The main question of this study is, are more cognitively complex Hong Kong school leaders (principals, vice-principals, and senior masters) more behaviorally complex than less cognitively complex leaders? To get answers to our question we used a quantitative non-experimental design to assess school leaders’ cognitive and behavioral complexity and then examined moderators that influenced the relationship. The thinking skills found in The Strategic Thinking Questionnaire (STQ) where grouped into the cognitive complexity scale. The leader influence actions found in The Strategic Leader Questionnaire (SLQ) were grouped into the behavioral complexity scale and their relationship was analyzed. School type, leader role position, educational level, age, and gender were employed as moderators The cognitive and behavioral complexity data was collected from 356 Hong Kong school leaders. The data were analyzed through descriptive and multivariate analyses. The first major finding was that cognitive complexity is moderated by the position held, age, and education level of the leader. School principals displayed greater cognitive complexity than vice principals or senior masters. Older school leaders, and those with advance academic degrees were more cognitively complex. The second major finding is that while behavioral complexity is also influenced by position the leader holds, it is not associated with higher academic degrees. Finally, we also found that more highly cognitively complex leaders were prone to be more behaviorally complex. We concluded that cognitive complexity can be influenced by education while behavioral complexity may be more associated with experience on the job; even though higher levels of cognitive complexity do related to higher levels of behavioral complexity. This research makes a significant contribution to the literature on cognition and behavior. This study has both theoretical and practical significance. On the theoretical side, notions of leader cognition and behavior have traveled on mostly parallel paths empirically. This study joints them to test a commonly held believe that in today’s turbulent environment leaders who are cognitively and behaviorally complex will be more effective school leaders. On the practical side, the study produces implications for the selection and succession of school leaders as well as for the need for advanced cognitive and behavioral training and university academic programs.
16
Pisapia & Pang (2012) 1 HK School Leaders Cognitive Complexity and their Ability to Influence their Followers John Pisapia, Professor Department of Ed Leadership & Res Methods Florida Atlantic University [email protected]Nicholas Pang, Professor Department of Ed Adm & Policy Chinese University of Hong Kong [email protected]Paper presented to the World Educational Research Association (WERA), Sydney, Australia December 3, 2012 The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Research Grant Council of Hong Kong for the support of this research (RGC Ref. No.: 452710)
Transcript
Pisapia & Pang (2012) 1
HK School Leaders Cognitive Complexity and their Ability to Influence their Followers
John Pisapia, ProfessorDepartment of Ed Leadership & Res Methods
Institutions worldwide are operating in conditions of environmental complexity, ambiguity, and
sometimes chaos.Hong Kong Schools are no Different
Pisapia & Pang (2012) 3
Problem and Purpose The leadership literature suggests that high environmental complexity requires leaders with high cognitive and behavioral complexity (Bass, 2007; Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Hooijberg & Quinn 1992; Kaiser, Lindberg, & Craig, 2007; Mintzberg & Waters, 1982).
Regrettably, while commonly defined, they have traveled mostly parallel paths empirically. This study seeks to find evidence that the paths cross.
The main question of this study is, are more cognitively complex Hong Kong school leaders (principals, vice-principals, and senior masters) more behaviorally complex than less cognitively complex leaders?
Research StreamsTwo distinct leadership research streams – leader cognitive and behavioral complexity – are suggested as ways to be successful under these new environmental conditions. In their simplest forms, cognitive and behavioral complexity refers to the capacity of a given leader to engage in wide repertoire of thinking and influence behaviors. The assumption being that if you are able to engage in a wider array of thinking skills and behaviors you will be more effective than a person with lower cognitive and behavioral complexity. This assumption underlies the working hypothesis of our efforts. “in times of complexity leaders who are cognitively and behaviorally complex produce better results than those less cognitively and behaviorally complex” (Pisapia, 2009).
Pisapia & Pang (2012) 4
Pisapia & Pang (2012) 5
1. Leaders must possess an Agile mind. They use strategic thinking skills-systems thinking -
reflection - reframing - which enable them to think strategically. These skills make it possible to recognize patterns, make sense out of seemingly unrelated information. They use them to switch from a strategic mindset -“Why and What” - to a tactical mindset -“How and When” - in a rapid and iterative processes when appropriate.
Tool Used: The Strategic Thinking Questionnaire (STQ)
The way we have tested the hypothesisCompetency #1
Strategic Thinking Skills
Description
Systems Thinking
Systems thinking refers to the leader’s ability to see systems holistically by understanding the properties, forces, patterns and interrelationships that shape the behavior of the system, which hence provides options for action.
Reflecting
Reflecting refers to the leader’s ability to weave logical and rational thinking, through the use of perceptions, experience and information, to make judgments on what has happened, and creation of intuitive principles that guide future actions.
Reframing
Reframing refers to the leader’s ability to switch attention across multiple perspectives, frames, mental models, and paradigms to generate new insights and options for actions.
