A PROPOSED MODEL OF PARTICIPATORY LEADERSHIP FROM THE ACADEMIC STAFF’S PERSPECTIVE: ACROSS-COMPARATI

Research Paper

E-ISSN NO : 2455-295X | VOLUME : 3 | ISSUE : 11 | NOV 2017

A PROPOSED MODEL OF PARTICIPATORY LEADERSHIP FROM THE ACADEMIC STAFF’S PERSPECTIVE: ACROSS-COMPARATIVE STUDY MAAN LATIF KHASHKOOL AL-RUBIAI 1 | SAAD AHMED ALI JADOO* 2 1 DEPARTMENT 2

OF PSYCHOLOGY, COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, DIYALA UNIVERSITY, IRAQ. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, FACULTY OF MEDICINE, BEZMIALEM VAKIF UNIVERSITY, ISTANBUL, TURKEY.

ABSTRACT This study aimed to develop and test a model for participatory leadership among academic staff at the University of Diyala, in Iraq. In (2015-2016) academic year, a cross-comparative study was designed to survey the Faculty of Education for Human Sciences and the Faculty of Basic Education. A total of 190 academics were recruited using the universal sampling technique. More than half (52.6%) of participants were males and holding doctorial degrees. A set of 32 statements was extracted as possible indicators for participatory leadership model. Content validity rate (CVR) and the content validity index (CVI) have been indicated. The first version pre-piloted with 20 academics. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient showed excellent internal consistency (alpha=0.89), and The Spearman Brown split-half reliability Coefficient was found to be r=0.77 indicated an appropriate stability for the scale. In high-low 27 per-cent group method, all items are found to be qualified enough to determine the discrimination of the scale and to predict the total score. Results of one-sample t-test confirmed a participatory leadership in both of the surveyed faculties, while the independent - sample t-test showed that the participatory leadership was more among surveyed staff from the Faculty of Basic Education (m= 114.35, SD=19.64) than surveyed staff from the Faculty of Education for Human Sciences (m= 113.12, SD=17.10). In binary logistic regression, males were 3.13 times more likely to exhibit participatory leadership than females; however there was no significant difference between the doctorate and the Master degrees. The findings showed that the designed model was valid and reliable and can be used easily to assess the participatory leadership among academic staff.

Keywords: Participatory Leadership, Education, Academic Staff, Diyala, Iraq.

Introduction It is widely seen that whatever his abilities are, the leader cannot achieve the goals without involvement of subordinates in the implementation process (George, 2011). The model of participatory leadership considered one of the most important reasons for successful leadership, and the success of the organization in achieving its goals (Magzan, 2011). This model has a strong trend towards relations and working together, because employees are encouraged to be involved in decision-making process across different levels of the organization (Spreitzer, 2005). In its broadest meaning, the participatory leadership model refers to complementarity between the individual and his organization aspiring to participate and reduce differences (Gress, 1974). Moreover, the participatory leadership model motivates employees to do the work, because it favors to achieve the goals that employees are effectively contributed in its formulation and implementation (Spreitzer, 2005).

Recently and because of more dynamic changes are going on within their organizations, leaders are encouraged to adopt the participative leadership style as a humanistic based approach (Rad and Yarmohammadian, 2006) . This trend has increasingly been noted among the educational organizations. The participatory leadership may help to improve and ever-changing educational process because it provides an ideal environment to involve the teachers and parents to be partakers in decision making process (Amanchukwu et

al., 2015). Prior to 1980, Iraq had a distinct educational system, however over the next four decades; education level has declined significantly due to successive wars and international isolation with absence of academic exchanges in the 1990s of last century (Ranjan and Jain, 2009). Moreover, after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the already weakened infrastructure of the educational institutions has been exposed to further damage, as well as the terrorist attacks towards the universities and cultural institutions leading to many intellectuals and academics to look for alternatives outside Iraq (Ali Jadoo et al 2015).

The most prominent problems of education in Iraq including the lack of participation of teaching staff in the decision-making process, few moral and physical incentives, huge numbers of students, the administrative issues such as preparing the curricula and the annual financial budget, in addition to providing and maintenance buildings and equipment, with the absence of clear national vision and strategic plan to reform the educational system (Ranjan and Jain, 2009; Ali Jadoo et al., 2015).

