations. They also commented on how much they valued the leaders
presence in the staff room, at school assemblies, chapel services, functions and performances.
Staff trusted their Head because he/she was part of the school; they could see that he/she was
committed to the fundamental purpose of the school and its values.

Remain calm and level headed

Covey (2006) links the behaviour of respect, that is, acting in a manner that shows a fundamental
value of people, to the development of trust. People by nature want to know what they are going
to get. If the leader acts in a reasonable and predictable way people will respect and trust them
(Barna, 2009; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). Each of the leaders studied possessed the ability to
control their emotions and remain calm and level-headed. Knowing that the Heads behaviour
would predictably be calm and level-headed, and focused on the agenda of the staff member
rather than the Head, gave many staff members confidence and provided them a feeling of
safety. Even when faced with difficult or challenging issues staff members knew that their leader
would be unflappable and not knee jerk to anything (Beth, Head of Junior School, Case 1).

Mentor and coach staff

The real power of effective leadership, writes Brigadier Jim Wallace, former head of Australian
Special Forces, is maximizing other peoples potential (as cited in Dickson, 2009, p. 36).
Wallaces view of leadership rings true for the Heads who participated in this study. As a result,
staff members felt empowered to manage difficult situations themselves.
The practice included the giving of critical feedback, which many staff members interviewed
valued. They saw it as being a vital part of their professional growth.
I am someone that really likes honesty for me she can be quite brutally honest and I love that.
I want to hear that critical feedback but then shell tell me the positive as well. For someone to
have the guts to tell me the good and the bad in a matter of fact way thats what I actually trust.
(Rebecca, Teacher, Case 2)
Building the capacity of staff members, particularly senior staff, was seen as beneficial for
everyone in the organization (John, Head of School 9), with the investment in staff often
resulting in their career progression.

Care for staff members

Effective leaders care enough to want to learn about their staff so they can act with compassion
and empathy towards them (Boyatzis & McKee, 2005). Even with a large staff, Heads in each
case study extended a genuine care for individual members of the staff at their school. Each Head
took the time to demonstrate a very real responsibility for the people in their community. Care
was extended in very practical ways including: offering staff members an empathetic ear;
granting time off work to support a family member; follow-up conversations to check up on a
person; and attendance at weddings and funerals. While not every member of staff at each school

12

had experienced the personal concern of the Head, they nonetheless had heard of his/her
authentic compassion for others. For these people the stories of the Heads care had led them to
offer their trust to a leader who was compassionate towards students and staff.

Keep confidences
It was not surprising that the practice of confidentiality was evident. In any kind of relationship,
confidentiality is essential to maintaining trust. When others have entrusted a person with private
or sensitive information that person has a moral obligation to honour that trust; the breach of
confidentiality may cost that relationship (Reina & Reina, 2006).
You wont find that she has betrayed your confidence. Well, I have never found that she has
betrayed confidence where I have had some of those difficult discussions and then found [out]
that somebody has told me back part of that discussion I feel that I can have faith in her that I
can have a discussion. (Annette, Director of Faculty, Case 2)

