Article

Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
Examining school leadership 2023, Vol. 51(1) 219–244
ª The Author(s) 2020

in a transitional context: Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1741143220971286
A mixed-methods study of journals.sagepub.com/home/ema

leadership practices and school

cultures as mechanisms of
educational change

Jasna Kovačević , Alisa Mujkić and Amra Kapo

Abstract
This research presents the results of studies designed to observe the effects of school leadership
and school culture as mechanisms of change in the context of a large-scale educational reform in
Bosnia and Herzegovina. A mixed-methods approach was employed to illuminate how institutional
context either activates or deactivates leadership and school cultures as mechanisms that influence
teacher efficacy beliefs in times of large-scale educational reform. Quantitative and qualitative data
were analyzed through three independent studies. Quantitative procedures included measure-
ment model analysis, structural equation modeling and a non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test.
The qualitative analytic approach encompassed procedures of content analysis and quantification
of qualitative data from reform documents and semi-structured interviews in the form of hier-
archical clustering and multidimensional scaling. The triangulation of findings occurred in the
interpretation phase, characterized by the development of meta-inferences that go beyond the
findings from each study.

Keywords
Educational reform, school leadership, school culture, collective teacher efficacy, mixed methods

Introduction
School reforms and trends of decentralization in education have transformed schools into complex
organizations which are, more than ever, relying on a wide variety of external contextual influ-
ences (Addi-Raccah and Gavish, 2010; Bush, 1999; Keshavarz et al., 2010). As Bridges (1977)
asserted, there is a reciprocal relationship between school leaders and the contexts in which they

Corresponding author:
Jasna Kovačević, School of Economics and Business, University of Sarajevo, Trg oslobod̄enja – Alija Izetbegović 1, 71000
Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Email: jasna.kovacevic@efsa.unsa.ba
220 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 51(1)

work. Such contexts are complex and, as noted by Hallinger (2016), have many facets: institu-
tional; community; national cultural; economic; political; and school improvement. In such com-
plex conditions, school principals have been challenged to timely respond to the external
environment, influence and shape it, thereby being more responsive to their stakeholders (Bush,
1999). Furthermore, the global trend of school reforms has been focused on standardization and
accountability, pressurizing school leaders to initiate and sustain new state-wide policy initiatives.
This pressure from state and local policy often leads schools to implement too many initiatives at
one time, causing disconnect and unsuccessful implementation (Fullan, 2007). In times of large-
scale reforms, efforts of policy-makers are often focused on structural aspects and incremental
changes within the educational system, prioritizing the wrong drivers of reforms (e.g. punitive
accountability, individualistic strategies, or technology) (Kovačević et al., 2018; Fullan, 2011).
However, the emotions and behaviors of reform implementers (school principals and teachers) are
often set aside. Policy pressure and disconnected initiatives may lead to tensions, disagreement,
disorientation, low morale and resistance to change in teachers, and a limited leadership potential
of principals as school leaders in their efforts to maximize change outcomes (Kan and Parry, 2004).
In such conditions, it is highly unlikely that positive change will occur. A construct that has been
systematically related to teachers’ behavior and response towards change is collective teacher
efficacy (CTE), defined as “perception of the groups’ efficacy to effect change” (Bandura,
1986: 451). Hattie (2016, cited in Donohoo et al., 2018) has positioned CTE as one of the factors
that has the greatest influence on student achievement. Considering the abovementioned, we have
focused on CTE as a behavioral outcome variable, affected by external pressure for change, the
school’s internal context, the local community, and teacher characteristics.
Educational change is particularly difficult in complex societies, such as post-Soviet and post-
socialist countries, where many transitional paths intersect and influence social forces (Loogma
et al., 2013). Such transitional societies are characterized by: (a) processes of moving from one
system (non-democratic) to an entirely different one (democratic); (b) crises and radical structural
readjustments; and (c) uncertainty and destabilization. Also, transitional societies are fundamen-
tally mitigated by the more or less well-defined goals and directions (Bı̂rzea, 1994; Rado, 2001).
Educational change in transitional societies usually begins with incremental or structural changes
in laws, governmental decisions, directives and strategies that aim to transform the rigid and
centralized education system inherited from the socialist or communist era. Such structural
changes are often “borrowed” from Western contexts, they are not linear, and the effects of such
isomorphic reform solutions are difficult to predict. We know little about the effects such changes
produce because there is limited evidence on how educational policy and change affects leadership
practices of school principals in southeast Europe (Vican et al., 2019).
In that sense, this research presents findings from a mixed-methods study which aimed to
explore the impact of institutional context on leadership practices and its effects on school cultures
as mechanisms of change in a complex transitional society located in southeast Europe. Accord-
ingly, we have formulated the following research questions:

RQ1: What is the relationship between principal leadership practices, school cultures and CTE
as variables on organizational and emotional paths of leadership influence?
RQ2: How does the institutional context influence leadership practices and its relationships
with school cultures and CTE as school variables on emotional and organizational paths?
Kovačević et al.: Examining school leadership in a transitional context 221

To address these research questions, we surveyed teachers (Study 1) and conducted documen-
tary analysis of reform documents (Study 2) and semi-structured interviews with school principals
(Study 3). Answers to RQ1 were given through Study 1 by analyzing quantitative data to assess the
influence of principal leadership and school cultures as predictors of CTE. Studies 2 and 3
provided answers to RQ2 by employing qualitative data obtained via content analysis and quanti-
fication of qualitative data from relevant reform documents and semi-structured interviews.
A mixed-methods approach in the form of a concurrent triangulation design (Creswell and
Plano-Clark, 2007) was employed to explore whether institutional context activates or deactivates
leadership practices and school cultures as mechanisms that influence CTE in the schools during
large-scale educational reform. Thereby, the goals of this study were to explore the leadership
effects on school cultures and CTE and to illuminate how the reform context shapes leadership
practices of secondary school principals. It is our hope that this study will contribute to the body of
knowledge on school leadership and school improvement in complex and diverse environments of
post-socialist and post-communist societies and extend prior research (Alfirević et al., 2016;
Kovačević et al., 2018; e.g. Anchan et al., 2003; Ninković and Knežević-Florić, 2016; Polyzoi
and Černa, 2001, Kovač and Buchberger, 2014; Teodorović et al., 2016; Vican et al., 2019).

Contextual background
The context of school leadership in Bosnia and Herzegovina
National cultural context. Bosnia and Herzegovina, a former socialist Yugoslav republic, is a transi-
tional country in southeast Europe. After gaining its independence from Yugoslavia in 1992, the
country was torn by war. By the end of 1995, the armed conflict was ended with the help of the
international community. However, peacemaking is a long and often complex process that requires
structural and psychological changes. These psychological changes include “changes not only in
worldviews, feelings, beliefs, attitudes and behavioral intentions but also in the mass media,
ceremonies, leaders’ speeches, books, films, and school textbooks” (Bar-Tal and Cehajic-
Clancy, 2014: 130–131).

Political context. The political system of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a specific case of a hybrid
political regime consisting of both democratic and non-democratic mechanisms, where both have
important functions in governance (Bojkov, 2003). There are two political entities (Federation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina (FB&H) and Republika Srpska (RS)) and a condominium of the entities
(District Brčko), a local self-government with its own institutions, laws and regulations. While RS
is centralized with all jurisdictions on the entity level, FB&H is decentralized and consists of 10
administrative units called cantons, which have autonomous cantonal laws and regulations in all
spheres of life, including education, healthcare and social welfare. The transition from socialism to
a market economy, political instability, ethnic tensions, prevailing right-wing nationalist rhetoric,
the war in the region between 1991 and 1995, and a deteriorated standard of living had a tremen-
dous impact on cultural and social values. The shift in values and social inequality emerged as
important aspects of post-socialist transition, significantly impacting politics and the institutional
context.

