The Influence Personality and Leader Behaviours have on Teacher Self-leadership in Vocational Colleges

Introduction

Higher education leadership has become more important in recent years because of increased industry and government pressures on these institutions to improve performance (Ball, 2007). There has been particular pressure on the vocational education and training sector in Australia to meet the demands of changes in work participation and organization due to globalization, technological innovation and international competition (Marginson, 2000). Vocational education is recognized as an important way to develop a more productive and efficient workforce that will strengthen Australia’s international competitiveness (Cornford, 1999). To achieve this aim, the government has encouraged the entry of private providers, as well as pressuring existing vocational colleges to introduce more business-like practices in the hope of achieving greater efficiencies and improving effectiveness (Chappell, 2001; Mulcahy, 2003). The challenges associated with these changes have required leaders to adopt more transformational behaviours (Adams and Gamage, 2008), such as the development and communication of a vision that inspires teachers to commit to the change process and to perform beyond expectations (Bass, 1985). The augmenting effect of transformational leadership however, is possible only if transactional leadership also occurs whereby teachers are also rewarded for meeting performance standards (MacKenzie et al., 2001).

The restructuring of the vocational education and training system in Australia over the last decade has also meant major changes for the sector’s teachers in the way they think about and undertake their work. The implementation of competency based education and training, an increased emphasis on workplace learning, changes in assessment methods and the establishment of national curricula have placed new demands on teachers, including their relationships with their students. Teachers involved in vocational education and training differ from other teachers in that they are often industry practitioners, as well as educationalists. This dual identity requires them to demonstrate industry relevance while, at the same time, meeting educational objectives (Chappell, 2001). Meeting these objectives in the face of widespread changes in industry has placed unprecedented demands on teachers’ motivation and ability to manage their behaviour. It has also forced them to work harder, resulting in increased stress (Mulcahy, 2003). All of these factors mean that, if vocational colleges are to achieve their goals in an increasingly volatile environment, effective leadership is necessary at all levels (Falk, 2003; Falk and Smith, 2003).

Self-leadership, which has been defined as ‘the process of influencing oneself to establish the self-direction and self-motivation needed to perform’ (Neck et al., 1995: 281), is one particular approach that may help, as practising self-leadership can lead to improved performance through an increase in the person’s self-efficacy, or belief they can perform a particular task (Bandura, 1977; Prussia et al., 1998). Important organizational outcomes have been linked to self-leadership, including improved performance, commitment, innovation, trust and job satisfaction (Neck and Houghton, 2006; Saks and Ashforth, 1996). Self-leadership is thought to be particularly beneficial when the work requires a significant investment of intellectual capital (Bligh et al., 2006), such as is the case in educational settings. It is also believed to be helpful when teamwork is required (for example, as in research projects or curriculum development), provided there is a common vision and set of values to guide people (Ball, 2007). The quality of the education and training that is delivered is also believed to be influenced by the practice of self-leadership (Semerci et al., 2010). Teacher self-leadership is, therefore, likely to be important to the effective delivery of vocational education and training in Australia.

While the conceptual foundation of self-leadership has received considerable research attention in management, the practice of self-leadership in educational settings has not (Ball, 2007; Houghton and Neck, 2002; Neck and Houghton, 2006). Within the management literature there has been continued calls for researchers to investigate the influence of personality on self-leadership, including in a recent review (Houghton et al., 2004; Neck and Houghton, 2006; Stewart et al., 2011). Transformational leader behaviours have also been identified as potentially influencing self-leadership (Yun et al., 2006) and the effectiveness of vocational colleges (Adams and Gamage, 2008). Managers create conditions under which people can be rewarded for using their self-leadership skills and they act as visible role models for others (Pearce and Manz, 2005). For these reasons, we examined the influence of personality and leader behaviours on teacher self-leadership in a vocational college.