As consequence of the aforementioned exceptional situation of Iraq, the problems of the administrative work in the field of education are most likely renewed and intertwined. Moreover, the administrative leadership failed to provide an effective model for the participatory leadership to share leading the university with academics staff.

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH JOURNAL

42

Research Paper

E-ISSN NO : 2455-295X | VOLUME : 3 | ISSUE : 11 | NOV 2017

This study aimed to develop and test a model for participatory leadership among academic staff from the Faculty of Education for Human Sciences and the Faculty of Basic Education at the University of Diyala, in Iraq.

Material and Methods The study group of the research consists of the academic staff in the Faculty of Education for Human Sciences and the Faculty of Basic Education at the University of Diyala in the (2015-2016) academic year. A uniform sampling technique was recruited to collect data from total 376 teachers employed in both faculties. Inclusion criteria including all academicians who had been receiving a master or doctorate degrees, currently employed in each of the Faculty of Education for Human Sciences and the College of Basic Education in university of Diyala and were available in the day of study. While, deans, heads of department, their deputies, academicians who are absent and those who refused to participate have been excluded.

Validity and reliability studies were conducted on two different groups for construct validity and criterion validity in the process of developing model of participatory leadership.

Ethical approval (136-26-January -2016) for the study was obtained from the Basic Education College, University of Diyala. Moreover, written informed consent was obtained from each participant after explanation of the study objectives and guarantee of secrecy.

Procedure Literature Review and Statement Development The first stage to develop the scale was the determination of item pool. The researchers relied on a number of scientific studies and literature that dealt with the educational administration in general and focusing on the literature and studies that dealt with participatory leadership in particular. For this purpose an extensive review of the available related literatures (websites) has been searched over the last three decades. Keywords such as leader, leaderships, teacher, and participative leadership were used during the search.

Initially 33 statements were drawn from literature review.

For content validity, items have been discussed in depth with a team of twelve academics and experts in education, psychology and educational administration. The team provided advice, guidance, amendment and wording of some paragraphs linguistically. With exception of one item (the college is sharing the subordinates in making wise decisions), the questionnaire is valid and composed of (32) items. Each member of the team answered the question “is the item essential to the aspect? Their responses have been given in three-point Likert scale comprising “essential, useful but not essential, or not necessary”.

The Content Validity Ratio of score (0.78 and more) was appointed to each item and allowed to test for Content Validity Index: on a four-point Likert scale “not relevant, somewhat relevant, quite relevant, or highly relevant” all the questions had a score above 0.80. The 32 items model

of participatory leadership were stated in the form of 5-point Likert type as; “I totally agree - (5), I agree - (4), I am undecided - (3), I do not agree - (2), I totally disagree (1)”, with a highest total score of 160, and the lowest total score of 32 for each individual respondent (Ali Jadoo et al, 2014).

Pilot study The first version was pre-piloted with a randomly selected sample of 20 academicians (not included in the empirical study). They were asked to comment and give their suggestions on items. Participants approved on all statements with an excellent completion rate. For the purpose of publication, the Arabic version was forward-backward translated into English by two academics working in psychology and educational administration with the required competence in English language and familiarity with the topic.

Data Analysis Data were presented in mean and standard deviation with further analysis recruiting the SPSS 16.0 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences), an independent sample t test to find the differential force and to know the differences between the two samples, Pearson correlation coefficient for extracting the correlation between the score of each item and the total score, a one-sample test to identify participatory leadership in both groups, and the binary variance analysis to find differences in gender. The following procedures of analysis were performed during the process of development of model of participatory leadership.

Internal Consistency and Reliability Cronbach’s α coefficient was indicated to determine the degree of homogeneity among the model of participatory leadership items. Moreover, the Spearman Brown split-half reliability Coefficient was considered in order to determine reliability for the whole of the test. This method is based on the fragmentation of the test to determine the stability coefficient to two halves (equal) after applying them to one group. There are several ways to split the questionnaire. The first half of the question paragraphs may be used against the second half or may use questions with odd numbers versus questions with even-numbers.