Institutional context. After the war, international projects mainly addressed infrastructure, reconci-
liation, refugee return and democratic processes, but not education. As is the case with other
222 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 51(1)

examples of socialist or communist education systems, education in Bosnia and Herzegovina is

characterized by a rigid, federally controlled, common school curriculum which emphasized the
acquisition of factual knowledge in highly specialized subjects (Kovač et al., 2014; Pantić and
Čekić-Marković, 2012; Polyzoi, 2003). After the disintegration of Yugoslavia, the education
policy was on the margins and was not considered a priority by politicians. A complex adminis-
trative structure holds back progress in education. In total, there are 14 ministries of education on
various levels of jurisdiction—entity-level ministries (two ministries in FB&H and RS, plus one
ministry in District Brčko), cantonal-level ministries (10 cantons in FB&H) and a state-level
ministry (Bosnia and Herzegovina) that has very little jurisdiction over education. In FB&H,
cantonal ministries have legislative power over education, which unavoidably includes law impo-
sition and control over many aspects of functioning. The fragmented administrative structure and
prevailing ethnic tensions result in differing practices in resource allocation, differing pedagogical
standards, and differing curricula (Pašalić-Kreso, 2008).
In recent years, Western benchmark concepts of educational change have found their way to
post-socialist countries, by which educational change gets implemented through externally funded
international projects, often without prior analysis and assessment of contextual compatibility
(Kovačević et al., 2018; Kovač et al., 2014). After legislating the global reform, policy leaders
appear to have willfully derailed its implementation. This adoption of policies in the form of
institutional isomorphism is superficial, as it appears that the leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina
may have adopted internationally driven reform policies but only to enhance their precarious
domestic legitimacy (Komatsu, 2013). Considering the complexities within the administrative
structure and matters of jurisdiction in Bosnia and Herzegovina, differences in resource allocation
and differences in curricula that are dependent on administrative levels, we have decided to focus
our research on one autonomous, decentralized unit in FB&H—Canton Sarajevo.
Prior to 2015, the government of Canton Sarajevo with jurisdiction over education had not been
advocating educational reform. In 2015, the appointed staff of the cantonal Ministry of Education
(MoE) presented their vision for consolidating educational policy with European Union policy by
reforming education on all levels (pre-school, primary, secondary and higher education).

Economic context, community and school improvement context in Canton Sarajevo. In terms of the total
school budget for all secondary schools in Canton Sarajevo in 2015, independent school resources
span between 1% and 9% of the total, indicating limited financial autonomy and thus greater
financial dependence on governmental funding. Finally, taking into consideration the novelty of
educational leadership and management in the transitional context, no prior studies have been
conducted concerning the community and school improvement context.

Conceptual framework
In this research, we have hypothesized that leadership practices of principals and school cultures
act as mechanisms influencing collective efficacy beliefs of teachers in the context of a large-scale
educational change.
The school leadership conceptual framework used in this research proposes five dimensions to
the principal’s leadership, comprising transformational practices (Setting Directions, Developing
People, Redesigning the Organization) (Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood and Sun, 2012) and transac-
tional practices (Improving the Instructional Program and Contingent Reward) (Bass, 1985; Leith-
wood and Sun, 2012). Recent research implies that leadership indirectly improves learning
Kovačević et al.: Examining school leadership in a transitional context 223

conditions or school variables on four distinct paths: rational (e.g. focused instruction and aca-
demic press); emotional (e.g. trust, stress, and CTE); organizational (e.g. school culture, school
structure, and professional learning communities); and family (e.g. family educational culture)
(Leithwood et al., 2017).
Guided by the Competing Values Framework theory (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1981), we have
proposed that school cultures can be categorized as flexible school cultures focused on innovation
and social cohesion, or as stable school cultures oriented towards maintaining the status quo and
school structures. School culture, as a specific social control mechanism (O’Reilly, 1989) on the
organizational path (Leithwood et al., 2017), is utilized by principals who aim to coordinate school
activities in the face of the need for change (Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). Culture as a change
mechanism operates more extensively than most formal control systems (O’Reilly, 1989).
In line with arguments by Goddard (2002), CTE is a multidimensional construct composed of a
group competence (GC) dimension related to teacher-centered factors (e.g. the perception of teach-
ers’ teaching skills, methods, training and expertise) and a task analysis (TA) dimension related to
factors outside teachers’ control (e.g. the abilities and motivations of students, the availability of
instructional materials, the presence of community resources and constraints, etc.). As the evidence
suggests, collective efficacy beliefs impact how teachers feel, think, motivate themselves and behave
and, therefore, can be observed as a major contributor to school culture (Donohoo et al., 2018).

Methodological approaches
Educational reform as an intervention in the system changes the resources available to reform
implementers, therefore changing the context. This is the reason why we have adopted the realist
approach (Pawson and Tilley, 1997), which focuses on context, mechanisms and outcomes of a
particular social program, “seeking to establish what works, for whom, in what circumstances, in
what respects, to what extent, and why” (Wong et al., 2012: 89). More specifically, the authors have
employed a mixed-methods approach to illuminate how institutional context either activates or
deactivates leadership and school cultures as mechanisms that influence CTE in times of large-
scale educational reform. The concurrent triangulation design is well suited to assess complex
interventions such as reforms, as it is possible to combine standardized design, data collection and
analysis with specific tools. Such a design can, consequently, capture the complexities of the reform
context, the changing nature of the reform, its intended outcomes and the processes of behavioral
change that are taking place (Bamberger, 2012). Figure 1 depicts the proposed research design.
The quantitative survey data focus on capturing teacher perceptions on school leadership,
school culture and CTE. The qualitative data from semi-structured interviews and reform docu-
ments enabled us to dive deeper into the context and mechanisms that influence principal leader-
ship practices and teacher perceptions in times of major educational change. Merging of the
quantitative results and qualitative findings from each level occurs during analysis and interpreta-
tion (Plano-Clark and Creswell, 2014: 391).

Quantitative sample
The study was conducted in Canton Sarajevo, an administrative unit within FB&H. In the school
year 2016/2017, there were 33 registered secondary schools in Canton Sarajevo, with 1266 teach-
ers employed and 15,231 students enrolled in 672 classes. After being granted permission to
conduct research in all secondary schools by the MoE in Canton Sarajevo, we contacted the school
224 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 51(1)

Figure 1. Research design.

principals of the 33 secondary schools and asked permission for their schools to participate in this
research. In Canton Sarajevo, school principals, acting as gatekeepers, have the autonomy to refuse
to participate in research approved by the MoE. At the end of the process of school selection,
school principals of eight gymnasiums and secondary vocational schools confirmed their approval
via telephone or e-mail for researchers to enter the school site. These eight schools represent 24%
of the total number of secondary schools in Canton Sarajevo and employ 322 teachers. Within the
eight schools in the sample, 249 teachers took part in the survey, which accounts for 77.32% of the
teacher population in the observed eight schools, or 19.66% of the total teacher population in all
secondary schools in Canton Sarajevo. Considering the abovementioned, the sample of schools and
teachers included in this research can be considered a convenience sample.

