An Empirical Analysis on the Relationship between Leadership Styles and Motivation in School Organization*

* The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers who helped us to significantly improve the manuscript. All remaining errors depend on the authors' responsibilities.

: Focused on the Perceptions of High School Teachers in Busan City

학교조직의 리더십 유형과 동기부여와의 관계분석

｢지방정부연구｣ 제14권 제2호(2010 여름) : 269～291

□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□

: 부산지역 교사들의 인식을 중심으로

Kim, Dae-Won**

** The first author

Park, Cheol-Min***

*** The corresponding author

This study has investigated teacher's motivation within schools with having different leadership style, and how leadership styles affect their motivation. For the analysis, a total of 300 surveys were sent and 175 were returned which is a response rate of approximately 58.3%, and the multiple-regression approach was used. According to the results, just two of four transactional attributes analyzed appeared as a significant predictor of stimulating teachers' effort. Of four variables with regard to transactional leadership, the standardized coefficients of Directive and Control oriented appear definitely not to have an influence on teachers' motivation, presenting Directive oriented(B = -.021, p <.057) and Control oriented(B = -.013, p <.051). While Merit pay system(B = .173, p <.002) and Appraisal(B = .127, p <.034) have a little influential effects on the teachers' motivation, explaining the standardized coefficients of Merit pay system(Beta = .161, p <.002) and that of Appraisal(Beta = .129, p <.034). Even though these factors are a little affecting teacher's motivation, the effectiveness has not been as much as our expectations. Compared to variables concerning transformational leadership, the explanatory influence of those variables is low.

In sum, this study might contribute to seeking of new method for teacher's motivation by empirically proving that transformational leadership is much more effective than transactional leadership. In addition, the study might render useful services to the more elaborate and clear perception about the relationship between school leadership and teacher's motivation due to suggesting principles for developing a new integrated model of teacher motivation, encouraging researchers to analyze the variables which are not explained here for more valuable study.

Key Words: Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership,

School Organization, Teacher, Motivation

I. Introduction

For any organization, the working conditions including job satisfaction and motivation are expected to encourage employees to do their best role for organization development and growth. Education organization is also no exception. In order to drive students' effort for the better performance, the role of its members, especially teachers should be emphasized. In recent education reform and restructuring, one focus has been on developing ways to improve teacher's commitment to schools through teacher‘s motivation(Joyce & Calhoun, 1998). According to Leithwood(2006), teacher's efficacy which is critical to classroom performance is significantly shaped by teaching conditions.

He also notes, “What teachers actually do in their schools and classrooms depends on how teachers perceive and respond to their working conditions.”

But many schools face persistent teacher's working condition challenges that are closely related to low teacher's motivation. According to sociologists, current school environments are a reward-scarce setting for professional work and often seem to work against teachers’ best efforts to grow professionally and improve student's learning(Peterson 1995). Considering a consensus of opinion that without teachers' job satisfaction and motivation, the public education would not be effective in improving student's achievement, it follows that teachers' motivation is a predictor of retention, determinant of commitment, and a contributor to school effectiveness.

An Empirical Analysis on the Relationship Between Leadership Style and Motivation in School Organization

｢지방정부연구｣ 제14권 제2호(2010 여름)

In Korea, education system known that teachers' motivation is very low, teacher's job dissatisfaction might have brought about the excessive private education cost, resulting in serious social problems. In a survey by the Korea Consumer Protection Board, approximately 54.3 percent of 2,000 Koreans over age 20 said they send their children to private education institutions. According the report, 71.5 percent of preschoolers, 80.7 percent of elementary students, 68.7 percent of middle and high school students take private classes in 2007.

The Korea National Statistical Office(2009) says the average cost for after-school private education reached ￦165,000(per month) in 2008, the highest figure since 2003. With the cost of private education soaring faster than consumer prices, it has posed a great burden especially to lower-income households, rising almost twice as fast as the incomes of the bottom 20 percent.

Some assertions(Avolio et. al., 1999; Betancourt-Smith et. al., 1994; Chittom et. al., 1990) that these problems might come from teachers' job dissatisfaction linked to the intrinsic and extrinsic working conditions which have specially burden teachers with a lots of miscellaneous business apart from teaching and research may well be proper, making education leaders seek how to motivate teachers to improve student's achievement in very low grade in Korea public schools.

Working conditions also include many factors such as salary, mentors’ emotional support, and satisfaction in general(Betancourt-Smith et. al., 1994; Chittom et. al., 1990).

In the last two decades of education reform, teachers have been viewed as central to both the problems of education and their solutions. There have been many means considered for teacher's motivation, of which merit pay system is positively practicing as only solution for encouraging teachers to do their best effort for student's performance. But there are many debates about whether the system is effective in stimulating teachers for their effort. In addition, the systems stimulate employees to focus excessively on doing what they need to do to gain rewards, sometimes at the expense of doing other things that would help the organization.

Accordingly, for teacher's motivation, studies based on new paradigm and creative perspective should be explored. Considering that any organization cannot play its effective role in agency productivity without correlation and cooperation between leader and followers, it follows that the passive solutions such as pay, promotion, and merit pay system emphasizing only teacher's effort and dedication to education organization cannot help having many limitations in the teaching and learning field. These facts, clearly, might as well make education leaders try to find ways to keep teachers in the profession and keep them motivated. A motivated teacher, as described here, is one who not only feels satisfied with his or her job, but also is empowered to strive for excellence and growth in instructional practice. Focusing on the role of education leaders including principals and education administrators for effectively motivating teachers and encouraging them to do their best effort for improving student's performance, this study is going to probe for some effective clues for improving our public education problems resulting in the tremendous amount of the expenses for private education through reviewing school leadership.

For the purpose, the study is first to review the role of leadership in education organization, and then setting up research design for proof, and finally discussing from the result and suggest some implications.

Consisting of four main parts, the study starts reviewing theoretical arguments and making an arrangement of the relationship among research variables in the second chapter, providing research design such as data collection and measuring tools in third chapter, reviewing an empirical results and discussing implications of the findings in the fourth part, and ending with some brief concluding suggestions.