Assertion 4: Trust and transformational leadership were inextricably linked

The concept of transforming leadership was first introduced by Burns (1978) in his descriptive
research on political leaders. Burnss work was extended by Bass (1985) who replaced the word
transforming with transformational leadership, defining the leadership style in terms of
articulating a compelling vision for followers. Bass continued to describe four components, or
attributes and behaviours that describe transformational leadership from the perspective of a
leaders colleagues: charisma or idealized influence; inspirational motivation; intellectually
stimulating; and individually considerate. The four components have formed the basis of the
most prominent TLM tool, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) developed by Bass
and Avolio (1990).
Podsakoff et al. (1990) also offer a transformational leadership framework. After an extensive
review of the literature and research they expanded Basss original four component framework to
offer six transformational leadership behaviours or factors. It has been this framework which has
been used to code and analyse the data collected in this study. Podsakoff et al. (1990) and Basss
(1985) transformational leadership framework imply that a strong relationship needs to occur
among all participants, a relationship that needs to be built around trust to be truly effective (Jung
& Avolio, 2000; Kotter, 1996; Tschannen-Moran, 2004). This implication is supported by Taylor
(2000), who states that the creation and facilitation of an environment of trust between the
transformational leader and his/her staff is necessary for leadership-driven learning to occur.
Staff members need to trust the leader in order to feel positively about them and to exert the extra
effort to perform and achieve the vision (Bartram & Casimir, 2007); followers need to trust their
leader because of the uncertainty inherent in changing the status quo.
While Gillespie and Mann (2004) stated that empirical work on the relationship between specific
transformational leadership behaviours and trust in the leader resulted in mixed and inconsistent
findings, quantitative and qualitative data from this study suggest a remarkable consistency.
Using Nyhan and Marlowes (1997) OTI and the TLM developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990),
quantitative data collected from 1252 staff members from the 19 independent schools in this
study meeting criteria 2 and 3 showed a strong correlation between trust and transformational
leadership (r = 0.92). Where Dirks and Ferrin (2002) reported that transformational leadership is
a strong predictor of trust, the quantitative data from this study showed that the two are

13

inextricably linked. All but one of the 21 trust engendering practices identified in the four case
studies could be coded against the six factor transformational leadership framework of Podsakoff
et al., further substantiating the assertion that trust and transformational leadership are
inextricably linked.

Assertion 5: An additional transformational leadership behaviour was identified

not previously articulated in either the Bass or Podsakoff models:
Transformational leaders make informed and consultative decisions
The only practice identified by this study that is not articulated in either the Bass (1985) or
Podsakoff et al. (1990) transformational leadership frameworks was that the trusted leader makes
informed and consultative decisions. However, it was a practice clearly evident in the behaviour
of all four highly trusted transformational leaders participating in the study: each used similar
decision-making processes. Ella (Case 2) based her decision-making on the bigger picture (Jan,
Head of House, Case 2). The decisions she would make were accepted by staff because they
were made in the best interests of the school. However, to make those decisions Ella ensured that
she consulted with the relevant stakeholders. Trust was increased because Ella not only made the
decision, but followed through with action. Eileens (Case 3) practice was similar in that she
made immediate decisions if the issue warranted it but, like Ella, she was both very reflective
and consultative when larger decisions that had a broader impact had to be made. Staff members
commented that Eileen was transparent in communicating those decisions and was not afraid to
change her mind if a decision was not successful. Like Ella and Eileen, Chris (Case 4) also
employed a very consultative process, listening to the views of the staff members before
carefully reflecting on the issue and then making the decision. Staff members said that they felt
comfortable expressing their views to Chris on any matter; they felt that their opinions were
valued when a decision was to be made. He too, was not afraid to make the no decisions but
would always articulate why he had reached that point. Johns (Case 1) practice of decisionmaking was slightly different in that staff did not mention consultative processes. This was
possibly due to the fact that John had only been at School 9 for a year when participating in the
study. However, staff did talk about his ability to make decisions and build the trust by
following words with actions. Like the other three Heads, John was also not afraid to make the
no decisions and then be honest with staff and explain why he had responded in the way he had.

Assertion 6: There were three key practices most commonly evident in the Head
Chair dyad
Each of the Chairs of Council in the four case studies articulated a high level of trust in their
respective Head. Qualitative data collected from the interviews with the Heads and their
respective Chair of Council revealed eight trust engendering practices on the part of the Head. Of
these eight practices, two were evident in all four cases, one was evident in three cases, one was
evident in two cases and the remaining four were peculiar to a single case.
It is contended from the data that practices most prominent in the behaviour of highly trusted
Heads in the HeadChair dyad are: develop a relationship; be open and transparent; and meet
regularly. While the third practice, meet regularly, was not clearly evident in the fourth case,
particular nuances in the Head-Chair relationship at that school suggest that it has been a valued
practice. The three key practices are closely linked.