Variables and measures

The operationalization of constructs was done based on previously standardized instruments using
a five-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree; 5 ¼ strongly agree). Items for the transfor-
mational leadership scale (TRF) were selected from Leithwood’s School Leadership Questionnaire
Kovačević et al.: Examining school leadership in a transitional context 225

(SLQ). To assess transactional leadership (TRA), we used Leithwood’s SLQ measurement instru-
ment relating to the TRA dimension of Improving the Instructional Program and items from the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire within the contingency-rewarding dimension. We used a
short version of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument validated by Kalliath et al.
(1999), consisting of 16 items. The Competing Values Framework (CVF) developed by Quinn and
Rohrbaugh (1981, 1983) was originally developed to identify a structure among criteria used to
assess organizational effectiveness. However, CVF has found its application in diverse areas of
organizational research, including organizational culture, leadership styles, human resource devel-
opment, and organizational development (Kalliath et al., 1999). CVF is a spatial model of orga-
nizational effectiveness with dimensions of flexibility–stability and internal–external orientation.
Within this spatial model, there are four quadrants or types of organizational culture—Clan (within
the dimensions of internal orientation and flexibility, specific for its emphasis on teamwork,
participation, empowerment, and concern for ideas), Adhocracy (within the dimensions of external
orientation and flexibility, specific for its emphasis on flexibility, growth, innovation, and crea-
tivity), Hierarchy (within the dimensions of internal orientation and stability, specific for its
emphasis on centralization, routinization, stability, continuity, and predictability) and Market
(within the dimensions of external orientation and stability, specific for its emphasis on task focus,
goal clarity, efficiency, and performance).
By combining items from the short version of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instru-
ment validated by Kalliath et al. (1999) for Clan and Adhocracy cultures across the flexibility
dimension in the CVF (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1981, 1983), we developed a one-dimensional
measurement model for flexible school cultures (FSC). Similarly, we combined items relating
to Hierarchy and Market culture items across the stability dimension in the CVF to develop a
measurement for stable school cultures (SSC). We measured CTE with 12 items from the original
Collective Teacher Efficacy Scale – Short version, observing this construct as multidimensional,
consisting of four dimensions (Group competence þ “GCþ”), Group competence – “GC-”), Task
analysis þ “TAþ” and Task analysis – “TA-”), as originally advised by Goddard (2002). Since all
instruments were developed in English, we paid special attention to translation into the Bosnian
language. Cross-cultural adaptation was achieved through steps to maintain content validity and
attain semantic, experiential, contextual, and idiomatic equivalence. Herche et al. (1996) recom-
mended that this could be successfully done using back-to-back translation, which was applied for
this purpose. The first version of the instrument, as suggested by Beaton et al. (2000), was sub-
jected to semantic, experiential, contextual and idiomatic equivalence to create a culturally
adapted version of the entire questionnaire. Six experts (translators, language teachers and school
psychologists) were engaged in the process of cultural adaptation, which lasted approximately
three weeks. Content validity for cross-cultural equivalency was achieved through detailed input
from content experts. The group of experts consisted of 10 experienced teachers familiar with the
literature on the topics of interest in an expert panel discussion to increase the strength of content
validity, as suggested by Lynn (1986). Content experts validated the compiled instrument contain-
ing 62 items for item clarity, fit and relevance. For these purposes, we used a four-point content
validity scale (1, unclear item; 2, major revision required; 3, minor revision required; and 4,
relevant item, retain with no changes). Following the procedure for content validity (Tuthil
et al., 2014), the index of content validity was computed on the basis of the number of content
experts who reported a score of 3 or 4 for each item, divided by the total number of content experts.
According to Lynn (1986), when there are six or more content experts, the standard for a cut-off
point for retaining/revising an item should not be lower than 0.78. Out of 62 items assessed by the
226 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 51(1)

Table 1. Samples of retained, revised and eliminated items with the index of content validity (CVI) scores.

CVI
Sample item (n ¼ 10) Rationale

Retained items
Principal provides useful assistance to you in
setting short-term goals for teaching and
learning (DS3)
After observing classroom activities, principal
works with teachers to improve their
teaching (IIP16)
Revised items
The school is a very dynamic and
entrepreneurial place. People are willing to
stick their necks out and take risks (B28)
The glue that holds the school together is loyalty
and mutual trust. Commitment to this school
runs high (A39)
Eliminated items
Teachers in this school do not have the skills to
deal with student disciplinary problems
(CTE59)
Drug and alcohol abuse in the community make
learning difficult for students here (CTE62)
1 All content experts agreed on relevance of this
question
1 All content experts agreed on relevance of this
question
0.8 This item was problematic for content experts
for several reasons. First, it contained idioms
from English language, with no meaning in the
Bosnian language after translation. Content
experts suggested that this item had to be
adapted in a way that reflects the willingness
of teachers to leave their comfort zones, and
take risks and responsibilities. Additionally,
content experts suggested to omit the term
“entrepreneurial” commenting that it is too
“business-like,” and instead to use a term that
implies creativity and innovation
0.8 Content experts advised that this item needs
adaptation for semantic equivalence for “the
glue that holds” indicating that the cohesion in
schools, and “commitment runs high”
indicating high levels of commitment
0.6 The meaning behind this item was problematic
and difficult to understand. Context experts
suggested to eliminate this item from the final
version of the questionnaire
0.7 The meaning behind this item was problematic.
Context experts suggested to eliminate this
item from the final version of the
questionnaire

content experts, 56 items were retained or revised, and six were eliminated from the final version
of the instrument. Table 1 illustrates samples of retained, revised and eliminated items.
Confirmatory factor analysis on retained items for all constructs using AMOS 22, as well as
correlations and discriminant validity for all constructs, are presented in Online Appendix 1 and
Appendix 2. The Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted
(AVE) were calculated to demonstrate the reliability of the measures (see Online Appendix 1). The
Cronbach’s alphas of all of the measures surpassed the acceptable level of 0.70, and range from
0.70 to 0.88, except for two dimensions of CTE: TA(þ) and TA(-). CR ranges from 0.69 to 0.83,
thereby meeting the acceptable level of 0.60, as suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981), except
for CTE dimension TA(þ). AVE reflects the amount of variance in the indicators that is accounted
Kovačević et al.: Examining school leadership in a transitional context 227

for by the latent constructs. Most of the constructs meet the 0.5 threshold recommended by Fornell
and Larcker (1981). However, these authors argue that AVE is a more conservative estimate of the
validity of a measurement model. Hence, in cases where AVE does not meet the threshold of 0.5,
the researcher may conclude that measurement is reliable if the convergent validity of the construct
is adequate (Lam, 2012). In our example, in cases where AVE was below 0.5, both CR and
Cronbach’s alpha values were acceptable, except for CTE dimension TA(þ).
A closer look at the correlation coefficients and discriminant validity presented in Online
Appendix 2 reveals that all transformational leadership practices have high inter-correlations
(0.60) and high correlations with transactional leadership practice for Improving the Instruc-
tional Program. The methodological issues of high correlations in the transformational and trans-
actional leadership dimensions have been previously addressed by van Knippenberg and Sitkin
(2013), Yukl (1999), Pawar (2003) and Farrell (2010). Our research adds to this discussion,
implying that the theories derived from the original transformational leadership theory developed
by Bass (1980) are not immune to issues of high correlations that consequently affect discriminant
validity.

Data collection. Out of a total of 322 teachers working in the eight observed secondary schools, 249
participated in a quantitative study, yielding a response rate of 77.27%. In terms of gender, our
sample was not well balanced (57 male participants; 171 female participants; in 21 cases gender
was not indicated). In a further process, we checked the quality of the obtained data and concluded
that our set was completed without noticeable missing data. Identification of outliers was made
following the procedure proposed by Hair et al. (2010), which yielded a total of 237 surveys ready
for further analysis.

Qualitative sample
In alignment with the concurrent triangulation design, the qualitative data were obtained simulta-
neously. First, to determine the sample for the semi-structured interviews, we conducted reputa-
tional case sampling (Teddlie and Yu, 2007) using the key informant technique (Marshall, 1996;
Tremblay, 1957). In addition to the criteria for key informant selection (Tremblay, 1957), which
includes role in the community, knowledge, willingness, communicability and impartiality, we
have defined additional criteria for key informant selection in the school context. Additional
criteria include: (a) key informants must have served as principals for at least one year, or have
previous experience of a deputy position for at least one year; (b) key informants need to be from
schools situated in different locations (urban and rural); and (c) key informants should be princi-
pals who exhibited high levels of cooperation during the teacher survey (Wanat, 2008). Out of 33
secondary school principals in Canton Sarajevo, 14 met the key informant selection criteria. After
being invited to participate in the interviewing process, six secondary school principals accepted
our invitation to contribute as key informants. In this phase of research, we were guided by
deductive–inductive reasoning, allowing for new themes from interviews to emerge and to expand
the a priori framework of principal leadership. Audio-taped interviews were transcribed and
transcripts delivered to key informants for validation of the interview content (Torrance, 2012).
Second, documentary analysis of MoE reform documents was grounded in theoretical sampling
as the process of data sampling on the basis of data relevancy for research, theoretical position,
analytical framework, and theory emerging from the data (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The focus of
our documentary analysis was MoE press releases as a form of public printed and electronic
228 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 51(1)

documents (Bowen, 2009). Guided by the literature on sensemaking and sense giving (Gioia and
Chittipeddi, 1991; Maitlis, 2005; Weick, 1988), we were motivated to analyze the rhetoric/lan-
guage of the MoE in publicly available press releases related to secondary education reform.