The article is organized as follows. First, we provide an overview of the strategies included in self-leadership. Next, we present our hypotheses and discuss how personality and transformational and transactional leader behaviours may influence self-leadership. This is followed by a description of the method used in the study and the results obtained. The article concludes with some suggestions about future research directions and a discussion of the practical implications for teachers in Australia and elsewhere.

Teacher Self-leadership

Teacher self-leadership includes a set of individual cognitive and behavioural strategies that, when practised together, help to establish the self-direction and self-motivation needed to perform (Neck and Manz, 1992). Self-leadership can promote more effective practice because it provides teachers with a set of tools (such as goal-setting, positive self-talk and visualization), which they can use to improve their personal effectiveness and performance. However, Manz and Neck (2004) observed that college teachers often practise ineffective self-leadership by setting unrealistic goals, being too self-critical and engaging in dysfunctional thought patterns. Practising self-leadership can also act as an example for others and have a positive influence on perceptions of a teacher’s authenticity and integrity (Fields, 2007). As such, self-leadership is considered to be a normative concept that is founded on, but conceptually distinct from theories of self-regulation, social cognitive, self-control and intrinsic motivation that help explain how and why self-leadership strategies can be effective (Neck and Houghton, 2006).

The concept of teacher self-leadership also differs from teacher leadership, which is focused on empowering others to take on leadership roles and encouraging them to work together to improve educational practices (Muijs and Harris, 2003). It also differs from reflective practice, which is focused more specifically on improving teaching methods and student outcomes by reflecting on current and past teaching experiences (Schön, 1983). However, self-leadership also complements reflective practice because it can promote positive reflection and subsequent action by providing teachers with a set of practical strategies, including self-observation and constructive thinking that can be used to learn from past experiences in order to improve future performance. Indeed, Boss and Sims (2008) argue that people who engage in self-leadership are able to move on more quickly from failure.

Self-leadership strategies are usually grouped into three broad categories, which have been termed behaviour-focused, natural rewards and constructive thought patterns (Manz and Neck, 2004; Manz and Sims, 2001). Behaviour-focused strategies include self-goal-setting, self-observation, cueing, self-reward and self-punishment (Manz and Neck, 2004). Self-goal-setting is an essential first step in self-leadership, in which the initiative for setting a goal, as well as its difficulty, is determined by the teacher, rather than a supervisor (Sims and Lorenzi, 1992). For goal setting to be effective it needs to be combined with self-observation, which involves becoming more aware of the causes of our behaviour with a view to changing ineffective patterns. The emphasis in self-observation is on tracking progress towards a goal and it includes non-classroom activities, as well as teaching. By observing their own behaviour and its causes, teachers have the necessary information to manage themselves and their performance more effectively, independent of their supervisor. For example, skills in self-observation were developed in a group of mining employees by having them record their intentions (pre-behaviour) and self-observations (post-behaviour) in relation to the wearing of safety equipment on a customized self-monitoring form (Hickman and Geller, 2003).

Cueing strategies, whereby the teacher deliberately alters cues in the work environment in order to facilitate desired behaviours and eliminate undesirable ones, may also help with goal achievement. In education, this might include using objects to remind the teacher where to focus their attention (for example, a ‘to do’ list), removing negative cues (for example, keeping the door closed to avoid distractions) and increasing positive cues (for example, displaying achievements such as awards on the wall) (Manz and Neck, 2004). Finally, self-reinforcement refers to the self-administration of consequences that increase the strength of the desired behaviour that includes both self-reward and self-punishment. Significant differences in the reported use of the cueing and self-reward strategies were found among teacher candidates at four universities in Turkey (Semerci et al., 2010).