Ⅱ. Theoretical Debate and Setting Variables

1. Theoretical Debate

Nobody may agree that teaching quality, the most important variable for the successful student's achievement, can't be expected without supportive school environments for enabling teachers to be valued, trusted, and consequently successful. Of many teacher's working conditions, Singh & Billingsley(1996) assisted that the strongest influence on motivation was the education leadership such as principal and education administrator support. According to him, the education leadership and school environment are critical to teacher's satisfaction. The education leadership, especially, is largely responsible for hiring new teachers and may also create distinct working environments within schools that are highly predictive of teacher's satisfaction and commitment(Anderman et. al., 1991; Colley, 2002). There are also many researchers who have linked principal behavior directly and indirectly to  satisfaction(Shann, 1998; Singh & Billingsley, 1996). According to Hanushek & Rivken(2007), the working conditions in schools such as support from leadership and being in a collaborative working environment, are so critical to teacher's retention, teacher and student success, and have many benefits. Shen(1998) also reveals similar result. He acknowledges that leadership is crucial to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to what students learn at school. More specifically, there was also researcher who stressed principals may be able to influence the commitment of teachers. According to Rosenholtz(1989), commitment in teachers is linked to principals who provide feedback, encourage teachers, and use participatory decision-making.

These results were corroborated by a similar study of teaching conditions conducted by Futernick(2007) who gave us a more empirical evidence through a survey of 2,000 educators from California from which he concluded teaching and learning conditions are more effective in luring teachers who left the profession before retirement back than monetary incentive. According his study, 28 percent of teachers who left the profession before retirement indicated that they would come back if improvements were made to teaching and learning conditions.

From above, we can acknowledge that the lack of education leadership may as well lead to the erosion of teaching quality and in turn the student's achievement.

Then, what kinds of leadership can have an effect on the quality of teaching? Since Stogdill & Corms(1951) suggested leadership theory, many kinds of leadership have been introduced and applied in most organizations. With reference to this study focusing on school leadership, however, leadership theory(transactional and transformational leadership) suggested by James McGregor Burns(1978) seems to be significant in a general sense. Despite the importance of transformational leadership for educational organization productivity, most studies on education effectiveness has just focused on management of teachers through financial compensation and physical control consisting of transactional leadership. Consequently, it is very important to analyze the different motivation between transactional and transformational leadership.

2. Defining Variables for Analysis

Before investigating teacher's motivation by leadership style, setting variables related to leadership style is required through reviewing leadership theories. There are many kinds of leadership theories which has its own characters respectively, so it has been being challenged to define the concept of leadership in a word. Pioneered leadership theory, Stogdill & Corms(1951) tended to focus on traits and behaviors of leaders as universals. After that, the fact that leadership styles vary from situation to situation was realized by subsequent authors(Hershey et. al., 2008), and following situation theory, contingency theories(Fiedler, 1967) were also developed for the purpose of enhancing the leader’s effectiveness on situational contingency which defines two types of leaders: those who are relationship-oriented and those who are task-oriented.

However, these theories still paid little attention to cultural variables, which brought about new paradigm on leadership. Since the late 1970s, studies exploring relationships between transactional and transformational leadership suggested by James McGregor Burns have been in progress with surprising support. This theory distinguishes between transactional leaders and transformational leaders: the former means leaders who exchanged tangible rewards for the work and loyalty of followers and the latter means adaptive leaders who engaged with followers and raised consciousness about the significance of specific outcomes and new ways in which those outcomes might be achieved (Barbuto, 2005; Barnett, McCormick & Conners, 2001; Avolio et. al., 1985).

According to Barnett, McCormick & Conners(2001), the distinction between these forms of leadership was first made by Downton(1973), but gained little currency until James McGregor Burns’s(1978) large-scale work on political leaders – Leadership – was published.

Cox(2001) also categorized two basic leadership: transactional and transformational.

Focusing on exploring new ways for teacher's motivation through criticizing the drawbacks of merit pay system which is considered the only solution for teacher motivation in Korea, the study is inevitably to confine transactional leadership and transformational leadership suggested by James McGregor Burns. For setting more adaptive variables for analysis of teacher motivation in accordance with leadership style, it is required to find out explicitly the different  characteristics of the two leadership style.

First, seeking to maintain stability rather than promoting change within an organization, transactional leadership emphasizes specified exchanges of effort for reward and a close relationship between goals and rewards(Lussier & Achua, 2004; Coltham, 1972), leading to that workers are not motivated to perform at a level greater than that specified in their contract(Bryant, 2003). So, it means that the relationship between leader and follower tends to be transitory because once the transaction is completed, the relationship may end or need to be renegotiated (Lussier & Achua, 2004; Hirsch et. al., 2007).

In contrast with transactional leadership, transformational leadership tends to be associated with a more enduring leader-follower relationship. According to Burns(1978), the transformational leader motivates its team to be effective and efficient owing to using communication which is the base for goal achievement, encouraging followers to become part of the overall organizational culture and environment. In addition, the leadership is empowering followers by persuading them to propose new and controversial ideas without fear of punishment or ridicule(Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003). Therefore, transformational leaders are admired, respected, and trusted(Futernick, 2007).

By nurturing followers’ personal capacities and abilities, transformational leaders are held to have strong positive influences on followers’ motivation and their ability to achieve or even surpass goals(Barbuto, 2005; Feinberg, Ostroff & Burke, 2005; Jung & Avolio, 1999).

From the above facts, we can infer that whereas transactional leaders manage organizations by satisfying followers’ self-interest, transformational leaders inspire and stimulate followers to set aside those interests, replacing them with the collective or team purpose(Brown & Moshavi, 2002). This means that as Burns claimed, transformational  leadership is more effective than transactional leadership.

Consequently, we can derive explanation variables related to leadership for analysis of teacher's motivation from the characteristics of the two leadership.