For this purpose, a randomly selected 30 academicians (not included in the empirical study) were included to test the stability of the questionnaire using the method of split-half reliability. The proposed set of questions was divided into two sets. Then both sets are given to the same respondents at the same time. The scores from both sets are correlated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. A high correlation referred to reliable test.

Scale and Item Discriminations The significance of the difference between the item scores of the highest 27 % and the lowest 27 % was investigated according to their scores from the scale using t test in order to determine to what extent each item in the scale was able to discriminate the academicians in terms of

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH JOURNAL

43

Research Paper

E-ISSN NO : 2455-295X | VOLUME : 3 | ISSUE : 11 | NOV 2017

participatory leadership. Moreover, item total correlations were considered in order to determine the item discrimination of each item in the scale.

Results and Discussions

Out of the 376 academicians in both faculties, 190 were eligible for the study given a 50.5% response rate. More than half 52.6% were males compared to 47.4% were females. The academicians who are holding doctorial degrees were 100 (52.6%) compared to 47.4% were holding master degrees (Table 1).

Table 1 Shows the distribution of the basic research sample according to the gender variable and the scientific qualification (n=190) No.

Faculties

Qualification

Gender

Doctorate

Master

Male

Total

%

Female

1

Faculty of Education for Human Sciences

50

44

50

44

94

49.47

2

College of Basic Education

50

46

50

46

96

50.53

Total

100

90

100

90

190

100%

Internal consistency and reliability In this study Cronbach’s alpha values were calculated in order to determine internal consistency of the scale items and found to be α=0.89 for the whole of the scale. A Cronbach’s α coefficient social cutoff (0.70 or higher) was considered in order to accept the scale’s reliability. In this context, it can be said that both the whole of the scale and all of the items that constitute the scale are reliable (Ali Jadoo et al., 2013). Moreover, Pearson correlation coefficient belonging to The Spearman Brown split-half reliability Coefficient was calculated and found to be r=0.77 and then corrected using the Spearman equation to give the final stability coefficient of 0.91. Gravetter and Forzano (2009) indicated that the reliability for the whole scale will be considered when Spearman correlation

coefficient of 0.70 and above. Therefore, it was observed that the scale was reliable for both the whole of the scale and for internal consistency.

Item discriminations In order to determine item discrimination of the 32 items in the scale, item total correlations were also investigated (Table 2). It was found that all the items (32) were significant and the t value varied between 0.38 - 0.59 and the scale value is r =0.13. The degree of freedom (In + 2n – z) is equal to (188) at a significant level (0.05). The items of the scale were found to be discriminating because it is accepted that if item total correlation is 0.30 and above, then items are considered qualified enough to discriminate the quality to be measured (Popham, 2000).

Table 2 shows the internal consistency and relation of all items to the total scale and the relationship between the score of each item and the total score of the scale (correlation coefficient).

No.

Items

t- value

r-value

Sig.

1

The college has to adopt the principle of Shura to ensure the success of the educational process.

0.38

0.13

< 0.05

2

The college has to encourage the exchange of experiences between the heads of departments and the academicians.

0.39

3

Taking into account the fairness in the distribution of tasks among the subordinates without favoritism or bias

0.54

4

Academicians have to cooperate with heads of departments to resolve crises and manage them well.

0.45

5

The college has to activate the leadership among the newly appointed leaders with guidance and training.

0.42

6

The college has to deal with subordinates in a wisdom and rationality.

0.40

7

The College has to facilitate the collaboration between academic staff and other employees.

0.47

8

Heads of departments and the academic staff have to participate in decision-making regarding their department.

0.52

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH JOURNAL

44

Research Paper

E-ISSN NO : 2455-295X | VOLUME : 3 | ISSUE : 11 | NOV 2017

9

The College has to understand the problems of heads of departments and the academic staff and tries to address it well.

0.51

10

Motivation of the heads of department and the academic staff to demonstrate their creative and innovative abilities.