Natural reward strategies emphasize the importance of performing an activity for the intrinsic enjoyment and pleasure from successful task performance (Deci, 1975). In contrast to self-reward and self-punishment strategies, no specific external or self-administered incentives are needed to motivate a person to perform the behaviour. The intrinsic motivation comes from enhanced feelings of competence, self-determination and sense of purpose that accompany the achievement of a task (Deci and Ryan, 1985). Teachers can enhance their self-leadership by building more naturally enjoyable activities into their teaching and by focusing their thoughts on the more rewarding aspects of their job (Manz and Neck, 2004). For example, doing an activity with students outside on a sunny day or organizing regular workplace visits. Teachers may also be able to connect more positively with mundane tasks (for example, providing written feedback) by focusing instead on how students’ understanding will be helped by their constructive comments. Natural rewards are of particular importance in educational institutions because of the relative absence of discretionary rewards for outstanding performance and the intrinsic satisfaction that can arise from making a difference in students’ lives.

Constructive thought patterns involve an ability to engage in functional patterns of thinking including positive self-talk, establishing more rational beliefs and mental imagery of successful performance (Manz, 1986; Manz and Neck, 2004). Positive self-talk can assist teachers to acquire new skills, regulate their emotional state and apply themselves, particularly in the face of failure. This, in turn, leads to increased self-confidence (Manz and Sims, 2001; Sims and Lorenzi, 1992; Williams, 1997). For example, teachers who are overly self-critical may benefit from identifying situations when their self-talk is negative and then practising a more supportive and positive internal dialogue. Over time, positive self-talk can become habitual and it may provide a platform from which teachers are encouraged to take risks and extend themselves by introducing new teaching programmes.

Beliefs are the underlying assumptions upon which a person’s self-talk and other behaviours are based. Through self-observation teachers can alter underlying thought patterns and challenge irrational beliefs and assumptions. Positive self-talk and re-framing can also help them recover more quickly from failure or rejection (Boss and Sims, 2008). Burns (1980) has identified a number of different categories of dysfunctional thinking that can hinder personal effectiveness, including among others, all-or-nothing thinking (that is, seeing things as black or white), mind reading (that is, drawing negative conclusions without adequate evidence), negative labelling (for example, ‘I am a failure’, ‘He is a difficult student’), catastrophizing (that is, exaggerating how bad something is) and fortune telling (that is, anticipating that things will turn out badly). Replacing these dysfunctional beliefs with more positive thoughts may have a positive influence on teachers’ confidence and motivation to perform.

Mental imagery involves purposefully generating constructive mental images (Manz and Sims, 2001) so as to change thinking and behaviour, and improve performance. Mental imagery (for example, visualizing giving an engaging lecture) has been less commonly used to improve performance in organizational settings, despite its successful use in other domains, including sport psychology, counselling and clinical psychology (Neck and Manz, 1992). Of particular interest is the potential use of mental imagery to improve communication skills, given their importance for teaching and learning. Visualizing performing a specific communication behaviour (for example, giving praise, showing appreciation) helped to improve the communication skills of employees in a pulp mill (Morin and Latham, 2000).

The Personality of Teachers

Although self-leadership strategies can be learned (Houghton et al., 2004; Stewart et al., 1996), personality may influence the extent to which teachers practise self-leadership (Gerhardt et al., 2007; Williams, 1997) and the success of training interventions (Stewart et al., 1996). Personality traits that may influence self-leadership include locus of control, general self-efficacy, extraversion, emotional stability, conscientiousness, self-esteem and self-monitoring (Anderson and Prussia, 1997; Neck and Houghton, 2006; Williams, 1997). We examine locus of control, general self-efficacy and conscientiousness because believing you can control outcomes, execute the required behaviours and organize your environment to achieve the goal are fundamental to the self-leadership process.