Data collection. Qualitative data were collected using two methods: semi-structured interviews with
school principals as key informants; and documentary analysis of MoE documents. The semi-
structured interviews were guided by a protocol developed in alignment with theories of school
leadership (Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2000; 2005) and transactional leadership
(Bass, 1990, 1997). We developed an a priori thematic framework for conducting interviews on
the basis of the multidimensional nature of leadership. The interviews were audio-taped and
transcribed.
In the documentary analysis, we chose to focus on press releases as public reform documents,
grounding our argument in Ong’s (1982, cited in White and Lowenthal, 2009) belief that the
language of a movement could not be separated from the ideology that drives that movement.
At the beginning of the documentary analysis, we focused on all electronically available MoE
press releases related to educational reform since the appointment of MoE staff in fall 2015 when
reform was officially introduced (36 press releases) until fall 2016. After screening the content of
press releases, the number of documents was reduced to 22 documents related to elementary and
high school reform due to a similar reform strategy. The documents relating to pre-school and
higher education were not considered relevant for this research.
We conducted open (in-vivo), axial and selective coding of content from both interview tran-
scripts and MoE reform documents using QDA Miner v.4 software. Since our intent in this phase of
research was to understand the hierarchy of themes and relations between these themes from
interview transcripts and MoE reform documents, we conducted coding co-occurrence analysis
as a technique for quantification of qualitative data. Coding co-occurrence in QDA Miner v.4
encompasses hierarchical clustering and multidimensional scaling as multivariate statistical tech-
niques (Hair et al., 2010).

Data analysis and results

The impact of principal leadership practices on school cultures and CTE
Data analysis. Aiming to assess the reliability and validity of all measures, we adopted the two-
step procedure suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). It requires applying confirmatory
factor analysis for all constructs (see Online Appendix 1), while within the second step the
structural model was assessed. These analyses included the maximum likelihood method of esti-
mation, taking into consideration the Chi-square (w2) test and set of indicators such as root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI) and
goodness of fit index (GFI).
Results. The overall measurement model (Table 2) with teacher age and school location as
control variables yielded acceptable values of AVE and CR and acceptable model fit: w2/df ¼
2.486; CFI ¼ 0.926; NFI ¼ 0.917; GFI ¼ 0.901; and RMSEA ¼ 0.079 (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
This analysis included an assessment of the conceptual model by highlighting the significant paths
within it.
The standardized parameters (Table 3) showed a statistically significant and positive relationship
for Path 1 (TRF ! FSC: b ¼ 0.747) and Path 2 (TRA ! SC: b ¼ 0.588), while a non-significant t-
Kovačević et al.: Examining school leadership in a transitional context 229

Table 2. Measurement models fit summary.

Root mean
square error of Comparative Normed fit Goodness
Construct ␹ 2/df approximation fit index index of fit index

Transformational leadership scale 2.829 0.09 0.930 0.897 0.903

Transactional leadership 3.117 0.07 0.936 0.910 0.905
Flexible school cultures 2.408 0.07 0.967 0.946 0.959
Stable school cultures 1.679 0.05 0.982 0.957 0.979
Collective teacher efficacy 2.691 0.08 0.931 0.897 0.953
Full model 2.486 0.07 0.926 0.917 0.901

Table 3. Result of the structural model with controls.

Standardized Standard
Relationship solutions error t-value

Path 1 Transformational leadership ! flexible school culture 0.747 0.092 10.313***

Path 2 Transactional leadership ! stable school culture 0.588 0.068 9.010***
Path 3 Transformational leadership ! collective teacher 0.303 0.519 0.705
efficacy
Path 4 Transactional leadership ! collective teacher efficacy 0.222 0.380 0.583
Path 5 Flexible school culture ! collective teacher efficacy 0.04 0.253 0.148
Path 6 Stable school culture ! collective teacher efficacy 0.05 0.204 0.238
Control Teacher age ! collective teacher efficacy 0.208 0.037 2.728***
path 7
Control School location ! collective teacher efficacy 0.087 0.093 1.161***
path 8

Note: ***statistically significant at p ¼ 0.001.

value occurred for Path 3 (TRF ! CTE: b ¼ 0.303) and Path 4 (TRA ! CTE: b ¼ 0.222). Path 5
showed a non-significant effect of flexible school culture on CTE (b ¼ 0.04). A non-significant
relationship was also found for Path 6, indicating that stable school culture does not have an effect on
CTE (b ¼ 0.05). On control Path 7, teacher age had a significant negative relationship with CTE
(Teacher age ! CTE: b ¼ 0.208), as well as on control Path 8, where school location had a
significant negative relationship with CTE (School location ! CTE: b ¼ 0.087).
Aiming to test the differences in collective efficacy beliefs in relation to teacher age and school
location (see Tables 4 and 5), we applied a post-hoc Mann–Whitney U test. Post-hoc analyses
showed that teachers from the age groups 25–34 years and 35–44 years have significantly higher
scores in GC than teachers from the age groups 45–54 years and 55–65 years. In TA scores,
teachers from the age groups 25–34 years and 35–44 years have statistically significant higher
scores than teachers from the age group 55–65 years. Also, statistically significant differences in
collective efficacy beliefs exist in respect to school location. Teachers from urban schools score
higher in GC than teachers from rural schools. There were no statistically significant differences in
TA between teachers from urban and rural schools.
In general, the results have offered some important conclusions. Transformational principals as
agents of change support the development of flexible school cultures that encourage and motivate
230
Table 4. Differences in collective teacher efficacy in relation to teacher age.

Effect size
Teacher age n Mean rank ␹2 df p U Z P (Cohen’s d)

Group competence) (1) 25 – 34 69 126.25 13.676 3 0.003* 2044.500 0.591 0.555 (1–2)
(2) 35 - 44 63 121.17
(3) 45  54 43 89.33 1007.500 2.861 0.004* (1–3) 0.56
940.000 2.689 0.007* (2–3) 0.54
(4) 55 65 46 94.47 1140.000 2.563 0.010* (1–4) 0.49
1094.000 2.197 0.028* (2–4) 0.43
947.500 0.343 0.732 (3–4)
Task analysis (1) 25 – 34 69 125.57 12.612 3 0.006* 2028.000 0.666 0.505 (1–2)
(2) 35  44 63 118.53
(3) 45  54 43 104.35 1191.500 1.755 0.079 (1–3)
1174.500 1.164 0.245 (2–3)
(4) 55 65 46 85.04 1019.000 3.261 0.001* (1–4) 0.63
1009.000 2.711 0.007* (2–4) 0.53
803.000 1.536 0.125 (3–4)

Note: Significant at the 5% level.

 Table 5. Differences in collective teacher efficacy in relation to school location.

School Effect size

location N Mean rank ␹2 df p U Z P (Cohen’s d)

Group competence Urban 170 126.93 10.722 1 0.001* 4007.500 3.274 0.001* 0.43
Rural 65 94.65
Task analysis Urban 170 120.52 0.850 3 0.357 5097.000 0.922 0.357
Rural 65 111.42
Note: Significant at the 5% level.