0.53

11

Leaders have to guide the subordinate in a way that reinforce their affiliation to the college.

0.59

12

The leadership has to use the logical analysis to solve educational problems.

0.51

13

The college should involve the employees in the implementation of the prepared plans.

0.51

14

The leadership takes into account the self-control through the understanding of others to educational goals.

0.41

15

The college has to take advantage of all the efforts and energies of heads of department and academic staff.

0.53

16

The college has to promote a positive environment of work among employees.

0.50

17

The college has to stimulate the hardworking employee and reprimand the defaulters.

0.50

18

The college has to involve employees when going to evaluate the results of work.

0.45

19

The college has to determine the authorities and duties in a wisdom manner without any conflict or interference.

0.53

20

The college has to involve the heads of departments and the academic staff in strategic planning.

0.55

21

The college has to coordinate staff efforts and encourage cooperation with them.

0.49

22

The college has to keen to establish human relations based on respect for the individual's personality, opinions and ideas.

0.50

23

The college has to employ both of moral and physical incentives to increase production

0.58

24

The leadership has to adopt the criterion of ability to do work and desire.

0.40

25

The leadership has to guarantee the principle of collective participation in decision-making and its implementation.

0.43

26

The Participatory leadership depends on putting the right person in the right place

0.50

27

The participatory leadership promotes self-confidence among the employees and lets them self-sufficient.

0.47

28

The participatory leadership provides opportunities for professional and career growth for individuals and their organization.

0.32

29

The participatory leadership allows freedom of opinion and discussion without fanaticism.

0.50

30

The participatory leadership works to increase the qualification of heads of departments and the academic staff.

0.45

31

The participatory leadership recognizes the principle of individual differences between heads of department and the academic staff.

0.53

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH JOURNAL

45

Research Paper 32

E-ISSN NO : 2455-295X | VOLUME : 3 | ISSUE : 11 | NOV 2017

The participatory leadership works to achieve high productivity from all heads of department.

Scale discriminations

0.55

each item according to the scale scores, and the low (27 % group, 51 teachers) that got the lowest scores.

High-low 27 per-cent group method was used in order to determine item discrimination of the scale and reveal to what extent the items predicted the total score. The high (27 % group, 51 teachers) that got the highest score for

Table3 shows that t values concerning the significance of difference between item score averages varied between 10.923 (p<.001) and 2.926 (p<.001) and the scale value is (1.98). The degree of freedom (In + 2n â&#x20AC;&#x201C; z) is equal to (100) at a significant level less than 0.05.

Table 3 describes the item discrimination of the scale (27% highest and 27% lowest) with the t test results for 32 items.

No.

N.

Factor

Mean

SD

Item t

No.

Factor

Mean

SD

value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51

1.00*

4.35

1.17

2.00**

3.78

1.14

1.00

4.49

1.15

2.00

3.63

1.01

1.00

4.61

1.27

2.00

3.06

1.19

1.00

4.49

1.36

2.00

3,18

1.29

1.00

4.16

1.51

2.00

2.98

1.43

1.00

4.29

1.46

2.00

3.12

1.33

1.00

4.37

1.16

2.00

2.94

1.10

1.00

4.27

1.30

2.00

2.67

1.16

1.00

4.51

1.42

2.00

3.06

1.33

1.00

4.49

1.17

2.00

2.92

1.01

1.00

4.41

1.12

2.00

2.78

1.02

1.00

4.14

1.27

2.00

2.69

1.12

1.00

4.16

1.27

2.00

2.59

1.11

1.00

4.08

1.54

2.00

2.75

1.34

1.00

4.31

1.37

2.00

2.75

1.26

2,926 4,792 8,387 6,564 5,176 5,381 8,145 8,309 6,701 8,423 8,712 7,946 8,488 6,162 7,474

Item t

Sig.