Locus of control is a personality trait referring to the extent to which people believe what happens to them is within their control (Rotter, 1966). Individuals with an internal locus of control believe they are in control of the events and outcomes they experience in their lives. Conversely, those with an external locus of control believe their life events are due mainly to fate or luck and, as such, are beyond their control. Since self-management and self-regulation are central to the self-leadership construct, it follows that a teacher who perceives they control their own choices and behaviours would be more likely to engage in self-leadership (Williams, 1997). Teachers with an internal locus of control should be more likely to engage in behaviour-focused strategies, such as self-observation and self-goal setting. The cognitive processes of teachers with an internal locus of control also make them more likely to engage in positive self-talk and to challenge irrational beliefs they hold about themselves, suggesting:

Originally conceptualized as situation-specific, self-efficacy is ‘the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes’ (Bandura, 1977: 193). Subsequent research, however, has identified a general self-efficacy trait that is relatively stable across situations and that influences task-specific self-efficacy (Watt and Martin, 1994; Woodruff and Cashman, 1993). General self-efficacy has been defined as an ‘individuals’ perception of their ability to perform across a variety of situations’ (Judge et al., 1998: 170). People who are high in general self-efficacy believe they are capable of meeting task demands in a range of contexts. General self-efficacy differs from internal locus of control in that it refers to confidence with respect to behaviours, whereas locus of control refers to confidence in relation to control over outcomes (Judge et al., 1998). Runhaar et al. (2010) found vocational education teachers who had higher self-efficacy were more likely to reflect on their daily experiences and to ask for feedback from those around them. Self-regulation is an inherent aspect of both reflection and feedback seeking behaviours directed at improving performance. Teachers with a higher level of general self-efficacy are therefore more likely to engage in self-leadership strategies, and to gain more from self-leadership training because of their higher metalearning capabilities (Williams, 1997). These findings suggest:

Conscientiousness is ‘a broad trait that is summarized as a stable tendency to be organized, efficient, goal-oriented and persistent’ (Stewart et al., 1996: 146). A conscientious person is often described as dependable, careful, thorough, responsible, organized and well planned (Barrick and Mount, 1991, 2005). Goal setting, observation of progress towards those goals and the reinforcement of desired behaviours are consistent with a highly conscientious person, who is more likely to engage in self-leadership strategies in order to keep their environment organized in order to achieve their goals. Stewart et al. (1996) found the least conscientious employees showed the greatest improvement in self-leadership behaviours as a result of training. Training involved employees developing skills to address difficult, unattractive, but necessary tasks, building natural motivation into work, and establishing constructive thought patterns. Students who scored high on the judging (well planned and organized) dimension of the Myers-Briggs type indicator also rated themselves as more effective self-managers (Williams et al., 1995). Conscientiousness is also positively related to the self-leadership strategies reportedly used by university students (Gerhardt et al., 2007; Houghton et al., 2004). These findings suggest:

Leader Behaviours

Two meta-analyses have found transformational leadership has a positive effect on employees’ job satisfaction, satisfaction with the leader, organizational performance and perceptions of leader effectiveness (Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996). In educational settings, transformational leader behaviours have also been found to affect teachers’ job satisfaction (Bogler, 2001; Griffith, 2004), commitment and efforts towards school reform (Geijsel et al., 2003), student engagement (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2000) and school performance (Barnett and McCormick, 2003; Griffith, 2004). A transformational leader seeks to inspire and motivate others to work towards a common goal (Bass, 1985). Through transformational leadership a leader and a follower can mutually stimulate and elevate each other to higher levels of expectation, motivation, morality and performance (Lowe et al., 1996). Podsakoff et al. (1990) identified six key transformational behaviours, including identifying and articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model (for example, leading by example), fostering the acceptance of group goals, having high performance expectations, providing individualized support to followers and providing intellectual stimulation that challenges followers to think about how they perform their work. As such, transformational leadership has an emphasis on empowering others to solve their own problems. Consistent with prior research that has found these dimensions to be highly correlated (Judge and Bono, 2000; Judge and Piccolo, 2004) transformational leader behaviours are conceptualized as a single construct in the present study.