231
232 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 51(1)

teachers to build their capacities by working on personal development and encouraging their
participation in school activities. Similarly, transactional principals contribute to the development
of stable school cultures, which promote values of stability, status quo, and predictability. Inter-
estingly, neither of the types of school leadership and school culture affect efficacy beliefs, which,
possibly, operate on a more complex level and are dependent on a variety of influences outside
schools. Empirical findings from the quantitative analysis show that efficacy beliefs are dependent
on influences related to the local communities in which schools are situated (e.g. urban vs. rural)
and also on teacher characteristics (e.g. teacher age).
The quantitative findings align with the concept of “repressing leadership”, previously
addressed by Kan and Parry (2004). Even though teachers perceive school principals as transfor-
mational or transactional leaders, they are “unable to realize their potential for identifiable lead-
ership impact” (Kan and Parry, 2004: 477). As in the study by Kan and Parry (2004), principal
leadership did not manifest as readily in this environment as one would have expected. Therefore,
objective interpretation of effective leadership in a changing environment is affected by factors
other than leaders’ behavior, which in our case relates to possible contextual influences (e.g.
institutional context, transition, and type of reform policy) that fail to activate the causal potential
of leadership behaviors as mechanisms for change, and also socio-demographic variables such as
teacher age and school location. It is possible that stable school cultures as mechanisms of social
control are not exhibiting influence on teacher efficacy beliefs because stability is dependent on
repressed transactional leadership practices, particularly those related to limited comprehensive
reward systems, excessive dependence of schools on government funding, inadequate infrastruc-
ture, and limited principal autonomy in the financial domain. School culture is an important factor
affecting teacher behaviors and attitudes, but its influence might be limited in schools where
principals and teachers struggle with scarce resources. A similar finding was reported by Radišić
(2012) in a qualitative study on Serbian teachers’ competences for implementing change.
Another important finding is the evidence linked to intergenerational differences in collective
efficacy beliefs. The findings imply that teachers from the age groups 25–34 and 35–44 years have
an optimistic perception of both teacher-related factors and external factors, in contrast to teachers
from the age groups 45–54 and 55–66 years. Considering the context of this research, the shift from
non-democratic to democratic values, and changed curricula in teacher education, we can assume
that teachers from the age groups 25–34 and 35–44 years who have finished their education in a
democratic context nurture a different mindset and attitudes toward change in schools, in contrast
to teachers who graduated during the socialist regime. Intergenerational differences and a lack of
cooperation between teachers from different generations have been previously addressed in the
Serbian educational system by Kovačević (2012).
In addition, school location seems to make a difference to teacher efficacy beliefs, particularly
in GC. Teachers from urban schools scored higher in GC in comparison to teachers from rural
schools. Teachers from urban schools are more confident about group expertise and teaching skills
and have a stronger belief that all students can learn, in contrast to teachers from rural schools.

Contextual effect on leadership practices and relationships with school cultures and CTE
Results of documentary analysis. Data analysis was conducted in CAQDAS QDA Miner v.4. Our
intent behind the rationale for selecting this software was to quantify qualitative data (Sandelowski
et al., 2009) and identify the hierarchical structure and connections between reform themes from
the perspective of policy-makers. Table 6 illustrates the results of the hierarchical cluster analysis.
Kovačević et al.: Examining school leadership in a transitional context 233

Table 6. Clusters* and frequencies of categories of context as found in causal map.

Cluster 1
Procedural– Cluster 2
organizational Collaboration Cluster 3 Cluster 4
reform activities (79) activities (57) Pedagogy (37) Technology (28)

Improvement of the Collaboration with other Continuous education Promotion of

instruction (23) governmental of teachers (10) information
Changes in legislative institutions and unions External evaluation of technology (IT)
framework (19) (30) students in primary innovations in
Principals as managers (11) Collaboration with schools (8) schools (24)
Violations of teacher university (9) Quality control in Collaboration with
employment laws (6) Curriculum revision (8) education (8) other cantons in the
Schools open to external Accountability for student External evaluation of domain of IT
environment (5) performance (5) students in innovations in the
Retirement procedures (5) Resources and secondary schools classroom (4)
Teachers’ working infrastructure (5) (6)
rights (5) Issues with teacher
Sick leave and authority (5)
absenteeism (5)

Note: *Hierarchical cluster analysis: Jaccard coefficient used as a similarity measure between reform themes.

Utilization of co-occurrence analysis enabled us to develop a causal map of reform themes, “a

sub-class of cognitive maps that focuses on the representation of causal beliefs – a network of
causal relations embedded in an individual’s (or group’s) statements” (Armstrong, 2004). In this
research, causal maps provide a frame of reference for understanding what policy-makers know
and exhibit about reform activities and what reasoning lies behind concrete actions. While analyz-
ing the causal map as an output of multidimensional scaling, two dimensions were identified,
within which six clusters were distributed, as shown in Figure 2.
By carefully observing and analyzing the map, we agreed that the dimensions are related to
the orientation of reforms (external vs. internal environment) and the priority of change
(substance vs. structure). Four thematic clusters were interrelated with a higher frequency
of categories (cut-off point of at least five frequencies). Large circles illustrate themes with
high frequencies. The proximity of circles indicates the semantic similarity of themes and
proximal circles are clustered together. Our decision was to focus on four interrelated the-
matic clusters, titled: C1, Procedural and organizational activities; C2, Collaboration activi-
ties; C3, Pedagogy and instruction; and C4, Information technology promotion and
implementation.
The most dominant themes in the MoE press releases are related to procedural and organiza-
tional reform activities (f ¼ 79). These themes are strongly related to collaboration reform activ-
ities (f ¼ 57). This finding implies that when the MoE collaborates with other agencies and
institutions in and out of the educational system, such collaborations are mainly related to proce-
dural and organizational aspects of reforms (structure) and are less concerned with pedagogical
aspects of reforms (substance). From the MoE perspective, technology is perceived as the main
driver of reforms and to a lesser degree as the facilitator in support of improved pedagogy. The
234
Figure 2. Causal map of reform activities as perceived by policy-makers.
Kovačević et al.: Examining school leadership in a transitional context 235

Figure 3. A realist analysis of the substantive model of the top-down educational change program.

causal map also revealed that the MoE’s reform perspective is mainly related to the internal
environment.
Figure 3 summarizes the findings from Study 1 and presents a substantive theory of top-down
educational reform based on realist analysis of contextual elements. These findings align with
previous theories and research on a top-down approach to reforms marked by superficiality, and
initiative overload referred to as “initativitis” (Fullan, 2011; Fullan and Miles, 1992), as well as
findings on high pressure and low support for educational change or accountability versus capacity
building (Fullan, 2003). Qualitative inferences from Study 1 indicate that public education reform,
as observed from the perspective of policy-makers in Canton Sarajevo, is an internally oriented,
top-down intervention.

Results of interview analysis. We coded the interview transcripts and conducted coding co-
occurrence analysis. Table 7 illustrates the clusters and frequencies of categories of leadership
mechanisms and context, as found in the causal maps using hierarchical clustering.
236 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 51(1)

Table 7. Clusters* and frequencies of categories of mechanisms as found in causal map.

Cluster 1: Principal leadership practices Cluster 2: Upper echelon leadership

(f ¼ 132) (SQG) (f ¼ 62)

RO: Development of school culture (36) CR: Lack of Ministry of Education’s financial support/
DP: Intellectual stimulation (19) rationalization (27) ***
SD: Articulating high-expectations (17) IIP: Lack of instructional support (19)
DP: Individualized consideration (16) Policy-makers’ low trust–high control (16) **
RO: Participative decision-making (16)
SD: Setting objectives (15)
DP: Principal as a role model (13)
Notes: RO, redesigning organization; DP, developing people; SD, setting directions; CR, contingent rewarding; IIP, improving
the instructional program; SQG, status quo guradian.
* hierarchical cluster analysis: Jaccard coefficient used as a similarity measure between reform themes; ** emerging/
inductive theme; ***inductive theme, expansion of deductive CR dimension.