First, based on the Burns's(1978) assertion on transactional leader who is given power to perform certain tasks and reward or punish for the team’s performance. Rewards and punishments in transactional leadership are universally accepted as the most effective factors which are generally use to force subordinates to meet agreed-upon goals(Bryant, 2003). Therefore, a transactional leader must be able to realize and respond to followers’ changing needs and wants for the effective management. Generally, pecuniary remuneration such as pay, merit pay system is considered as the most effective reward method in transactional leadership. Especially, merit pay system is positively accepted as the most effective method. Promotion based on reward system is also a useful factor for motivating subordinates to do their best(Barnett, 2003; Jung & Avolio, 1999; Johnson, 1986). Many researchers like Emmert and Taher(1992) have shown that promotion as the need for career growth is one of the most important predictors of job attitudes, given their strong theoretical linkage to the formation of individual job attitudes(Nachmias, 1988). And transactional leadership needs authority and power as a means for administrative actions to reinforce positive and reform negative behaviors(Barnett, 2003; Jung & Avolio, 1999). Authority and power based on punishment system are given to the leader to correct and train subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level(Bryant, 2003; Lawler, 1993).

Considering transactional leadership focused on social and economic exchanges between leaders and followers through contingent rewards(such as appraisal, merit pay system) and punishment(or administrative actions such as authority, power), we can infer analysis variables with respect to transactional leadership for teacher's motivation as follows: appraisal, merit pay system(including pay) based on reward system, and directive oriented and control oriented based on punishment.

In addition to these factor, there may be many factors concerning transactional leadership.

Second, based on organizational objectives and organizational change by disseminating new values and seeking alternatives to existing arrangements, transformational leadership is focused on not only inspiring people to have  vision and passion, but encouraging them  to get things done by injecting enthusiasm and energy. According to Gellis(2001), transformational leadership emphases on new values and alternative visions of the future that surpass the status quo, resulting in constructive organizational change. There are also researchers emphasizing the effective role of transformational leadership by asserting that leadership characterized by heightened levels of inspiration, interdependence, and integration is much more effective than the simple transactional leadership in current organizational contexts(Feinberg, Ostroff & Burke, 2005; Spreitzer et. al., 2005).  In this leadership, leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. In other words, transformational leadership attempts to raise follower needs to higher levels(self-esteem, encouragement, support) and to develop followers into ownership(such as participation, respect, and good relationship among members), emphasizing trust and commitment much more than contractual agreements(Jung & Avolio, 1999). Of these variables, Hirsch et. al(2006) emphasized that administrative support had an impact on the overall school culture and teacher job attitude, resulting in reducing high teacher turnover rates and creating professional learning communities within schools. Consequently, whereas leader's authority and power are minimal, follower response based on commitment is augmented.

Considering transformational leadership attempting to raise follower needs to higher levels of self-initiatives through inspiring and participation, we can deduce variables concerning transformational leadership for teacher's motivation as follows: self-esteem(respect), support based on inspiration, and participation and good relationship(between colleagues as well as between leader and subordinates) based on ownership.

Being recognized and respected as educational experts is also very important factor for measuring teacher motivation. Specially, respect is directly connected to teacher's empowerment. When teachers believe that their knowledge of teaching and learning(and the students they teach) is considered a valuable factor in decision-making, they become connected to their schools and districts in powerful ways.

Consistent support for teaching is also very effective means for teacher's motivation. According to National studies analyzing teacher survey results, like the Schools and Staffing Survey from the National Center for Education Statistics, teachers indicate lack of administrative support as the top reasons of teachers' dissatisfaction(Hirsch et. al., 2006).

Participation in the decision-making about educational issues is very important for raising teachers' ownership.

Good relationship with colleges as well as leader is also has an effect on motivating people to do their best effort.

Also, Traits of Good Leaders and Traits of Bad Leaders in Teachers Perceptions of Good and Bad Leaders in Seven Cultures published by Futernick(2007) helped to set these variables.

Inasmuch as this study is to identify the effect of leadership on the teacher's motivation affecting positively student's achievement, this study might bear its full fruit  by analyzing these variables chosen above. The eight variables with their representing simply variables whose meanings were complicatedly explained are as follows.

Table 1. List of Variables Defined

Variables	Items	Definition of Variables
Transactional leadership	Directive oriented	1-1. Principal is involved in directive orientation. 1-2. Principal prefers to concrete planning and direction. 1-3. Principal gets angry for a violation of his/her direction.
	Control oriented	2-1. Principal emphasizes rules and process given 2-2. Principal stresses ready-made job process. 2-3. Principal reviews job process carefully.
	Appraisal	3-1. Principal prefers appraising by dint of performance. 3-2. Principal expresses satisfaction if fulfilling his/her expectation. 3-3. Principal is helpful to me by way of appraisal.
	Merit pay system	4-1. Principal emphasizes merit pay system. 4-2. Principal emphasizes interest and reward when goals are achieved. 4-3. Principal is helpful to me by dint of reward.
Transformational leadership	Participation	5-1. Principal shares ownership in the decision-making about educational issue. 5-2. Principal permits various perspectives about problem solving process. 5-3. Principal shares his/her times in teaching and instructing with subordinates
	Respect	6-1. Principal behaves in receiving respect from his/her subordinates. 6-2. Principal treats his/her subordinates not a group member but a character. 6-3. Principal advises being recognized and respected as educational experts.
	Relationship	7-1. Principal prefers improving good relationship with his/her subordinates. 7-2. Principal says his/her educational philosophy to subordinates frequently. 7-3. Principal emphasizes the importance of common goal consciousness to his /her subordinates.
	Support	8-1. Principal prefers consistent support for teaching activity to his/her subordinates. 8-2. Principal suggests a powerful vision to subordinates. 8-3. Principal inspires a sense of duty and confidence.
Motivation	-	The power that incites subordinates to be more goal-directed for organization performance 9-1. I feel responsible for my job performance. 9-2. How I do in my job matters a great to me. 9-3. I feel obligated to perform well in my job.