According to Choi (2006), leaders who empower their followers by giving them more autonomy over task performance can help them to become more self-regulating, resulting in enhanced self-efficacy and greater motivation to exercise self-leadership. In times of change, having a clear sense of purpose can also facilitate the achievement of goals and reduce anxiety (Leider, 1996). Manz (1986) also argues that a powerful vision can foster a sense of purpose, improving employee motivation and commitment to performance and their practise of self-leadership. In a study of vocational colleges in the Netherlands, Runhaar et al. (2010) found that the more teachers perceived their leader as transformational, the more willing they were to ask for feedback from their colleagues, students or manager. Transformational leader behaviours may also have a positive influence on teacher self-leadership because communicating an inspiring vision can foster a sense of purpose and provide clear goals, thereby increasing teachers’ motivation to set their own goals and work towards them. Transformational leaders also serve as role models, encouraging their followers to transcend their self-interests and display leadership behaviours themselves. Finally, individualized support can help strengthen employees’ self-efficacy and, hence, their willingness to practise self-leadership. These finding suggest:

Transactional leadership is founded on the premise that leadership involves ‘an exchange of valued things’ between leaders and followers (Burns, 1978: 19). Bass (1985) has argued that transactional leadership is not about transforming individuals or an organization but, rather, about motivating followers to perform as expected. The leader highlights established performance criteria, including satisfactory outcomes, as well as the rewards followers will receive in exchange for meeting organizational goals and expectations. Transactional leadership provides a critical foundation upon which transformational behaviours can augment the effects of the transactional behaviours (Bass, 1985). Indeed, according to Bass (1999: 21), ‘the best leaders are both transformational and transactional’. One of the main forms of transactional leadership occurs when followers are motivated to do the right thing and meet expectations because they expect to receive a valued reward. A common example of contingent reward behaviour is positive feedback from supervisors in the form of praise or recognition for performing well.

A second form of transactional leadership is known as management by exception (Bass 1985) or contingent punishment (MacKenzie et al., 2001; Podsakoff et al., 1984). This aspect includes negative feedback (for example, criticism) for poor performance or below average productivity. Contingent reward and contingent punishment leader behaviours influence internal cognitive processes through employees’ perceptions of being treated fairly and by clarifying expected standards and performance (MacKenzie et al., 2001; Podsakoff et al., 2006). In education, transactional leader behaviours might be directed at ensuring teaching programs meet external accreditation requirements (Barnett and McCormick, 2003). When teachers know their performance is being monitored and that future rewards and punishments are contingent on meeting expectations, they may be motivated to practise self-leadership to achieve their goals, suggesting:

Purpose of Study

Practising self-leadership has the potential to improve the motivation and performance of teachers in vocational colleges. The purpose of the present study was therefore twofold. First, to examine the personality traits of teachers that facilitate self-leadership and, second, to investigate the influence that leader behaviours have on teacher self-leadership in vocational colleges. In the subsequent section we report on the method that was used to examine these issues.

Method

Results

Results for the confirmatory factor analysis for self-leadership, the three personality factors and the leadership constructs are shown in Table 1. The self-punishment, self-cueing and self-talk sub-scales of the self-leadership scale, which had low loadings (less than 0.50) and correlated error variances, were eliminated during the initial model trimming stage. The final one-factor model of self-leadership with five indicators (that is, self-goal/self-observe, self-reward, mental imagery, evaluate beliefs and natural rewards) had an acceptable fit to the data. Consistent with prior research that has used the TLI instrument (MacKenzie et al., 2001; Podsakoff et al., 1990), the ‘core’ transformational leader behaviours of articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model and fostering the acceptance of group goals were all highly correlated (r > 0.90) in our sample. The final one-factor transformational leader behaviour construct, which had four first order indicators including a ‘core’ transformational behaviour construct, high performance expectations, individualized support and intellectual stimulation, was an acceptable fit to the data [x ² = 29.07 (df = 23), p = 0.18, GFI (AGFI) = 0.98 (0.97), RMSEA (p-close) = 0.02 (0.95)].