14

Develop a relationship
The relationship between a Head of a school and his/her Chair exists out of necessity rather than
choice. Most Chairs recognized they, and the Head, were two very different people who, if the
circumstances were different, probably would not be friends. However, each of the Chairs
interviewed commented that they enjoyed a positive relationship with their Head that was
founded on a high level of trust.
To foster a positive relationship, each Head recognized that they took the time to get to know
their Chair, who they are, what they value, what they appreciate and how they like to operate.
Ella, the Head of Case 2, bluntly defined the wisdom of developing a professional working
relationship with her Chair. She recognized the importance of respect for the role and authority
of the Chair. To ignore the relationship would be to a Heads peril.
Its about politics, first and foremost happy Chair, happy Principal, happy school. And you
want the Chair and you aligned in such a way that no [Council] member can come between the
two of you and thats always been my premise. (Ella, Head of Case 2)
Both the Head and the Chair acknowledged that the relationship required constant attention and
work.

Be open and transparent

Very early on in her career as a Head, Eileen (Case 3) had received advice from a colleague to
never keep anything from the Chair. Eileen, along with the three other Heads participating in
the study, has found this practice one that is worth keeping. All four Chairs expressed they had
trust in their Head because they knew that they would not keep anything from them. Their Head
was open, transparent and honest with the information that they would provide. As Margaret
(Chair of Case 3) stated, that sort of openness gives rise to trust.
The Chairs described their respective Head as pragmatic with the information that he/she shared
with them. However, each Head said that, if in doubt, they would err on the side of caution and
communicate with their Chair. Chris (Head of Case 4) justifies this wisdom: he never wants the
Chair, or Council, to come back in a couple of years time and say you never told us about
this.

Meet regularly
Any relationship, be it personal or professional, needs time and effort to grow. Three of the four
Heads participating in the study stated that they regularly meet with their Chair of Council. The
fourth did regularly meet but the level of trust is at a point that the Chair no longer sees the need.
The regularity, time and place of the meeting are dependent on the particular circumstances and
needs of the Chair and Head. The purpose of the scheduled meeting is to provide a forum for the
Head to brief the Chair on any matters of importance, to provide the Head with a listening ear, or
to discuss strategy or the forthcoming Council meeting. More importantly, the purpose is to
provide the opportunity for the relationship between the Head and Chair to grow.

Implications, limitations and further research

15

This study reviewed the literature on trust, presenting an argument for its value and importance
in school leadership. A two-phase research program was designed to answer the central question:
What leadership practices contribute to the creation and maintenance of trust between a
transformational school leader and their staff and Chair of governing body? Six resultant
assertions have been made.

Implications for practice

An analysis of Ofsted results in the UK completed by Barber, Whelan and Clark (2010) showed
that for every 100 schools with good leaders, 93 will have good standards of student
achievement; and for every 100 schools that do not have effective leadership, only one will have
good standards of achievement. While this study did not set out to look at the impact of trust on
student achievementBryk and Schneider (2002) have already provided convincing empirical
data to show that this is indeed the caseit is nonetheless interesting to note from anecdotal
evidence (external national testing and final year results) that each of the four schools
participating in the study consistently achieve very high academic results.
It can be argued that good leadership means building trust. Certainly Kouzes and Posner (2003)
affirm this: before people will be willing to follow a leaders vision or act on a leaders
initiatives, they must trust their leader. This trust cannot be demanded. Leaders must earn it
before they can expect their diverse constituents to accept and act upon their messages (p. 110).
Data collected during Phase One of this study showed that there is little correlation between a
Heads length of tenure and trust in the leader (r = 0.34). The fragile link between trust and
tenure, coupled with the convincing evidence that trust and transformational leadership are
inextricably linked (Assertions 3 and 4), as well as commentary from current literature, provides
a convincing argument that a lack of trust would inhibit transformational change in a school. It is
therefore important that school leaders intentionally develop behaviours and practices that
engender, build and sustain trust rather than hoping that they will become more trusted as time
goes by.
Assertions 3 and 6, which articulate key trust engendering practices, should inform Heads who
wish to develop and strengthen trust between themselves and their staff and their Chair of
Council. Practical use of the findings could include the development of an appraisal tool for
current and aspiring leaders. This tool could take the form of a survey not unlike Nyhan and
Marlowes (1997) OTI. Staff members could respond on a likert scale to a number of items
developed from the key practices identified in this study. For example: On a scale of one to
seven, indicate how well you believe your Head listens to your concerns. The appraisal tool could
be used to identify a Heads strengths and weaknesses in relation to trust building practices and
their transformational leadership style. The weaknesses would subsequently be addressed
through professional development, strengthening the leaders trust relationships with their staff
and Chair, thus enabling transformational change to occur in the organization. The tool might
have other applications such as in the selection of a new Head for a school.