Ⅲ. Research Design and Methodology

1. Research Design

In an effort to understand what kind of educational leadership has an impact on teacher's motivation more effectively, this study has explored the response to their leaders' behavior as well as the reasons why they are not motivated in the school by asking them to respond to series of questions regarding their school life.

A survey instrument was used to address the research questions. The survey was designed to identify leadership type - transactional and transformational - having an effect on teacher's satisfaction and dissatisfaction in school. The questionnaire was designed to measure the degree of teachers' perceptions about 8 different variables which could affect their motivation.

Based on responses to a survey on the types of leadership, what types of leadership are commonly cited by those who are satisfied and motivated in teaching after explaining the concept of two type of leadership - transactional leadership and transformational leadership. To measure leadership factors influencing variation in motivation, the study employed data collected from a survey of 300 participants who were employed as teachers in public and private school in Busan. The survey was carried out between April 2009 and June 2009. Teachers working five middle and high school were asked to fill out a survey, which employed the use of a Likert Scale to identify leadership type for teacher's motivation.

Subjects were asked to rate on a 5-point scale their degree of agreement to the  statements(scale range 1=not at all important(negative) to 5=extremely important(positive)). The demographic information collected from teachers included gender, length of career, age. Items measuring response ratings to leadership style are all in Likert-type scales in which teachers were asked to rate a statement related to motivation. Gender was dummy-coded, and age was marked as follows: 1 = below 30, 2 = 31 to 40, 3 = 41 to 50, 4= 51 to 60, and 5= over 60, and length of career was marked as follows: 1 = below 5 years, 2 = 6 to 10, 3 = 11 to 15, 4= 16 to 20, and 5= 21 to 25, and 6= over 26. Further information on the demographic characteristics is as displayed in Table 2.

Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Demographic Variables		Frequency	%
Gender	Male	97	55.4
	Female	78	44.6
Age	30 Year Old or Fewer	26	15.0
	31-40	47	27.0
	41-50	55	31.3
	51-60	38	21.7
	61 and Above years	9	5.0
Years of Career Experience	Five Years or Fewer	18	10.0
	6 to 10 Years	33	19.0
	11 to 15 Years	39	22.3
	16 to 20 Years	43	24.7
	21 to 25 Years	20	11.7
	26 Years or More	22	12.3

2. Methodology

Research participants were asked to respond to survey questions, and a Likert Scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being “extremely important” and 1 being “not at all important” or 1 = "very dissatisfied" to 5 = "very satisfied" was used to answer eight questions relative to the degree of teacher's motivation to leadership style which may induce teacher's commitment and dedication to teaching and consequently, student's achievement.

A total of 175 of the 300 respondents answered their leader had transactional or  transformational leadership. 175 respondents answered meaningfully questions on a five-point Likert Scale. The respondents were asked to indicate the importance of 8 variables in their satisfaction and dissatisfaction in teaching.

And the data collected were analyzed by two approaches. First, descriptive statistics were used for each of the question on the Likert Scale. Second for the purpose of finding out how much each factor contributes to teachers' motivation, the study used multiple regression analysis whose  general purpose is to learn more about the relationship between several independent or predictor variables and a dependent or criterion variable.

The earliest form of regression was the method of least squares, which was published by Legendre in 1805, and by Gauss in 1809. In recent decades, new methods have been developed for robust regression, regression involving correlated responses such as time series and growth curves, regression in which the predictor or response variables are curves, images, graphs((Nunnally et, al., 1994).

And this study was going to simplify analysis procedures for the benefit of simple analysis by reducing the number of independent variables such as gender, age, experience year if possible. Because focused on identifying the differential effects between transactional and transformational leadership in teacher's motivation, the study would be of any practical use without analysis of these demographic factors and personal questions.

IV. Results and Discussion

1. Results

Table 3 shows the mean and standard deviation for each response.

Table 3. Mean and Standard Deviation for Likert Scale Questions.

Leadership style	Variables related to leadership in teaching	N	Mean	S.D.
Transactional Leadership	Directive oriented Control oriented Appraisal Merit pay system	175 175 175 175	2.10 1.39 3.21 2.99	1.70 1.30 2.14 1.69
	Subtotal Scale Score	175	2.42
Transformational Leadership	Participation Respect Relationship Support	175 175 175 175	3.82 4.41 4.40 4.24	1.94 1.31 1.64 1.82
	Subtotal Scale Score	175	4.42
	Total Scale Score	175	3.32

* Note: Scale range: 1=very negative to 5=very positive.

As presented above table, the responses for each variable were averaged separately, showing that the ratings of responses by the total group are significantly different. By the table, a mean value of eight indicates that the average response rate for total variables were 3.32 with three being the highest possible mean in terms of importance. And there are very big difference between two types of leadership: Transformational leadership's impact(4.22) on teachers' response is almost twice as much as transactional's leadership(2.42). The teachers rated "being recognized and respected as educational experts" as the most positive aspect of their jobs(4.41), whereas they took the gauge of their response with "control oriented for excessively efficient management " the least positively(1.39).

Generally, merit system such as pay or pecuniary reward have most often been considered as being very important to the respondents’ decision to remain teaching. However, above result shows that it was not the only reason that was cited often as being important to their satisfaction. These variables all are lower mean response value than any other  variables.

A closer look at the actual responses to the Likert Scale questions is warranted. The actual frequency and percent of respondents who answered transactional and transformational leadership on each variable is shown in Tables 3.