The most frequent theme emerging from the interviews with the principals relates to the
importance of principal transformational practices in the process of developing school cultures
(f ¼ 36). The theme that follows is the lack of MoE financial support to schools (f ¼ 27),
intertwined with rationalization and centralization policy on a system level. The hierarchical
clustering technique enabled us to identify two domains of leadership in the educational
system from the perspective of school principals: cluster 1 – school leadership (f ¼ 132);
and cluster 2 – system-level leadership (f ¼ 62). The follow-up multidimensional scaling
generated a two-dimensional multidimensional scaling model, yielding values of Kruskal
stress (Ks ¼ 0.16970) and explained variance (R 2 ¼0.9351). These results indicate
goodness-of-fit within the multidimensional graphic projection.
The findings from the interviews show that, from the perspective of school principals,
tensions arise on different levels of leadership within the educational system. School princi-
pals consider themselves as primus inter pares, having autonomy over transformational prac-
tices as mechanisms for driving change in schools. In interviews, principals revealed that they
initiate change through the development of flexible, egalitarian, participative, and innovative
school cultures. At the same time, they expressed concern about feeling overburdened with
newly appointed accountability pressure and administrative responsibilities created by top-
down policy. Principals believe that transactional leadership practices (contingent rewarding
and improving the instructional program) are constrained by upper echelon leadership on a
system level. As principals participating in interviews have outlined, such system leadership is
characterized by a lack of MoE financial support and the low-trust/high-control attitude of the
MoE. Low-trust/high-control system leadership sets limits on principals’ autonomy in pro-
viding instructional support to teachers. The imbalance between simultaneous practicing of
transactional and transformational leadership behaviors limits the overall effectiveness of
principals as leaders. The analysis of school principals’ narratives also revealed that in the
top-down reform policy context, principals struggle with strong subcultures of teachers who
oppose change and are difficult to manage without leadership autonomy in contingent reward-
ing. As reported by principals, teacher subcultures tend to create toxic environments in
schools, thereby contributing to inertia among teachers, who experience aversion towards
change and innovation during reforms.
Kovačević et al.: Examining school leadership in a transitional context 237

Discussion
In this mixed-method study, we combined three sets of results from quantitative and qualitative
approaches to develop meta-inferences and gain a better understanding of principal leadership
practices and school cultures as mechanisms for influencing CTE during educational reform in
Bosnia and Herzegovina. As in the case of the concurrent mixed-methods design developed by
Jang et al. (2008), the results of the independent analyses embedded in the concurrent mixed-
methods design have provided evidence for overlapping and different aspects of, in our case, the
characteristics of school and system leadership and school cultures as mechanisms that have the
potential to drive change in the school context.

Limitations of the studies

We wish to address the main limitations of this research. First, the design of the quantitative study
is cross-sectional and therefore provides only a snapshot of school processes and variables during
large-scale reform. Hence, it is unable to provide a fine-grained and comprehensive picture of how
the reform impacts leadership and other school variables. Second, this study was conducted in one
decentralized unit in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Canton Sarajevo), and thus we acknowledge that
findings may not be generalized across all cantons and entities. In addition, Canton Sarajevo is
characterized by a higher proportion of secondary teachers working in urban schools, which
resulted in an unbalanced sample of urban and rural teachers in this study. Third, the current
research does not close the circle (Hallinger and Liu, 2016), as it takes into consideration leader-
ship practices and school variables on emotional and organizational paths, but does not measure
student learning. Finally, it is important to outline that we have focused our efforts on investigating
the influence of institutional context on school leadership and school culture primarily as mechan-
isms for reform that may or may not trigger change in teacher behavior in a top-down policy
context. Therefore, we acknowledge that the relationship between school leadership, school cul-
ture, and collective teacher efficacy might be reciprocal.

Interpretation and implications of the study

The main objective of this study was to explore leadership practices and school cultures as
mechanisms of change during large-scale reform in post-socialist transitional countries.
The documentary analysis revealed that policy-makers in Canton Sarajevo perceive educational
reform as an internally oriented top-down intervention. Policy-makers assign priority to structural
aspects of reforms, namely organizational and procedural activities. Such reform is characterized
by superficiality, initiative overload, rationalization, centralization, and by prioritizing the change
in the system’s structure.
Analysis of the interview transcripts revealed how two leadership domains that exist simulta-
neously, school leadership and system leadership, are in fact contradictory. From the principals’
perspective, school leadership is characterized by transformational practices, while transactional
practices are repressed by higher-order leadership on a system level. The findings from the inter-
views suggest that top-down policy and centralization limits the autonomy of principals in pro-
viding instructional support as well as contingent rewarding. These findings overlap and
complement findings from the survey. Policy-makers as higher-order leaders are predominantly
focused on rationalization and centralization initiatives, thereby repressing integration of the
238 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 51(1)

transformational and transactional leadership potential of school principals as change agents in

schools. A similar top-down policy context has been identified by authors from other transitional
southeast European countries, including Croatia (Kovač et al., 2014) and Serbia (Pantić and Čekić-
Marković, 2012), that also inherited systems of education from Yugoslavia.
The analysis of the survey data is in line with findings from the interviews, showing that
transformational leadership practices significantly influence the development of flexible school
cultures oriented towards change and innovation, while transactional leadership practices influ-
ence the development of stable school cultures oriented towards stability and the status quo.
Results from the quantitative analysis suggest neither flexible nor stable school cultures as
mechanisms of change significantly influence teacher efficacy beliefs. In order to substantiate
these findings, we turned to the interview data. During interviews, newly appointed principals
described how they are proactive in promoting innovation and egalitarian and collaborative values
in schools. Principals believe such an approach is necessary because educational reform requires
more collective effort and interdisciplinary teamwork in implementing initiatives promoted by top-
down reform. However, the principals acknowledged that some teachers oppose the fast pace of
changes. When asked how teachers perceive new cultural norms, principals confirmed that they
often experience conflict and tensions with and between teachers. Principals explained that such
conflicts are a consequence of changing cultural norms and are in fact a manifestation of existing
teacher subcultures (e.g. teacher age or expertise and the subject they teach) that are opposed to
top-down policy messages, initiatives introduced by policy-makers, new technology, values and
norms. The quantitative findings showed that, apart from top-down policy pressure, two important
factors need to be taken into consideration when analyzing teacher efficacy beliefs in times of
educational change in transitional countries: intergenerational differences; and local context of
schools. As the documentary analysis showed, top-down policy marked by too many disconnected
initiatives creates additional pressure and a sense of disorientation and stress in teachers. Contem-
porary educational policies, pedagogical innovation, and technology-savvy solutions in schools are
aiming to transform schools and teacher-centric classrooms into cohesive and collaborative envir-
onments. However, not all teachers respond to such changes in unison.
Teachers from the age groups 25–34 and 35–44 years in Canton Sarajevo have demonstrated
higher scores in collective efficacy beliefs in comparison to experienced teachers, implying that
teachers from the age groups 25–34 and 35–44 years have optimistic beliefs about the ability of the
school as a whole in times of change, which may result in higher motivation for implementing
change. This should come as no surprise, considering that younger teachers in Canton Sarajevo
have completed their teacher education in a changed socio-political and technological context, and
under a changing educational system. Low autonomy, low levels of collaboration, fear of change,
and low teacher participation in educational leadership are learned behaviors from socialism and
should be observed as the fundamental obstacles to further development toward contemporary
educational standards (Kovač and Buchberger, 2014). Pantić et al. (2011) note that in socialist
Yugoslavia individual autonomy of teachers was significantly constrained by centrally prescribed
curricula and by the use of centrally approved and produced textbooks. Also, teacher preservice
education was heavily focused on disciplinary knowledge and to a less extent on building teachers’
skills and competences. It follows that teachers from older age groups have inherited a heavy
burden from the socialist educational system. Thus, their lower scores in efficacy beliefs indicate
that they doubt collective capacities in times of change, might fear change and initiatives that
require collaboration, and do not consider themselves as change agents but instead as status quo
guardians and therefore might oppose transformative policy messages. Muhammad calls this
Kovačević et al.: Examining school leadership in a transitional context 239