Implications for theory

The findings of this study provide a new contribution to the theory of transformational leadership
by postulating the existence of a behaviour not previously noted in the literature; that is,
transformational leaders make informed and consultative decisions. Research on the

16

transformational leadership style has not developed much beyond the work of Podsakoff et al.
(1990). Their work, and the prior work of Bass (1985) and Burns (1978) forms the basis of
leadership assessment tools such as the TLM tool, which was used in this study, and the more
popular Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X). Basss original model was
inclusive of the notion of trust in the leader but literature has not considered nor linked the
practice of decision-making to either trust or transformational leadership. While it is
acknowledged that this study is limited in its designthe context was leadership in independent
schoolsthis finding does suggest that further research to investigate the link between decisionmaking practices, trust and transformational leadership style should be undertaken.
This study is one of the few that has explored the trust relationship between a Head (or Chief
Executive Officer) and the Chair of the governing body. Research into this relationship has only
just begun emerging (Lecovich & Bar-Mor, 2007) and yet it is a vital relationship influencing the
success, or otherwise, of improvement plans developed by governing bodies (A. Kakabadse, N.
Kakabadse, & R. Knyght, 2010). To this point, the limited studies have focused more broadly on
the relationship between the two and have not sought to identify specific practices that can be
given as advice to Heads. The relationship between a Head and his/her Chair is a vital one. To
not foster that relationship in an appropriate, professional manner can be to the detriment of the
Heads employment. This study adds to the emerging literature in this field by researching the
phenomenon of trust in the transformational leadership paradigm, identifying specific behaviours
that strengthen the trust relationship between the Head and his/her Chair of the governing body.
No other study identified has done this. In doing so, it also provides evidenced-based advice to
independent school leaders who wish to strengthen the trust relationship between themselves and
their Chair of the governing body.

Further research
Goleman (2000) suggests that leadership styles account for 70% of organizational climate. This
is supported by quantitative data collected during Phase One of this study, which showed a
strong correlation (r = 0.83) between trust in the leader and trust in the organization. Put
simply, the more staff members trust their Head, the greater the trust they have in their
organization. This finding would suggest that it is the competency of the Head that contributes
significantly to the culture of the organization, and therefore the presence of trust. Two schools
participating in Phase One of the research who returned very low levels of trust provided
anecdotal comments to further support this suggestion. These comments suggested that the
previous leadership in both schools had had lasting, and significant impact on the staffs ability
to trust the Head, even when a change in leadership has occurred. Further research is required to
examine the detrimental impact of poor leadership practice to provide an understanding of how
long it takes an organization to recover. A question worthy of further research is: If a Head
employs the trust engendering practices identified in this study how long will it take to reestablish the culture of trust needed for transformational change to occur? Another related
question could be: Do Heads in low trust environments need to engage other trust building
practices first before they can achieve a vision?
There may be other contributing factors that impact or impede the development of trust in the
leader. For example, the impact of change may have bearing on trust levels. This study did not
take into consideration this possibility when selecting the four cases. The leadership behaviour of
Heads in schools with low levels of trust could well include the 10 key practices, but the