value 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

1.00

4.43

1.18

2.00

3.04

1.03

1.00

4.18

1.34

2.00

2.80

1.24

1.00

4.31

1.37

2.00

2.55

1.21

1.00

4.45

1.38

2.00

2.53

1.28

1.00

4.25

1.38

2.00

2.86

1.21

1.00

4.55

1.39

2.00

3.14

1.24

1.00

4.49

1.29

2.00

2.49

1.02

1.00

4.35

1.39

2.00

3.08

1.21

1.00

4.22

1.43

2.00

2.92

1.33

1.00

4.45

1.38

2.00

3.00

1.23

1.00

4.31

1.41

2.00

2.82

1.35

1.00

4.27

1.49

2.00

2.69

1.30

1.00

4.25

1.39

2.00

2.80

1.28

1.00

4.33

1.48

2.00

2.90

1.11

1.00

4.23

1.46

2.00

2.78

1.36

8,041

<0.05

6,814 8,288 9,639 7,185 7,251 10,923 6,458 6,059 7,304 6,916 7,474 6,871 6,202 6,334

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH JOURNAL

46

Research Paper 16

E-ISSN NO : 2455-295X | VOLUME : 3 | ISSUE : 11 | NOV 2017

51

1.00

4.43

1.36

2.00

3.00

1.16

7,515

32

*1.0=highest 27% (n=51), **2.0=lowest 27% (n=51)

Bivirate analysis A one-sample t-test was run to determine whether model of participatory leadership was different to normal, defined as a model of participatory leadership score of 96.0. Model of participatory leadership scores were normally distributed, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p > .05) and there were no outliers in the data, as assessed by inspection of a boxplot. Mean model of participatory leadership score (114.24 ± 18.38) was higher than the normal model of participatory leadership score of 96.0, a statistically significant difference of 18.24 (95% CI, 2.14 to 3.57), t (189) = 13.71, p <0.05 (Table 4). There were significant differences in the responses of the sample to the participatory leadership questionnaire. These results

1.00

4.25

1.54

2.00

2.67

1.35

7,231

confirmed the presence of participatory leadership in both of the surveyed faculties. Such findings could also be explained partly on the presence of ambition among the teaching staff to be effectively participating in decision-making process and to have better relationships among leaders at the college (McLennan and Thurlow, 2003). Indeed, the participatory leadership could satisfy the staff’s ambition as an emerging paradigm focusing “on building relationships in education” (McLennan and Thurlow, 2003), and taking in consideration “the opinions and suggestions of subordinates before making the final decision” (Mullins, 2005). The participatory leadership style was found to be positively related to job satisfaction (Rad and Yarmohammadian, 2006) and to the team innovation (Somech, 2006).

Table 4 shows the differences between the respondents of the sample using one sample t-test (n=190).

N.

Default

Mean

SD

t-value

Mean difference

Sig.

95% CL

114.24

18.38

13.71

18.24

<0.05

2.14-3.57

mean 190

96

An independent - sample t-test was run to determine if there were differences in participatory leadership between the two surveyed faculties. There are differences in participatory leadership between the two surveyed faculties. The participatory leadership was more among surveyed staff from the Faculty of Basic Education (m= 114.35, SD=19.64) than surveyed staff from the Faculty of Education for Human Sciences (m= 113.12, SD=17.10), a statistically significant difference, m=1.23, 95%CI [12.97, 16.13], t (95) =19.15, P= <0.05 (Table 5). Statistically there was significant difference between the two Faculties and in favor of the Faculty of Basic Education. It seems that the

leadership in the Faculty of Basic Education is a participatory leadership and considered the contribution of teaching staff in decision-making process to solve all the problems facing the college as one of its main priorities (Rok, 2009). Furthermore, the changing of the leadership paradigm from individual to collective style (Fletcher, 2004), and because of the participative leadership style has been shown to be “strongly motivate employees to commit to the organization” (Rad and Yarmohammadian, 2006); the successful organizations are excited to create the suitable environment for participatory decision making (Patel and Buiting, 2013).

Table 5 shows the differences between the two faculties using the T-test for two independent samples Faculties

N (%)

Mean + SD

Mean difference

t-value

Sig.