Table 4.  Responses Concerning Transactional Leadership in Teachers

Level of Importance	Likert Scale Value	Directive Oriented		Control Oriented		Appraisal		Merit Pay System
		FoR	PoR	FoR	PoR	FoR	PoR	FoR	PoR
Not at all Important(1) Extremely Important(5)	1 2 3 4 5	43 62 44 19 7	24.6 35.4 25.1 10.9 4.0	63 77 24 9 2	36.0 44.0 13.7 5.1 1.1	13 32 74 39 17	7.4 18.3 42.3 22.3 9.7	22 45 70 25 13	12.6 25.7 40.0 14.3 7.4

* Note: FoR represents Frequency of Response, and PoR means Percent of Respondents

Table 5.  Responses Concerning Transformational Leadership in Teachers

Level of Importance	Likert Scale Value	Participation		Respect		Relationship		Support
		FoR	PoR	FoR	PoR	FoR	PoR	FoR	PoR
Not at all Important(1) Extremely Important(5)	1 2 3 4 5	12 13 43 62 45	6.9 7.2 24.5 35.8 25.6	9 14 38 64 50	4.9 8.0 22.4 36.3 28.4	10 14 48 59 44	5.8 7.8 27.9 33.6 24.9	8 27 65 36 39	4.6 15.4 37.3 20.4 22.3

* Note: FoR represents Frequency of Response, and PoR means Percent of Respondents

As figured above, and Control oriented concerning transactional leadership are very negatively having an effect on teacher's response. With 1 being not at all important and 5 being extremely important, just only 7 respondents(4.0%) ranked Directive oriented as being extremely important to their response. A total of 85.1%(n=149) of the 175 respondents was ranked below 3 in importance to their response. And control oriented is less effective than Directive oriented, representing that just 2 respondents(1.1%) of 175 respondents ranked it as being extremely important to their response. Specially, over 164 of 175 respondents ranked the factor below 3 in importance to their response, meaning that teachers are generally recognizing Control oriented as negative factor which might as well erode teaching spirit and effort. And Appraisal and Merit pay system are much more effective than the former factors, but they are also a little affecting teachers' response. In case of Appraisal, 17 respondents(9.7%) ranked it as being extremely important to their response decision. A total of 42.3%(n=70) of the 175 respondents ranked Appraisal as 3 in importance to their response. While 7.4%(n=13) ranked Appraisal as not at all important to their decision, only 18.3%(n=45) ranked it as 2 in importance.

Merit pay system is also similar to promotion. 13 respondents(7.4%) of the 175 respondents ranked merit pay system as being extremely important to their response decision. A total of 40.0%(n=70) of the 175 respondents ranked the system as 3 in importance to their response. While 12.6%(n=22) ranked the system as not at all important to their decision, only 25.7%(n=45) ranked it as 2 in importance.

In contrast to these factors, variables concerning transformational leadership are much more effective than the former factors. All four factors relative to transformational leadership are very positively affecting teacher's response, over 20% respondents of them ranking each factor as being extremely important. A total of over 80%(140 of 175) respondents ranked the factor above 3 in importance, meaning that teachers are generally recognizing these factors including respect and support as positive motivation impetus. Specially, in case of respect, it was ranked as 3, 4 and 5 grade by over 87% respondents. This means that teachers are very proud of their professional status and authority.

On the other hand, for the purpose of finding out how much each factor contributes to teachers' motivation, the study needs to analyze multiple regression analysis whose general purpose(the term was first used by Pearson, 1908) is to learn more about the relationship between several independent or predictor variables and a dependent or criterion variable.

More specifically, focused on estimating the conditional expectation of the dependent variable given the independent variables, regression analysis helps us understand how the typical value of the dependent variable changes when any one of the independent variables is varied, while the other independent variables are held fixed(Nunnally et, al., 1994).

First, analysis for finding out predictive power each variable is required, which is presented in detail below table.

Table 6. Factor Analysis for the Dependent & Reliability Test for the  Independent Variable

Items	Motivation	Alpha
I feel responsible for my job performance,	.687	.817
How I do in my job matters a great to me,	.704
I feel obligated to perform well in my job	.718
Eigen value	6.032	-
Variance(%)	51.902	-
Cumulative variance(%)	51.902	-
1-1	Directive Oriented	.774
1-2
1-3
2-1	Control Oriented	.801
2-2
2-3
3-1	Appraisal	.744
3-2
3-3
4-1	Merit pay system	.729
4-2
4-2
5-1	Participation	.781
5-2
5-3
6-1	Respect	.812
6-2
6-3
7-1	Relationship	.809
7-2
7-3
8-1	Support	.784
8-2
8-3

Table 7. Factor Analysis for the Independent Variables

Items	Directive Oriented	Control Oriented	Appraisal	Merit pay system	Participation	Respect	Relationship	Support
1-1	.602	.302	.162	.102	.173	.193	.135	.043
1-2	.613	.313	.218	.017	.105	.112	.283	.194
1-3	.652	.103	.151	.139	.207	.203	.141	.293
2-1	.039	.692	.319	.022	.182	.207	-.318	.036
2-2	.153	.702	.305	.204	-.193	.303	.172	-.105
2-3	-.103	.683	.149	.142	.124	.203	.253	.302
3-1	.435	.202	.713	.073	.132	.029	.294	.073
3-2	.303	-.203	.662	.247	.225	-.206	.158	.169
3-3	.051	.219	.708	.311	.194	.106	.306	.206
4-1	.145	-.102	.205	.714	.172	.310	.374	.137
4-2	.152	.216	.333	.612	.103	.338	.017	.073
4-3	.320	.073	.116	.669	-.143	.144	.127	.229
5-1	-.104	.134	-.336	.127	.581	-.283	-.183	.321
5-2	.313	.205	.135	.283	.682	.051	.117	.073
5-3	.302	.226	.248	.303	.650	.143	.208	.152
6-1	.151	.147	.138	.245	.294	.684	.248	.206
6-2	-.020	.217	.207	.204	-.293	.718	.205	.073
6-3	.203	-.320	.228	.237	.273	.603	.164	.206
7-1	.103	.313	.301	.293	.204	.183	.701	.083
7-2	.253	.326	-.130	.146	.127	.204	.725	.296
7-3	.202	.104	.201	.328	.193	.274	.675	.306
8-1	.063	.303	.037	.038	.073	.036	.042	.725
8-2	.205	.208	.193	.207	.342	.297	.276	.694
8-3	.073	.036	.206	.106	.265	.310	.073	.714
Eigen Value	5.056	9.942	5.963	4.037	3.107	2.064	1.853	1.581
Variance(%)	6.621	25.064	6.064	5.792	4.591	3.684	3.281	3.063
Cumulative Variance(%)	34.196	37.064	39.749	37.604	40.684	42.583	40.814	61.749

As presented above table, the Alphas for independent variables are in the range from .729 to 812, which explains that even though each variable is different among them a little bit, they have their own predict power. That is, since all of these values are above .50(Nunnally et. al., 1994), it can be understood that the independent variables might as well get a statistically positive effectiveness on the dependent variable.