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Fit indices for all constructs

Variable	χ 2	d.f.	p	CFI	TLI	GFI (AGFI)	RMSEA (p-close)
Self-leadership	85.79	59	.01	.99	.99	.97 (.95)	.03 (.98)
Locus of control	1.16	2	.56	1.00	1.00	.99 (.99)	.00 (.80)
General self-efficacy	3.76	2	.15	.99	.99	.99 (.98)	.05 (.43)
Conscientiousness	0.65	2	.65	1.00	1.00	.99 (.99)	.00 (.85)
Transformational	29.07	23	.18	1.00	1.00	.98 (.97)	.02 (.95)
Transactional	1.61	2	.45	1.00	1.00	1.00 (.99)	.00 (.72)

Notes: N = 418. χ ² = Chi-square statistic; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis index; GFI = goodness of fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; p-close = probability the RMSEA is close to zero.

The transactional leader behaviour construct had an unacceptable fit to the data [x ² = 55.1 (df = 13), p < 0.001, GFI (AGFI) = 0.96 (0.92), RMSEA (p-close) = 0.09 (0.01)]. Several of the contingent punishment items had correlated error variances, with the contingent reward items suggesting teachers had difficulty discriminating between these transactional leadership dimensions. To improve the model fit, the three contingent punishment items were trimmed leaving the four contingent reward items of the transactional leader behaviour scale, which met minimum fit requirements (Hoyle and Panter, 1995). Fornell and Larcker (1981) have suggested average variance extracted (AVE) scores of 0.50 or more suggest convergent validity. In this case, convergent validity was achieved for self-leadership (0.55), locus of control (0.58), general self-efficacy (0.69), conscientiousness (0.55), transformational leader behaviours (0.73) and contingent reward leader behaviours (0.68). All of the AVE scores were greater than the squared correlations between each of the constructs, which ranged from 0.02 to 0.50, supporting the discriminant validity of the measures (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

> Table 2 provides descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients and reliabilities for all of the variables. The relatively low mean for locus of control suggests most of the teachers had an internal locus of control. Participants also reported relatively high levels of general self-efficacy and conscientiousness, with low variation as the standard deviations were 0.89 and 0.80, respectively. The construct reliability of all of the measures was 0.80 or higher, indicating acceptable internal consistency (Hair et al., 2010). Locus of control was uncorrelated with self-leadership and, hence, H1 was not supported. The positive correlations between general self-efficacy, conscientiousness, leader behaviours and self-leadership suggest initial support for H2-5. No significant differences were found in the extent of self-leadership reported for the two different college locations, job level, job status (part-time or full-time) or position.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients and construct reliabilities

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Self-leadership	5.33	0.88	(0.84)
2. Locus of control	3.42	1.49	−0.06	(0.85)
3. General self-efficacy	6.00	0.89	0.40***	−0.08*	(0.90)
4. Conscientiousness	6.15	0.80	0.31***	−0.12**	0.31***	(0.83)
5. Transformational	4.70	1.34	0.28***	−0.12**	0.10*	0.05	(0.91)
6. Transactional	4.74	1.53	0.19***	−0.10*	0.01	0.02	0.71***	(0.88)

Notes: N = 418. Construct reliabilities are shown in parentheses on the diagonal. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001

The results for the Model 2 hierarchical regression analysis shown in Table 3 suggest general self-efficacy was positively and significantly related to self-leadership (β = 0.27, p < 0.001), as was conscientiousness (β = 0.21, p < 0.001), supporting H2 and H3, respectively. These results suggest general self-efficacy is an important predictor of self-leadership over and above the influence of conscientiousness. When the personality factors were entered into the regression, an additional 17 per cent of the variance in self-leadership was explained. H4, which suggested transformational leadership would positively influence self-leadership, was also supported (β = 0.24, p < 0.05), explaining an additional six per cent of the variance in teacher self-leadership. The magnitude of this effect is consistent with prior research that found transformational leadership explained about three per cent of the variance in the extent to which teachers asked for feedback from others (Runhaar et al., 2010).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Results of hierarchical regression analysis for predicting self-leadership