Faculty of Basic Education

96(50.5)

114.35 + 19.64

1.23

19.15

<0.05

Faculty of Education for Human Sciences

94(49.5)

113.12 + 17.10

Logistic regression A binomial logistic regression was run to understand the effects of the academic staff qualification and gender on the model of participatory leadership (Table 6). Gender was statistically significantly predicted the model of participatory leadership (p = 0.003), but qualification did not (p = 0.817). Males were 3.13 times more likely to present participatory leadership than females. This finding is due to the fact that males are more confident than women (Bengtsson, Persson, and Willenhag, 2005), in

taking the leadership and participation in the decision making process (Rhee and Sigler, 2015; Catalyst, 2004).

Furthermore, some of the social characteristics, differences in personality patterns and behaviours (Yukl, 2002), as well as emotion and independence lead to inability of females to make decisions (Nielsen & Huse2010). Moreover females may be forced to “work harder to be perceived as equally competent as men” (Lyness and Heilman, 2006). However, females have seen to adopt more collaborative and democratic styles (Eagly and Johnson, 1990),” highly initiative, self-development, integrity, honesty and driving for results” (Zenger

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH JOURNAL

47

Research Paper

E-ISSN NO : 2455-295X | VOLUME : 3 | ISSUE : 11 | NOV 2017

Folkman, 2012).

Table 6 gender and qualification association with participatory leadership in binary logistic regression Variables Doctorate degree holders

B 0.054

SE 0.176

Wald 17.54

p value 0.817

Master degree holders Male

0.87

95% CI 0.64–2.63

Reference 8.970

0.293

93.09

0.003

Female Constant

OR

3.13

1.45–6.30

Reference 7.219

0.811

31.21

0.000

0.024

OR, odds ratio

Conclusion

This study reviewed in light of some limitation, such as the sample size which was not large enough to find more significant findings that may affect the final results.

Moreover, few variables (gender, qualification) have been analyzed to test the impacts of participative leadership.

Conducting longitudinal studies with further evaluation of the participatory leadership could give a better understanding of the research variables and its relation to decision making in the faculties of Diyala University.

A proposed model of participatory leadership has been developed and statistically proven to be valid and reliable scale. The Participatory leadership in the Faculty of Education for Human Sciences and the College of Basic Education has a leading role in the participation of academic staff in decision-making process. The organizational culture of participatory leadership has an impact on the degree of participation of teachers in participatory decision - making. The administrative leadership and participatory leadership are shared the same characteristics and elements when practicing the cooperative work. The model of participatory leadership has been affected by the administrative methods followed by the leader to encourage the participation of surveyed teachers in the processes of raising the morale, scientific capacity, increase motivation and create a good perception to activate functional cooperation.

The participatory manner in decision-making process with involving of the academic staff was necessary to prepare the operational plans and setting clear criteria for the selection of administrative leaders. It was important to focus on the team work and to make the leadership as a collaborative and participatory style. The Ministry of higher education has to provide advanced and qualified educational courses to raise the professionalism of the educational leaders in term of leadership and decision making process. Moreover and for the purpose to adopt the democratic approach in their leadership, the leaders of colleges are needed to expand their authorities towards the decentralization.

REFERENCES 1. George, B. (2011): Why leaders lose their way.

Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, available at http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6741.html, accessed 12 November 2017.

2. Magzan, M. (2011). The Art of Participatory Leadership: A tool for social and organizational development and change. Journal of Engineering Management and Competitiveness, 1, p. 21–26.

3. Spreitzer, G. M. (2007). Giving peace a chance: Organizational leadership, empowerment, and peace.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, p.1077–1095 4. Gress, D.H. (1974). Participatory leadership: Leadership characteristics of secondary school

Acknowledgements We would like to express our thank to the distinguished academicians from all universities and colleges in Iraq who made their contribution as a field expert panel and all the distinguished academicians from the Faculty of Education for Human Sciences and the Faculty of Basic Education, at Diyala University who made significant contributions to the formation of the study in which they Participated voluntarily.

principals and their relationship to perceived subordinate participation in the decision-making process. Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University.

5. Rad, A. M. M. and Yarmohammadian, M. H. (2006). A study of relationship between managers' leadership style and employees' job satisfaction. Leadership in Health Services, 19, p. 11–28.