In addition, analyzing the dependent variable in an equation with the 8 independent variables, the study is required to manifest the overall model for motivation. As described below table, both standardized(B) and unstandardized(b) regression coefficients are reported to show the relative contribution and predictive power of each factor. The overall model has a strong R2 value of .684 and an adjusted R2 value of .712, which means that regression coefficients positively have the relative contribution and predictive power of each variable.

Table 8. Regression Results on Teachers' Motivation

Variables	Unstandatdized coefficients		Standatdized coefficients	t	Sig
	B	Std Error	Beta
Constant Directive oriented Control oriented Appraisal Merit pay system Participation Respect Relationship Support	.572 -.021 -.013 .127 .173 .513 .522 .428 .304	.272 .020 .023 .025 .013 .113 .031 .137 .053	-.173 -.241 .129 .161 .104 .153 .035 .047	4.234 -2.342 -1.324 3.432 .213 .214 2.112 3.043 .253	.003 .057 .051 .034 .002 .001 .000 .002 .003

* R2 =.684, Adjusted R2 =.712, F= 53.2, Probability = .003

As presented above, 6 of the 8 independent variables in this model is revealing significant effects on the motivation of teachers. While all variables relative to transformational have significant effect on teacher's motivation, only two transactional leadership variable - Appraisal and Merit pay system - are affecting teacher's motivation a little bit. Of four variables concerning to transactional leadership, the standardized coefficients of Directive and Control oriented appears definitely not to make on the effect of teachers' motivation, presenting Directive oriented(B = -.021, p <.057) and Control oriented(B = -.013, p <.051). While Merit pay system(B = .173, p <.002) and Appraisal(B = .127, p <.034) makes a little influential effects on the teachers' motivation, explaining the standardized coefficients of merit pay system(Beta = -.161, p <.002) and that of appraisal(Beta = .129, p <.034).

2. Discussion

According to the analysis, 6 of the 8 independent variables in this model revealed significant effects on the motivation of teachers. But there is definitely difference between two type of leadership.

First, in case of transactional leadership, just two of four transactional attributes analyzed appeared as a significant predictor of stimulating teachers' effort, explaining the standardized coefficients of merit pay system(Beta = .161, p <.002) and that of appraisal(Beta = .129, p <.034). Even though these factors are a little affecting teacher motivation, the effectiveness is not as much as we have expected. Compared to variables concerning transformational leadership, the explanatory influence of those variables is very low.

The fact that merit pay system as well as appraisal doesn't play an important role in motivating teachers so much as we have expected makes us consider suspecting whether the system supposedly helps school systems. Generally, the system based on the idea that teacher are seeking for economic needs and then can be more significantly stimulated by the manifest reward than any other factors has many drawbacks. Of many teacher's motivation factors, manifest reward including appraisal and merit pay system is nothing but a common factor. Frase(1992) is making a definitely clear explanation about that manifest reward such as appraisal and merit pay system is less effective than the factors affecting psychological gratification. According to him, entering school society to help young people learn well, teachers feel their most gratifying reward when this goal is accomplished and when they are allowed to practice their craft successfully(Mitchell, Ortiz, and Mitchell, 1987). In other words, professional knowledge, skills and competencies can be seen when one is taking a challenging tasks directed at educational success and performance (Filak & Sheldon, 2003; Stone et. al., 2003).

This finding provides additional evidence of the need for us to clear that  variables related to transactional leadership might keep teachers from being motivated in education organization rather than transformational leadership. As a result, it should be noted that merit pay system is not the only way for motivation of teachers, just one of the least effective factors.

Perhaps this is the most interesting finding of the study that obtained in the analysis.

In contrast, all the variables related to transformational leadership were statistically significant factors for motivating teachers. Especially, being respected as educational experts and participation appeared as the most important factors for teachers' motivation. The standardized coefficients of being respected as educational experts is the strongest variable among all the independent variables and that of the participation is the second strongest variable among them. The two factors which have been considered as the most important methods for respecting teachers make influential effects on the teachers' motivation, presenting being respected as educational experts(B = .522, p <.000) and participation (B = .513, p <.001). This means that these two factors are still playing very important roles for motivating teachers who are supposed to increase students’ knowledge and skills, as well as for encouraging them to work harder and produce better results for students. It also means that when they feel encouraged to share them with other members, they are motivated and then might as well try to do their best for education. Particularly, these factors are able to make teachers consider entering professional society. Intelligent and effective teachers might reconsider entering the profession if they felt that they are being recognized as a main group taking the initiative in doing school education, which would inspire potential teachers to give the profession more consideration as a viable career choice, rather than a personal sacrifice for the higher good. Here, we can conclude that as perceptions of trust between teachers within their school organization increased, so did the possibility of being teachers' motivation.

As noted previously, leadership is the most important factor to teachers in making their best for the school success which would finally encourage students to challenge themselves. The reason is that school leadership can stimulate teachers' collective knowledge and skills for building a climate of trust and respect, resulting in excellent school achievement. Consequently, for the purpose of improving school achievement by motivating teachers, first of all, it is very important to focus on school leadership. Because it can give opportunities to teachers for contributing actively to their school’s success.

In terms of leadership effectiveness, transactional leadership is held to be somewhat less successful than transformational leadership because of the simple and impersonal nature of the leader-follower link and the lack of leader effect on the follower. On the contrary, based on consideration, motivation, and stimulation, transformational leadership encourages followers together to pursue collective ambitions by expressing and disseminating their personal standards, bringing about constructive outcomes within an organization most certainly(Spreitzer et. al., 2005). Burns contrasted distinctly transactional and transformational leadership, claiming that the latter form of leadership is more effective than the former(Brown & Moshavi, 2002).