Independent variables	Model 1 β	Model 2 β	Model 3 β
Gender	0.20***	0.16***	0.12***
Age	−0.07	−0.07	−0.08
Education	0.12*	0.12*	0.12*
College tenure	0.02	0.01	0.04
Locus of control		0.01	0.03
General self-efficacy		0.27***	0.25***
Conscientiousness		0.21***	0.22***
Transformational leadership			0.23***
Transactional			0.01
R2	0.06	0.23	0.28
▵R2	0.06***	0.17***	0.05***
F	6.52***	16.78***	17.25***

Notes: N = 406. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

H5 was not supported. Although the transactional contingent reward scale was positively correlated with teacher self-leadership, the regression coefficient was not significant in the final model. In total, 28 per cent of the variance in teacher self-leadership was explained by gender, education, general self-efficacy, conscientiousness and the transformational leader behaviours of the teachers’ immediate manager. In this model, gender was also a significant predictor of self-leadership, with female teachers reporting that they were more likely to practise self-leadership than males (β = 0.12, p < 0.001), as did the more highly educated teachers (β = 0.11, p < 0.05).

To assess the unique effects of the leader behaviours on teacher self-leadership, two additional models were estimated. The first, which included the demographic variables, personality factors and the transactional leader behaviours, explained 26 per cent (p < 0.001) of the variance in teacher self-leadership. The second model, which included transformational rather than transactional leader behaviours, explained 28 per cent (p < 0.001) of the variance in teacher self-leadership. These results suggest there were no differences in the variance in teacher self-leadership accounted for by both leader behaviours, compared to the proportion accounted for by transformational leader behaviours alone. These findings suggest transformational leader behaviours alone may be sufficient to positively influence teachers’ self-leadership.

Discussion

This article examined the influence personality and leader behaviours have on teacher self-leadership in a vocational education and training college. Of particular interest are the relationships between general self-efficacy, conscientiousness and self-leadership. Prior research has found students who practised self-leadership had greater self-efficacy (self-confidence), and, as a result, they contributed more to classroom discussions, and performed better on written assignments and in examinations (Prussia et al., 1998). In this study, it was found that general self-efficacy is also an important antecedent to self-leadership strategies. General self-efficacy potentially influences self-leadership by contributing to an upward efficacy-performance spiral (Lindsley et al., 1995; Shea and Howell, 2000), in which confident teachers practise self-leadership strategies more often, which leads to further improvements in their confidence. Improvements in teachers’ self-efficacy should translate into increased self-leadership behaviours and cognitive processes that potentially will also have a positive influence on teacher performance and student satisfaction.

Contrary to expectations, internal locus of control was unrelated to self-leadership. Although prior research has suggested the theoretical importance of locus of control for self-leadership, these results do not support this proposition. It is possible, however, that a general locus of control measure may provide different results than the domain-specific WLCS used in this study. There is a need for further research into this relationship using additional samples and alternative measures. Future research is also needed to investigate relationships between self-leadership and other personality factors, such as self-monitoring and self-esteem, which may be important to teachers’ self-leadership. The finding that females practised self-leadership strategies more often than males was unexpected. Gender differences in self-leadership also needs further investigation in additional samples to determine the generalizability of this finding.

The results also show the leader behaviours of teachers’ immediate managers influenced their self-leadership, although to a lesser extent than personality. Transformational leader behaviours were positively correlated with self-leadership, suggesting they are important for clarifying the direction of goal setting, as well as providing encouragement for the continued exercise of self-leadership. Transformational leadership was a significant predictor of self-leadership when we controlled for the influence of contingent reward transactional behaviours. However, the results did not support an augmentation effect of transformational leader behaviours. Because educational leaders have access to fewer resources to reward teachers’ efforts, transformational leadership may be more effective in this context (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). The influence of servant leadership, with its emphasis on the personal development and empowerment of followers (Greenleaf, 1977), may also be worth investigating as Cerit (2009) found it had a positive effect on teachers’ attitudes towards their job.