6. Amanchukwu, R. N., Stanly, G. J. and Ololube, N. P. (2015). A review of leadership theories, principles and styles and their relevance to educational management.

Management, 5, P. 6- 14.

7. Ranjan, R. K. and Jain, P. C. (2009). The decline of the educational system in Iraq. Journal of Peace Studies,16 (1-2).

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH JOURNAL

48

Research Paper

E-ISSN NO : 2455-295X | VOLUME : 3 | ISSUE : 11 | NOV 2017

8. Ali Jadoo, S.A, Aljunid, S.M, Dastan, I, Tawfeeq, R.S, Mustafa, M.A, Ganasegeran, K and Aldubai, S.A. (2015).

Job satisfaction and turnover intention among Iraqi doctors--a descriptive cross-sectional multicentre study. Hum Resour Health,13:21.

9. Ali Jadoo, S.A, Sulku, S.N, Aljunid, S.M. and Dastan, I. (2014). Validity and reliability analysis of knowledge of, attitude toward and practice of a case-mix questionnaire among Turkish healthcare providers.

JHEOR, 2, p.96–107 10. Ali Jadoo S.A., Aljunid, S.M., Sulku SN, Al-Dubai,S.A.R., Wan Puteh,S.E., Ahmed,Z., Manaf,M.R.A., Sulong,S.B. and Nur, A.M. (2013). Health system reform from the people’s point of view: development of reliable and valid questionnaire.

Malaysian J Public Health Med,13, P. 65-76.

11. Gravetter, F. J. and Forzano, L.-A. B. (2009): Research methods for the behavioral sciences, 4th ed., Wadsworth Cengage Learning publisher, Belmont, CA, USA. 12. Popham, W.J. (2000): Modern educational measurement: practical guidelines for educational leaders, 3rd ed, Allyn & Bacon, USA. 13. McLennan, A. and Thurlow, M. (2003). The context of education management in South Africa. In : Thurlow, M., Bush, T. and Coleman, M. (eds): leadership and strategic management in South African schools.

The Commonwealth Secretariat, London.

14. Mullins, L.j. (2005): Management and organisational behaviour,7th ed, Pearson Education Limited, England, available at http://www.mim.ac.mw/ebook/books/Management% 20&%20Organizational%20Behaviour,%207th%20edi tion.pdf, accessed 12 November 2017.

f, accessed 12 November 217.

19. Bengtsson, C., Persson, M., and Willenhag, P. (2005). Gender and overconfidence. Economics Letters, 86, p.199-203.

20. Rhee, K.S. and Sigler, T.H. (2015). Untangling the relationship between gender and leadership. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 30, p. 109134.

21. Catalyst. (2004). Women and Men is U.S. Corporate Leadership: Same Workplace, Different Realities? available at http://www.catalyst.org/system/files/Women%20and _Men_in_U.S._Corporate_Leadership_Same_Workplace_ Different_Realities.pdf, accessed 12 November 2017.

22. Yukl, G. A. (2002): Leadership in Organizations, 5th edn, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 23. Nielsen, S., and Huse, M. (2010). The Contribution of Women on Boards of Directions: Going Beyond the Surface. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18, p.136-148.

24. Lyness, K. S. and Heilman, M. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: performance evaluation and promotions of upper level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, p.777-785.

25. Eagly, A. H. and Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and Leadership Style: a Meta Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, p.233-256.

26. Zenger Folkman (2012). A study in leadership: Women do it better than men. Retrieved from the Zenger Folkman website: available at http://zengerfolkman.com/media/articles/ZFCo.WP. WomenBetterThanMen.031312.pdf, accessed 12 November 2017.

15. Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32, p. 132–157.

16. Rok, B. (2009). People and skills ethical context of the participative leadership model: taking people into account. Corporate Governance, 9, (4).

17. Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of post heroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and transformational change. Leadership Quarterly, 15, p.647–661.

18. Patel, G and Buiting, S. (2013): Gender differences in leadership styles and the impact within corporate boards, Commonwealth Secretariat, London, available at http://www.cpahq.org/cpahq/cpadocs/Genderdiffe.pd INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH JOURNAL

49