Burns contrasted transactional and transformational leadership, claiming that the latter form of leadership is more effective than the former(Brown & Moshavi, 2002).

Transactional leaders provide followers with something they want in return for something the leader seeks. To be effective, a transactional leader must be able to realize and respond to followers’ changing needs and wants.

According to him, transactional leaders are focus on exchanging tangible rewards for the work and loyalty of followers, but transformational leaders are concentrating on engaging with followers and raising consciousness about the significance of specific outcomes and new ways in which those outcomes might be achieved(Barbuto, 2005; Barnett, McCormick & Conners, 2001; Gellis, 2001),

From above results, we can find out that when it comes to motivating teachers, transactional leadership based on manifest coercion and reward system such as appraisal and merit pay system can not be only solution. Therefore, it should deliberately be considered to introduce transformational leadership as a new approach for teacher's motivation.

V. Conclusions

Focusing on the role of education leaders including principals and education administrators for effectively motivating teachers and encouraging them to do their best effort for improving student performance, the study tried to empirically analyze the difference between transactional leadership and transformational leadership.

This study has investigated teacher's motivation among schools with having different leadership style, and how leadership style affect their motivation. For the analysis, a total of 300 surveys were sent and 175 were returned which is a response rate of approximately 58.3%, and the multiple-regression approach was used.

According to the results, just two of four transactional attributes analyzed appeared as a significant predictor of stimulating teachers' effort. Of four variables concerning to transactional leadership, the standardized coefficients of Directive and Control oriented appear definitely not to make on the effect of teachers' motivation, presenting Directive oriented(B = -.021, p <.057) and Control oriented(B = -.013, p <.051). While Merit pay system(B = .173, p <.002) and Appraisal(B = .127, p <.034) makes a little influential effects on the teachers' motivation, explaining the standardized coefficients of Merit pay system(Beta = .161, p <.002) and that of Appraisal(Beta = .129, p <.034). Even though these factors are a little affecting teacher's motivation, the effectiveness is not as much as we generally expected. Compared to variables concerning transformational leadership, the explanatory influence of those variables is low.

In contrast, all the variables related to transformational leadership have been statistically significant factors for motivating teachers. Especially, being respected as educational experts and participation appeared as the most important factors for teachers' motivation. The standardized coefficients of being respected as educational experts is the strongest variable among all the independent variables and that of the participation is the second strongest variable among them. The two factors which have been considered as the most important method for respecting teachers make influential effects on the teachers' motivation, presenting being respected as educational experts(B = .522, p <.000) and participation (B = .513, p <.001).

Given the significant difference in motivation among teachers of different leadership style, the study has empirically clarified that the variables measuring transformational leadership turned out to be statistically significant and showed stronger effects on teacher's satisfaction than the variables related to transactional leadership, indicating how important leadership style is for motivating teachers to challenge themselves for school achievement.

The results of this study are significant because they have suggested new paradigm with regard to teacher's motivation to which manifest reward such as pay and appraisal based system has been referred up to the present. Not only does this study expose how important leadership style is in teachers' motivation, but it also shows that transformational leadership concentrating on teacher's participation and self-regulation is much more significant than transactional leadership.

Considering that the principal sets generally a tone within the school that may directly and indirectly affect teacher's satisfaction as well as influence teachers to feel proud of their professional status, it is definitely sure that school leadership is also very important for motivating teachers which would consequently improve student's academic achievement. Not surprisingly, for that reason, the students who would be taught by unmotivated teachers whose hearts were not in teaching may suffer academically.

Despite of significant results, some methodological difficulties in this study deserve discussion. The limitations of the study are elaborated as follows:

First, based on data from just a few school, the study may have some intrinsic limitations, which may distort the intrinsic fact. Thus, the results suggested here must be accepted experimentally until the appearance of the enriched studies with other samples drawn from many other settings. For enhancing the relevant implication of the study, the study should be analyzed based on the data from no less than 500 teachers in over ten elementary, middle and high schools, encouraging this study to do so next time.

Second, data collected from the questionnaire based on 8 variables do not seem to be able to capture the complexity in teachers' perceptions of their leadership. For more accurate study, all variables related to transactional and transformational leadership should be included, but this study took just 4 variables for each leadership for the simplification of the study. Therefore, a follow-up survey with more enriched variables for improving this study would be advised.

Nevertheless, this study might contribute to seeking of new method for teacher's motivation by empirically approving that transformational leadership is much more effective than transactional leadership. In addition, suggesting fundamentals for developing a new integrated model of teacher motivation, the study might render useful services to the more elaborate and clear perception about the relationship between school leadership and teacher's motivation, as well as encourage researchers to analyze the variables which are not explained here for more valuable study.

References

Anderman, E. M., Belzer, S., & Smith, J. (1991). Teacher commitment and job satisfaction: The role of school culture and principal leadership. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72 (4): 441-463.

Avolio, B. J. & Bass, B. M. (1985). Transformational Leadership, Charisma and Beyond, School of Management, SUNY at Binghamton Working Paper.

Barbuto, J. E. (Jnr) (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic, and transformational leadership: a test of antecedents. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11 (4): 26-40.

Barnett, K., McCormick, J., & Conners, R. (2001). Transformational leadership in schools – panacea, placebo or problem? Journal of Educational Administration, 39 (1): 24-46.

Barnett, A. (2003). The impact of transformational leadership style of the school principal on school learning environments and selected teacher outcomes: a preliminary report. Paper presented at NZARE AARE, Auckland, New Zealand, November. Manuscript available from author.

Betancourt-Smith, M., Inman, D., & Marlow, L. (1994). Professional attrition: An examination of minority and nonminority teachers at-risk. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association.

Billingsley, B. S. (1993). Teacher retention and attrition in special and general education: A critical review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 27: 137-174.

