A. SABANCI ET AL.
principal’s autonomy on the school policy. For example Leith-
wood et al. (2002) reported that the majority of the teachers and
managers believe that the government’s policies about im-
provement of teaching and learning do not reflect their own
professional goals. If so, as Steinbach and Jantzi (2002) sug-
gested further questions need to be addressed to seek for the
reasons behind the fact and draw outcomes for the future of
school leadership such as: Are the principals surrounded by a
tight costume made of regulations? Is their unfavourable posi-
tion because they are arrested by their psychological guards? Or
is that because they are led by a conservative social pressure?
And finally, how flexible are they to react to change demand?
On the other hand, how rapid turnover or in other words insta-
bility in school management positions effects leadership char-
acteristics and creates significant barriers to educational change
(Fink & Brayman, 2006). Each question is vital in that the pos-
sible convincing answers to each of them will help us to under-
stand the characteristics of leadership today and provide inspir-
ing clues to estimate how leaders will be in the future.
Grogan and Andrews (2002) noted that the changes in educa-
tion, and the nation as a whole, could present an entirely dif-
ferent set of challenges about leadership in the future. As in
Coates (2010) similitude “The established route of the train
journey gives way to the flexibility of the car” Fullan (1998)
claims that school leaders need a new mindset and guidelines
for action to break through the bonds of dependency that have
entrapped those who want to make a difference in their schools.
Responsiveness to the rapidly changing environment and set of
circumstances might be a key argument for educational leaders.
Twenty-first century schooling necessitates a shift away from
vertical, policy-driven change to lateral, capacity building
change. Schools are becoming more complex places. In the fu-
ture they will need to be more responsive to a rapidly changing
environment and set of circumstances. They will need to be
highly adaptable structures that are versatile and responsive to
shifting needs and priorities. Therefore the leadership practice
has to also be adaptive, flexible and highly responsive to exter-
nal and internal imperatives for change (Harris, 2010; Leith-
wood et al., 2008). Barendsen and Gardner (2006) proposed
that the best leaders to adjust to rapidly changing times need to
exhibit three distinct meanings of good: 1) an excellent techni-
cal and professional quality and competence, 2) an ethical ori-
entation, and 3) a completely engaged sense of fulfilment and
meaningfulness. According to Coates (2010) a future thinking
engages individuals and teams with innovation and there is a
move from replication to regeneration, from predictability to
possibility. Sandmann and Vandenberg (1995) asserted that lea-
dership development for the 21st century is holistic: it is cen-
tred in groups or organizations, rather than individuals, and en-
gages the group in heart, mind, spirit, and energy. The driving
forces of this philosophy, then, are community, the heart of a
group’s leadership; vision, which engages the spirit; learning,
which stimulates the mind; and action, which compels energy.
Mariasse (1985) considered leaders as not to simply maintain
the existing situation. To the writer, leaders are involved in
change, and without change or movement, there is no leader-
ship. To actively change an organization, leaders must make
decisions about the nature of the desired state. Making choices
requires both information about current realities and future
possibilities. According to Reilly (2007) a global leader is a
learner and believes that everyone around him is also a learner
and values innovation. Collay (2006) writes that aspiring prin-
cipals are urged to create democratic organizations and profes-
sional learning communities. These demanding educational set-
tings require bold, socially responsible leadership by both prin-
cipals and teachers, continually expanding the roles and respon-
sibilities each must fulfil. Goldring (2002) concentrates on stu-
dent achievement in explaining effective educational leadership
in the 21st century. He asserts that a leader will require strate-
gies that make it possible for all children to succeed academi-
cally. Day et al. (2001) put a stress on the capacity of leaders to
make a difference. They assert that interpretation of and respon-
ses to the constraints, demands and choices that they face help
leaders to make a difference. Leaders capture their past, present
and future pressures, challenges, and concerns and aspirations
with which they are daily faced and which are reflect the mul-
ti-faceted demands of the role. Slater (2008) thinks that build-
ing leadership capacity or eliciting effort in others requires ef-
fort, unique insight, and explicit skills on the part of leaders.
Leaders may learn to use communication skills and strategies as
a pathway to building leadership capacity. As principals and
other leaders share the lead and the load, the success of their
performance will be determined by their ability to inspire a cul-
ture of empowerment. Leaders’ success then will be measured
not by the number of followers they have, but rather by the
number of individuals that they have inspired to become leaders
themselves. According to Witziers et al. (2003) principals should
not only perform tasks related to coordination and evaluation of
the educational system but also in relation to further developing
the educational system via transformation of the school culture.
One of the main tasks of school principals is to help create a
working environment in which teachers collaborate and identify
with the school’s mission and goals. Murphy and Walberg
(2002) points out to trust and dialogue. To them, new leaders
dedicated to school improvement should gain knowledge not
only about best practices but also about how to foster dialogue
and trust within schools and between schools and the commu-
nities they serve. Moreover, school staff should be given the
knowledge about new leadership concepts and scientific evi-
dence that they need to accept innovative leaders. Grogan and
Andrews (2002) point out to critical characteristics of a prepa-
ration of aspiring educational leaders programme such as colla-
borative instructional leadership, practice based knowledge, op-
portunities for novices and experts, selection of aspiring prin-
cipals, assessment of development, contribution to standards,
ethical and moral obligations, long term internship and learning
opportunities in diverse settings and address to successors.
Problem Statement
The purpose of this article is to determine the strong and
weak characteristics of current school leaders and trying to es-
timate and draw an overview about characteristics of future
school leaders depending on the views of teachers. For this rea-
son the following specific questions were addressed to them:
1) What are your school leader’s weak characteristics?
2) What are your school leader’s strong characteristics?
3) What kind of characteristics your school leader will need
in the forthcoming twenty-five years as a school leader?
Methodology
Our research was based on phenomenological approach
which is a qualitative research design. The data were gathered
by qualitative interviewing using standardized open-ended in-
terviews (Kus, 2007; Mason J., 2002; Patton, 1990; Rubin &
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 57