experienced group of teachers Fundamentalists, who are “relentless in their attempts to discourage
change and protect a system that has allowed them to function and thrive and they organize to
protect this traditional way of practice” (Muhammad, 2018: 77).
Continuous resistance and negative beliefs might pervade the school culture (Donohoo et al.,
2018). Hence, school leaders who aim to develop healthy school cultures must understand the
motives and actions of Fundamentalists (Muhammad, 2018). In such conditions, an important lever
for shaping culture and managing through social control is a comprehensive reward system (O’Reilly
and Chatman, 1996), directly related to transactional leadership practices which are, in our case,
repressed by a top-down reform agenda and system leadership with an exploitation-oriented mindset.
Even though school principals are successful in developing flexible school cultures through trans-
formational leadership practices, the repressed or inactivated mechanism of transactional practices
undermines the influence of both flexible and stable school cultures on collective efficacy beliefs.
This happens because school principals in top-down reform contexts do not have autonomy over
comprehensive reward systems that are seen as fair and emphasize recognition, approval, and
individual and collective contributions (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1996). From a realist point of view,
our research shows the ways in which contextual influences disable the activation of transactional
leadership practices and school cultures as mechanisms for change and social control.
The combined findings suggest that leadership in the educational system of Canton Sarajevo is a
multilevel phenomenon. Top-down reform policy is characterized by rationalization, an
exploitation-oriented mindset, and low-trust/high-control behavior. The top-down approach to
reforming education and low-trust/high-control leadership of policy-makers represses the leader-
ship potential of school principals as change agents in adequate resource allocation and develop-
ment of cohesive school environments resilient to the toxicity of teacher subcultures and resistance
to change. However, we must bear in mind that collective efficacy beliefs are a complex phenom-
enon dependent on many factors, as Hattie (2016) argues, not just on school-related factors. Our
findings suggest that intergenerational differences and the school’s local community might play an
important role in teacher efficacy beliefs in transitional education systems.

Practical implications
In terms of practical implications, we hope that the findings from this research will help principals
and policy-makers in post-socialist and post-communist countries alike, where school leadership and
school improvement have been under-investigated. In a broader sense, this research highlights the
importance of contextual influences and the consequences of not striking a balance between pressure
for change and collective capacity building during large-scale reforms. It illustrates how unfavorable
contextual conditions created by top-down reform fail to activate full leadership potential for build-
ing collective capacities for change in schools. In the words of Michael Fullan himself:

Attempting to replicate the reform itself inevitably violates some of the very conditions that render
certain innovations successful in the first place . . . . it is the conditions which give rise to the reform in
the first place that should be replicated. (Fullan, 1999: 64–65)

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
240 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 51(1)

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Jasna Kovačević https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6060-2298

Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References
Addi-Raccah A and Gavish Y (2010) The LEA’s role in a decentralized school system: The school principals’
view. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 38(2): 184–201.
Alfirević N, Burušić J, Pavičić J and Relja R (2016) School effectiveness and educational management:
Toward a new research and public-policy agenda. In: Alfirević N, Burušić J, Pavičić J and Relja R (eds)
School Effectiveness and Educational Management: Towards a South-Eastern Europe Research and
Public Policy Agenda. Split, Croatia: University of Split, Faculty of Economics, Faculty of Humanities
and Social Sciences, 145–150.
Anchan JP, Fullan M and Polyzoi E (2003) Change Forces in Post-Communist Eastern Europe: Education in
Transition. Abingdon: Routledge.
Anderson JC and Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended
two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 411.
Armstrong DJ (2004) Causal mapping: A discussion and demonstration. In: Narayanan VK (ed.) Causal
Mapping for Research in Information Technology. Hershey: IGI Global.
Bamberger M (2012) Introduction to mixed methods in impact evaluation. Impact Evaluation Notes 3(3):
1–38.
Bandura A (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bar-Tal D and Cehajic-Clancy S (2014) From Collective Victimhood to Social Reconciliation: Outlining a
Conceptual Framework. In: Spini D, Elcheroth G and Corkalo Biruski D (eds) War, Community, and
Social Change. New York: Springer New York, 125–136.
Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass BM (1990) From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organiza-
tional Dynamics 18(3): 19–31.
Bass BM (1997) Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and
national boundaries? American Psychologist 52(2): 130–139.
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F and Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural
adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25(24): 3186–3191.
Birzea C (1994) Educational Policies of the Countries in Transition. Europe: Council of Europe Press.
Bojkov VD (2003) Democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Post-1995 political system and its funcioning.
Southeast European Politics 4(1): 41–67.
Bowen GA (2009) Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal 9(2):
27–40.
Bridges EM (1977) The nature of leadership. In: Cunningham L, Hack W and Nysrand R (eds) Educational
Administration: The Developing Decades. Berkeley: McCutchan, pp. 202–230.
Kovačević et al.: Examining school leadership in a transitional context 241

Bush T (1999) The vanishing boundaries: The importance of effective external relations. In: Lumby Jacky and
Foskett Nicholas (eds) Managing External Relations in Schools and Colleges: International Dimensions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc, pp. 3–18.
Creswell JW and Plano Clark VL (2007) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. CA: Sage.
Donohoo J, Hattie J and Eells R (2018) The power of collective efficacy. Educational Leadership 75(6):
40–44.
Farrell AM (2010) Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu (2009).
Journal of Business Research 63(3): 324–327.
Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50.
Fullan M (1999) Change Forces: The Sequel. London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
Fullan M (2003) The dynamic forces of change. In: Anchan JP, Fullan M and E Polyzo (eds) Change Forces
in Post-Communist Eastern Europe: Education in Transition. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 25–32.
Fullan M (2007) The New Meaning of Educational Change. 4th edition. New York: Teachers College Press,
Columbia University.
Fullan M (2011) Choosing the Wrong Drivers for Whole System Reforms. Melbourne: Centre for Strategic
Education.
Fullan M and Miles M (1992) Getting reform right: what works and what doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan 73(10):
745–752.
Gioia Da and Chittipeddi K (1991) Sensemaking and senseginving in strategic change initiation. Strategic
Management Journal 12(6): 433–448.
Glaser BG and Strauss AL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
Goddard R (2002) A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of collective efficacy: The
development of a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement 62(1): 97–110.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ and Anderson RE (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th edition. London: Pearson.
Hallinger P and Liu S (2016) Leadership and teacher learning in urban and rural schools in China: Meeting the
dual challenges of equity and effectiveness. International Journal of Educational Development 51:
163–173.
Hattie J (2016) Mindframes and maximizers. In: 3 rd Annual Visible Learning Conference. Washington, DC,
July 6, 2020—July 9, 2020.
Herche J, Swenson MJ and Verbeke W (1996) Personal selling constructs and measures: Emic versus etic
approaches to cross-national research. European Journal of Marketing 30(7): 83–97.
Hu LT and Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6(1): 1–55.
Jang EE, McDougall DE, Pollon D, Herbert M and Russell P (2008) Integrative mixed methods data analytic
strategies in research on school success in challenging circumstances. Journal of Mixed Methods Research
2(3): 221–247.
Kalliath TJ, Bluedorn aC and Gillespie DF (1999) A confirmatory factor analysis of the competing values
instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement 59(1): 143–158
Kan MM and Parry KW (2004) Identifying paradox: A grounded theory of leadership in overcoming resis-
tance to change. The Leadership Quarterly 15(4): 467–491.
Keshavarz N, Nutbeam D, Rowling L and Khavarpour F (2010) Schools as social complex adaptive systems:
A new way to understand the challenges of introducing the health promoting schools concept. Social
Science & Medicine 70(10): 1467–1474.
242 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 51(1)