There are several practical implications that arise from the findings for improving teacher self-leadership. First, teachers who are highly conscientious and self-efficacious are more likely to practise self-leadership and to respond to training interventions. Increasing teachers’ self-confidence can potentially increase their ability to practise self-leadership. Confident teachers who believe they can cope with difficulties in their work environment are likely to set more difficult goals and respond better to set-backs. They are also more likely to question dysfunctional beliefs that impede their performance and to replace them with more rational beliefs. For example, training in the setting of SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Trackable), journalizing to improve self-observation, and in ways to self-reward could help improve self-confidence and self-leadership (Hickman and Geller, 2003). Practising opportunity thinking (that is, focusing on possibilities) rather than obstacle thinking (that is, focusing on roadblocks) may also be helpful (Manz and Neck, 2004). Training in the use of mental imagery to improve communication skills, such as giving feedback, has also been found to be effective (Morin and Latham, 2000). Teachers who regularly practise the self-leadership strategies and also observe others organizing their work environment to facilitate self-leadership can improve their self-leadership skills (Bandura, 1977). According to Bandura (1977), positive feedback and encouragement from immediate supervisors is another important source of self-efficacy beliefs. If supervisors and teachers model and encourage the practice of self-leadership it could help establish a proactive, performance-based culture within vocational colleges.

A second practical implication of the findings is in relation to the leader behaviours of managers in vocational colleges. Adams and Gamage (2008) found there was substantial room for improvement in the leadership skills of the teachers in an Australian vocational education institution, while Mulcahy (2003) concluded that leaders and managers in colleges throughout Australia require greater expertise in creating a vision for change and in building a work culture that is supportive of such change. In our study, teachers who felt their immediate managers communicated a clear vision for the future, expected high performance, provided individualized support and challenged their thinking about their work, were more likely to practise self-leadership. Consideration should therefore be given to selecting managers who can demonstrate transformational leader behaviours and to developing existing managers’ transformational skills. Administering the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass and Avolio, 1989) could provide a baseline for managers’ future development. Transformational leader behaviours could also be used to develop the content of training programs. For example, leaders could learn how to communicate an inspiring vision, and identify ways they could provide individualized support (for example, praise and appreciation) and assist in the development of teachers (for example, coaching and mentoring). They could also develop techniques that might challenge teachers’ assumptions and thinking about their pedagogical approach to student learning.

There are some limitations to this study that should be acknowledged. First, the results are based on self-report data, which may have inflated the relationships between the personality factors and self-leadership. The use of observer ratings of personality in future studies could help to avoid the possible self-presentation bias associated with self-report data (Barrick et al., 2001; Organ et al., 2006). The teachers in our sample may also have presented themselves as engaging in self-leadership more often because they thought this was what management expected. Second, the cross-sectional research design does not allow causal inferences to be drawn. However, the hypothesized relationships are consistent with decades of research into the importance of personality in influencing behaviour and thought processes (Barrick and Mount, 2005). Third, we only investigated the influence contingent reward behaviours had on self-leadership. Since laissez-faire leadership has been found to be negatively related to leader effectiveness (Judge and Piccolo, 2004), examining this dimension of transactional leader behaviours might also increase our understanding of the factors that influence teacher self-leadership. Finally, we did not examine the relationship between teacher self-leadership and their performance with respect to student satisfaction and achievement, which should be a priority for future research.

Conclusion

Major changes in vocational education and training in Australia over the last decade, including reduced government funding, increased competition, corporatization of education and changes in the curriculum, have placed additional pressures on teachers to manage themselves and improve their performance. These changes have also had an effect on the roles managers play in vocational education and training colleges. This article suggests better educated, self-confident and conscientious teachers are more likely to practise self-leadership and that leaders who develop a vision and communicate it to teachers can also enhance teachers’ self-leadership. High performance expectations, providing individualized support and challenging teachers’ thinking and assumptions about their work were positive influences on teacher self-leadership. In a changing educational environment in which teachers are expected to work harder, teacher self-leadership may provide a means by which teachers can also work smarter, providing positive outcomes for all.