Table 1 Subscales of the Strategic Thinking Questionnaire (STQ)
Pisapia & Pang (2012) 7
The way we have tested the hypothesisCompetency # 2
Leaders use multiple influence actions.
They are able to create momentum by using managing - transforming - bonding - bridging - bartering – influence actions.
They use these actions in a generative way because they know that change will be fast if people are engaged - slow – if not!
Tool: The Strategic Thinking Questionnaire (SLQ)
Leader Actions
Description
ManagingManaging actions are taken to maintain consistency in order that current organizational goals are accomplished efficiently and effectively.
Transforming
Transforming actions are taken to influence direction, actions, and opinions in order to change organizational conditions and culture so that learning and change occur as a normal routine of the organization.
Bonding
Bonding actions are taken to ensure that trust is an attribute of the system and not just something developed among individuals in order that followers' exhibit emotional commitment to the organization's aspirations and values.
Bridging
Bridging actions are taken to develop alliances with people of power and influence from outside and inside the organization in order to gain insights, support, and resources.
BarteringBartering actions are taken to give something in exchange in order to strengthen the effectiveness of relationships and alliance building efforts.
Table 2 Subscales of the Strategic Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ)
Pisapia & Pang (2012) 9
The Current Study Design Quantitative non-experimentalPredictor variables – Leader Cognitive skills Criterion variable – Leader Influence Actions
Hypotheses H1: School leaders’ use of cognitive thinking skills and leader behavioral influence actions is contextually moderated.H2 School leader cognitive complexity is linked to their behavioral complexity.H3 HCC school leaders are more behaviorally complex than LCC school
Sample –Schools Elementary 180 – Secondary 180 – Special Schools 20. invited to participate. 629 school leaders responded – 270 cases were removed
Features: Omission rate and inconsistency index. Reliability: All reliability alphas > .70 except bartering alpha = .68
Data AnalysisDescriptive statistics, univariate analyses of variance and regression analyses Correlation and Regression
9
H1: School leaders’ use of cognitive thinking skills and leader behavioral influence actions are contextually moderated.
• Cognitive Complexity (CC) is moderated by position held, age, and education level of the leader. School principals displayed higher CC than vice principals or senior masters. Vice principals displayed higher CC than senior masters. The position effect size was small (ES = .048)
• Older school leaders with advance academic degrees were more CC than younger school leaders.
• Effect sizes ranged from small for degrees received (ES =.05) to large for age (ES =.185) and age plus degree (ES =.217).
• Behavioral Complexity (BC) was influenced by position held; school principals are more BC than vice principals, or senior masters. The position effect size was small (ES =.02)
• BC is strongly influenced by Age, (ES=.18)
• BC was not influenced by academic degrees, or gender. Gender produced no significant modifying effects in either cognitive or behavioral complexity.
Pisapia & Pang (2012) 10
Pisapia & Pang (2012) 1111
C C
Transforming
Managing
Bonding
H2 Cognitive Complexity is linked to Behavioral Complexity
(X Variables)
(Y Variables)
Bridging
0.28
0.06
0.48
0.01
0.02
Figures given are Eta2 and are significant at 0.00 level.
Bartering
Pisapia
Behavioral Complexity.r2=12
Transforming Managing Bonding Bridging Bartering
HCC 4.02 3.87 4.48 3.31 2.88
LCC 3.7 3.76 4.1 3.15 2.99
2.75
3.25
3.75
4.25
4.75
H3 HCC School Leaders are more Behaviorally Complex than
LCC School Leaders
Pisapia & Pang (2011) 12
Pisapia & Pang (2012) 13
Conclusions
How Hong School Leaders Think Cognitive Complexity is influenced by Position,
Education, and Age
How Hong School Leaders Act Cognitive and Behavioral Complexity are linked. School leaders, who demonstrated Higher cognitive
complexity, also reported greater Behavioral Complexity, particularly in transforming, bonding, managing and bridging
School leaders, who demonstrated Lower cognitive complexity reported greater use of bartering
Pisapia 13
What does it mean?
How leaders think relates to how they act!
Cognitively Complex leader’s multifaceted use of leadership influence actions has been demonstrated in other studies to be strongly associated with • self reported effectiveness (Yasin , 2006
UĞurluoĞlu 2009); • effectiveness reported by others; (Reyes-Guerra,
2009); and • objective measures of effectiveness (Fazzino
2012- School achievement )
Pisapia & Pang (2012) 15
Recommendations For School Leaders, Cultivate broader
thinking skills, and leader influence actions.
For governing bodies, invest in training. Thinking can be trained for; behaviors are more associated with experience.
For Universities and high schools , incorporate synthesis as well as analysis, and creative as well as critical thinking skills into their curricula.
Pang
Pisapia & Pang (2012) 16EAP Seminar Pang & Pisapia 16