Komatsu T (2013) Why do policy leaders adopt global education reforms? A political analysis of SBM
reform adoption in post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina. Education Policy Analysis Archives 21:
1–16.
Kovač V and Buchberger I (2014) Collaboration of schools and external stakeholders. Sociologija i Prostor
51(3): 523–545.
Kovač V, Rafajac B, Buchberger I and Močibob M (2014) Obrazovna politika iz perspektive hrvatskih
učitelja i nastavnika [Educational policy from the perspective of Croatian teachers]. Napredak 155(3):
161–184. [In Croation].
Kovačević J, Rahimić Z and Šehić D (2018) Policy makers’ rhetoric of educational change: a critical analysis.
Journal of Educational Change 19(3): 375–417.
Kovačević M (2012) Saradnja nastavnika unutar kolektiva [Teacher cooperation within the collective.] In:
Pantić N and Čekić-Marković J (eds) Nastavnici u Srbiji: Stavovi o profesiji i o reformama u obrazovanju
[Teachers in Serbia: Attitudes Towards the Profession and about Reforms in Education]. Belgrade Serbia:
Centar za obrazovne politike Beograd, pp. 50–73. [In Serbian].
Lam LW (2012) Impact of competitiveness on salespeople’s commitment and performance. Journal of
Business Research 65(9): 1328–1334.
Leithwood K (1994) Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly 30(4):
498–518.
Leithwood K and Jantzi D (2000) The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and
student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration 38(2): 112–129.
Leithwood K and Jantzi D (2005) A review of transformational school leadership research 1996–2005.
Leadership and Policy in Schools 4(3): 177–199.
Leithwood K and Sun J (2012) The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic
review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly 48(3): 387–423.
Leithwood K, Sun J and Pollock K (2017) How School Leaders Contribute to Student Success: The Four
Paths Framework. Springer International Publishing.
Loogma K, Tafel-Viia K and Ümarik M (2013) Conceptualising educational changes: A social innovation
approach. Journal of Educational Change 14(3): 283–301.
Lynn MR (1986) Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research 35(6): 382–385.
Maitlis S (2005) The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal
48(1): 21–49.
Marshall M (1996) Key informant technique. Family Practice 13(1): 92–97.
Muhammad A (2018) Transforming School Culture: How to Overcome Staff Division. 2nd edition. Bloo-
mington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Ninkovic SR and Knezevic Floric OC (2016) Transformational school leadership and teacher self-efficacy as
predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy. Educational Management Administration & Leader-
ship 46(1): 49–64.
O’Reilly C (1989) Corporations, culture, and commitment: Motivation and social control in organizations.
California Management Review 31(4): 9–25.
O’Reilly CA and Chatman JA (1996) Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and commitment. In:
Staw BM and Cummings LL (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical
Essays and Critical Reviews. Vol. 18. Elsevier Science/JAI Press, pp. 157–200.
Pantić N and Čekić-Marković J (eds) (2012) Nastavnici u Srbiji: Stavovi o profesiji i o reformama u
obrazovanju [Teachers in Serbia: Attitudes Towards the Profession and about Reforms in Education].
Belgrade Serbia: Centar za obrazovne politike Beograd. [In Serbian].
Kovačević et al.: Examining school leadership in a transitional context 243

Pantić N, Wubbels T and Mainhardt T (2011) Teacher competence as a basis for teacher education: Compar-
ing views of teachers and teacher educators in five western Balkan countries. Comparative Education
Review 55(2): 165–188.
Pasalic Kreso A (2008) The war and post-war impact on the educational system of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
International Review of Education 54(3–4): 353–374.
Pawar BS (2003) Central conceptual issues in transformational leadership research. Leadership & Organi-
zation Development Journal 24(7): 397–406.
Pawson R and Tilley N (1997) Realistic Evaluation. New York: SAGE Publishing.
Plano-Clark V and Creswell JW (2014) Understanding Research: A Consumer’s Guide. 2nd ed. Pearson
Higher Education.
Polyzoi E (2003) Harnessing the forces of change: Educational transformation in Russia. In: Anchan JP,
Fullan M and Polyzoi E (eds) Change Forces in Post-Communist Eastern Europe: Education in Transi-
tion. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 35–55.
Polyzoi E and Cerna (2003) Forces affecting the implementation of educational change in the Czech Repub-
lic: A dynamic model. In: Anchan JP, Fullan M and Polyzoi E (eds) Change Forces in Post-Communist
Eastern Europe: Education in Transition. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 56–76.
Polyzoi E and Černa M (2001) Focus on educational change and globalization: A dynamic model of forces
affecting the implementation of educational change in the Czech Republic. Comparative Education
Review 45(1): 64–84.
Quinn RE and Rohrbaugh J (1981) A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness. Public
Productivity Review 5(2): 122–140.
Quinn RE and Rohrbaugh J (1983) A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values
approach to organizational analysis. Management Science 29(3): 363–377.
Radišić J (2012) Kompetencije nastavnika za sprovod̄enje promena i unapred̄ivanje sistema obrazovanja
[Teacher competencies for implementing changes and improving the education system]. In: Pantić N and
Čekić-Marković J (eds) Nastavnici u Srbiji: Stavovi o profesiji i o reformama u obrazovanju. [Teachers in
Serbia: Attitudes Towards the Profession and about Reforms in Education.] Centar za obrazovne politike
Beograd, pp. 74–90.
Rado P (2001) Transition in Education: Policy Making and the Key Educational Policy Areas in the Central-
European and Baltic Countries. New York: Open Society Institute.
Sandelowski M, Voils CI and Knafl G (2009) On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 3(3):
208–222.
Teddlie C and Yu F (2007) Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research 1(1): 77–100.
Teodorović J, Stanković D, Bodroža B, Milin V and Ðerić I (2016) Education policymaking in Serbia through
the eyes of teachers, counselors, and principals. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability
28(4): 347–375.
Torrance H (2012) Triangulation, respondent validation, and democratic participation in mixed methods
research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 6(2): 111–123.
Tremblay M-A (1957) The key informant technique: A nonethnographic application. American Anthropol-
ogist 59(4): 688–701.
Tuthill EL, Butler LM, McGrath JM, et al. (2014) Cross-cultural adaptation of instruments assessing breast-
feeding determinants: a multi-step approach. International Breastfeeding Journal. 9(1): 16.
van Knippenberg D and Sitkin SB (2013) A critical assessment of charismatic–transformational leadership
research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals 7(1): 1–60.
244 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 51(1)

Vican D, Alfirević N and Pavičić J (2019) Croatian policy and experience in developing educational
leadership and management: Work in progress, or a failed experiment? In: Hjörtur Ingþórsson Á,
Alfirević N, Pavičić J and Vican D (eds) Educational Leadership in Policy. Berlin: Springer Interna-
tional, pp. 221–244.
Wanat CL (2008) Getting past the gatekeepers: Differences between access and cooperation in public school
research. Field Methods 20(2): 191–208.
Weick KE (1988) Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations1. Journal of Management Studies 25(4): 305–317.
White JW and Lowenthal PR (2009) The cyclical rhetoric of educational reform and the rationalization of a
failed zeitgeist. JEP: eJournal of Education Policy 5.
Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G and Pawson R (2012) Realist methods in medical education research:
What are they and what can they contribute? Medical Education 46(1): 89–96.
Yukl G (1999) An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology 8(1): 33–48.

Author biographies
Jasna Kovačević is an assistant professor, working at the Department of Management and Orga-
nization, School of Economics and Business, University of Sarajevo. Jasna does research and is
interested in Leadership, Educational Leadership and Administration, Organizational Behavior,
Complex Adaptive Systems and Social Psychology.

Alisa Mujkić is a senior teaching assistant at the Department of Marketing, School of Economics
and Business, University of Sarajevo. She has been mainly focused on the research in the field of
Transformational Leadership, Social and Organizational Psychology, while her recent work has
been positioned in the field of Brand Management.

Amra Kapo serves as an assistant professor at the Department of Management Information

Technologies, School of Economics and Business, University of Sarajevo. In her work, Amra
focuses on Management Information Systems, E-learning, Innovation, Continuous Learning, and
Decision Support Systems.