17

resulting impact of strategic initiatives, or change, may have a greater effect on trust. Research
into trust and change is worthy of consideration with a potential question being: How can Heads
lead through change: are there specific trust engendering practices that come into play in these
circumstances?
Finally, Assertion 5 suggested the existence of a transformational leadership behaviour not
considered by either Bass (1985) or Podsakoff et al. (1990): Transformational leaders make
informed and consultative decisions. Evidence for the existence of this assertion was strong and
indeed, it was articulated in the transformational leadership framework presented for the
educational context by Leithwood (2005). It could be hypothesized that the practice would exist
in other contexts, such as the corporate world, because there is a similarity in the roles between a
CEO and the Head of an independent school. Further research to ascertain if the practices
identified in this study exist in the behaviour of transformational leaders in other situations, such
as the corporate world, should be conducted with the view of revising, or developing a new
transformational leadership tool.

Concluding comment
The topic of trust is both intriguing and elusive. The concept is hard to define but it is the
lubricant that enables a leader to bring about transformational change. Bryk and Schneider
(2002) discovered this when they concluded that schools who reported strong trust levels were
three times more likely to be categorized as improving in reading and mathematics than those
with very weak reports. Barber et al. (2010) showed that good leadership has a positive impact
on student achievement. If schools are to adapt to an ever-changing world, then they need
effective transformational leadership. Without it our students will not be afforded the educational
opportunities to prepare them for tomorrows living. Understanding how trust can be generated
will give rise to brave new possibilities for our schools.

Notes
a

The Australian government provides funding to all independent schools using a needs-based
funding system titled Socio-Economic Status (SES). A schools SES score is derived by selecting
a sample of parents addresses and mapping these against census collector districts from the
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Household income and education data are then used to derive an
SES score which places the school on a sliding scale of funding entitlement. The scale typically
ranges from a score of 70 to a score of 130; 70 being the most disadvantaged school, or school
with a parent community who has the least capacity to pay fees; 130 being the most advantaged
school, or parent community with the highest capacity to pay fees. An SES score of a school can
be used as an indication of the culture of the school and the aspiration of the parents who send
their children there.

References
1. Atkinson, S., & Butcher, D. (2003). Trust in managerial relationships. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 8, 282304.

18

2. Baier, A. (1986). Trust and anti-trust. Ethics, 96, 231260.

3. Baker, L. M. (2006). Observation: A complex research method. Library Trends, 55, 171
189.
4. Barber, M., Whelan, F., & Clark, M. (2010). Capturing the leadership premium. McKinsey
& Company. Retrieved December 4, 2012, from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/capturing-theleadership-premium/
5. Barna, G. (2009). Master leaders. Brentwood, NT: Concord Press.
6. Bartram, T., & Casimir, G. (2007). The relationship between leadership and follower inrole performance and satisfaction with the leader: The mediation effects of empowerment
and trust in the leader. Leadership and Organization Development, 28, 419.
7. Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free
Press.
8. Bass, B., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for
the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
9. Bellanca, J., & Brandt, R. (2010). 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
10. Bersin & Associates. (2012, June). Bersin and Associates unlock the secrets of effective
employee recognition. Retrieved December 4, 2012, from
http://www.bersin.com/News/Content.aspx?id=15543
11. Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
12. Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
13. Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
14. Caldwell, C., & Hayes, L. (2007). Leadership, trustworthiness, and the mediating lens.
Journal of Management Development, 26, 261281.
15. Carver, J. (2002). On board leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16. Coleman, A. (2012). The significance of trust in school-based collaborative leadership.
International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 15, 79106.
17. Covey, S. (1989). Seven habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: Simon and
Schuster.