Brown, F. W. & Moshavi, D. (2002). Herding academic cats: Faculty reactions to transformational and contingent reward leadership by Department Chairs. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 8 (3): 79-93.

Bryant, S. E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9 (4): 32-44.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. N. Y.: Harper & Row.

Chittom, S. A. & Sistrunk, W. E. (1990). The relationship between secondary teachers’ job satisfaction and their perceptions of school climate. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Colley, A. C. (2002). What can principals do about new teacher attrition? Principal, 81: 22-24.

Coltham, J. B. (1972). Educational Accountability: An English Experiment and its Outcome. School Review, 81 (1): 321.

Cox, P. L. (2001). Transformational leadership: a success story at Cornell University. Proceedings of the ATEM/aappa 2001 conference.

Emmert, Mark A. & Taher, W. A. (1992). Public Sector Professionals: The Effects of Public Sector Jobs on Motivation, Job Satisfaction and Work Involvement, American Review of Public Administration, 22 : 37-48.

Feinberg, B. J., Ostroff, C., & Burke, W. W. (2005). The role of within-group agreement in understanding transformational leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78: 471-488.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill: Harper and Row Publishers Inc.

Filak, V. F. & Sheldon, K. M. (2003). Student Psychological Need Satisfaction and College Teacher-Course Evaluations. Educational Psychology, 23 (3): 235-247.

Frase, L. E. (1989). The Effects of Teaching Rewards on Recognition and Job Enrichment. Journal of Educational Research, 83 (1): 53-57.

Futernick, K. (2007). A possible dream: Retaining California teachers so all students learn. Sacramento: California State University Center for Teacher Quality.

Gellis, Z. D. (2001). Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care. Social Work Research, 25 (1): 17-25.

Hanushek, E. A. & Rivkin, S. G. (2007). Pay, working conditions, and teacher quality. The Future of Children, 17 (1): 69-86.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., & Johnson, D. (2008). Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources(9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Hirsch, E. & Emerick, S. et al. (2006). Teaching and Learning Conditions are Critical to the Success of Students and the Retention of Teachers, Final Report on the 2006 Teaching and Learning Conditions Survey to the Clark County School District and Clark County Education Association. Center for Teaching Quality.

____________. (2007). Creating conditions for student and teaching success: A report on the 2006 Kansas teacher working conditions survey. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Center for Teaching Quality.

Johnson, S. M. (1986). Incentives for Teachers: What Motivates, What Matters. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22 (3: Summer): 54-79.

Joyce, B. & Calhoun, E. (1998). The conduct of school renewal: Working hypotheses from successful cases. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association(April), San Diego, CA.

Jung, D. I. & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (2): 208-219.

Lawler 111, E. E. (1993). "Merit Pay: An Obsolete Policy?" in Perspectives on Behavior in Organizations, J. R. Jackman, E. E. Lawler 11, and L. W. Porter, editors (305-310). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Leithwood, K. (2006). Teacher working conditions that matter: Evidence for change. Toronto: Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

Lussier, R. N. & Achua, C. F. (2004). Leadership: theory, application, skill development. 2nd ed. Eagan, MN: Thomson-West.

Mitchell, D. E., Ortiz, F I., & Mitchell, I K. (1987). Work Orientation and Job Performance: Toward a Cultural Theory of Work Motivation. Albany, NY. State University of New York Press.

Nachmias, D. (1988). The Quality of Work Life in the Federal Bureaucracy: Conceptualization and Measurement, American Review of Public Administration,  18 : 165-173.

Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, Third Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Peterson, Kenneth D. (1995). Teacher Evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide to New Directions and Practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment: Implications for teacher induction programs. The Elementary School Journal, 89: 421-439.

Shann, M. H. (1998). Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middle schools. Journal of Education Research, 92: 67-73.

Shen, J. (1998). Teacher retention and attrition in public schools: Evidence from SASS91. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 81-89.

Singh, K. & Billingsley, B. S. (1996). Intent to stay in teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 17: 37-48.

Spreitzer, G. M., Perttula, K. H., & Xin, K. (2005). Traditionality matters: an examination of the effectiveness of transformational leadership in the United States and Taiwan. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 205-227.

Stogdill, R. M. & Corms, W. H. (1951). Handbook of Leadership. N. Y.: Free Press.

Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2003). Transformational versus servant leadership – a difference in leader focus. Servant Leadership Roundtable – October.

김대원(金大源): 경북대학교에서 행정학 박사학위(논문: 지방세 수입예측 모형, 1991)를 취득하고, 현재 신라대학교 행정학과 교수로 재직하고 있다. 주요 관심분야는 재무행정론, 지방재정론, 행정관리론 등이며, 주요 논문으로는 “The Impact of Pay for Performance System and the Like on Employees' Motivation"(2009), “DEA Model and its Application in Local Government"(2005), "Analysis of X-inefficiency in Local Government using Nonparametric Approach"(2004) 등이 있다. 주요 저서로는 「지방재정제도의 이론과 실제」(공저, 2002), 「행정학원론」(공저, 2004) 등이 있다.

<E-mail: dwkim@silla.ac.kr / 논문접수일 2010. 7. 13 / 심사개시일 2010. 7. 14 / 심사완료일 2010. 8. 9 >

박철민(朴喆敏): 경북대학교에서 행정학 박사학위(논문: 공․사조직의 조직몰입 영향변인 및 결과변인 비교, 2002)를 취득하고, (재)부산인적자원개발원 연구위원을 거쳐, 현재 제주산업정보대학 복지행정과 조교수로 재직하고 있다. 주요 관심분야는 조직관리, 인적자원개발, 복지행정 등이며, 주요 논문으로는 “The Impact of Eustress and Distress Predictors on the Health of Leaders in Local Government”(2009), “The Impact of Pay for Performance System and the Like on Employees' Motivation"(2009), “The Effect of Customer Satisfaction on Public Medical Service"(2009) 등이 있다.

<E-mail: cmpark@jeju.ac.kr>