19

18. Covey, S. (2006). The speed of trust. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
19. Day, C. (2009). Building and sustaining successful principalship in England: The
importance of trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 47, 719730.
20. DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical
Education, 40, 314321.
21. Dickson, J. (2009). Humilitas. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
22. Dirks, K., & Ferrin, D. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytical findings and
implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611628.
23. Geist, J., & Hoy, W. (2004). Cultivating a culture of trust: Enabling school structure,
teacher professionalism, and academic press. Leading and Managing, 10, 118.
24. Gillespie, N., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: The
building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 588607.
25. Goddard, R., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. (2001). A multi-level examination of the
distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools.
The Elementary School Journal, 102, 317.
26. Goleman, D. (2000, MarchApril). Leadership that gets results. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
27. Gunter, H. (2001). Critical approaches to leadership in education. Journal of Educational
Enquiry, 2, 94108.
28. Gurr, D. (2002). Transformational leadership characteristics in primary and secondary
school principals. Leading and Managing, 8, 7899.
29. Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33, 329351.
30. Hall, V. (2009). The truth about trust in business. Austin, TX: Emerald Book.
31. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
32. Hoffman, J. (1994). Building a culture of trust. Journal of School Leadership, 4, 484
501.
33. Hoy, W. (2002). Faculty trust: A key to student achievement. Journal of Public School
Relations, 23, 188203.

20

34. Hoy, W., Smith, P., & Sweetland, S. (2002). The development of the organizational
climate index for high schools: Its measure and relationship to faculty trust. The High School
Journal, 86, 3849.
35. Hoy, W., Tarter, C., & Witkoskie, L. (1992). Faculty trust in colleagues: Linking the
principal with school effectiveness. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26,
3845.
36. Hoy, W., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: Empirical confirmation in
urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership, 9, 184208.
37. Independent Schools Council of Australia. (2012). Independent schooling in Australia:
The Independent schools sector: Snapshot 2012. Retrieved January 31, 2013, from
http://isca.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ISCA-Snapshot-20121.pdf
38. Jung, D., & Avolio, B. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of
the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional
leadership. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 21, 949964.
39. Kagy, L. (2010). Teacher trust and leadership behaviours used by elementary school
principals (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northcentral University, Arizona.
40. Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N., & Knyght, R. (2010). The chemistry factor in the
chairman/CEO relationship. European Management Journal, 28, 285296.
41. Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
42. Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2003). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people
demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
43. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research
interviewing (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
44. Lecovich, E., & Bar-Mor, H. (2007). Relationships between chairpersons and CEOs in
non-profit organizations. Administration in Social Work, 31, 2140.
45. Leithwood, K. (2005). Educational leadership: A review of the literature. Philadelphia,
PA: The Laboratory for Student Success.
46. Leithwood, K., Leonard, L., & Sharratt, L. (1998). Conditions fostering organizational
learning in schools. Educational Administration, 34, 243276.
47. Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, F. (1995). An intergrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709734.
48. McCraken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

21

49. Morris, E. (1987). Vision and strategy: A focus for the future. The Journal of Business
Strategy, 8, 5158.
50. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
51. Nyhan, R., & Marlowe, H. (1997). Development and psychometric properties of the
organizational trust inventory. Evaluation Review, 21, 614635.
52. Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C., & Williams, E. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as
mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of
Management, 25, 897933.
53. Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader
behaviours and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107142.
54. Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
55. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
56. Reina, D., & Reina, M. (2006). Trust and betrayal in the workplace (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
57. Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written
and unwritten agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Saga.
58. Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S., & Peng, A. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as
mediators of leader behaviour influences on team performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96, 863871.
59. Sendjaya, S., & Pekerti, A. (2010). Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in
organizations. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 31, 643663.
60. Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of improvement. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
61. Sergiovanni, T. (2005). Strengthening the Heartbeat. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
62. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
63. Stewart, J. (2006). Transformational leadership: An evolving concept examined through
the works of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood. Canadian Journal of Educational
Administration and Policy, 54, 129.

22

64. Taylor, E. (2000). Analysing research on transformative learning theory. In J.

Mezirowand Associates (Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory
in progress (pp. 185217). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
65. Tozer, J. (1997). Leading initiatives: Leadership, teamwork and the bottom line. Sydney:
Elsevier.
66. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of
Educational Administration, 39, 308331.
67. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
68. Uslaner, E. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.