Accelerat ing t he world's research.

School Administrators' Leadership

Competencies According to the Views
of School Administrators and
Teachers
Prof. Dr. Servet özdemir

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Okul Yonet icisi ve Ogret men Goruslerine Gore Okul Yonet icilerinin Liderlik Yet erlikleri
DUYGU OZEN KILIÇ

Leadership compet ency invent ory: A syst emat ic process of developing and validat ing a leadership co…
Hyung Joon Yoon

T he Relat ionship bet ween Communicat ion Compet ence and Organizat ional Conflict : A St udy on Head…
Ali Kış
 Education and Science
Vol 40 (2015) No 177 365-383

School Administrators' Leadership Competencies According to the

Views of School Administrators and Teachers *

Servet 5zdemir 1, Ferudun Sezgin 2, Duygu 5zen Kılıç 3

Abstract Keywords

The purpose of this paper was to investigate the school Leadership

administrators’ leadership competencies according to the views of
Competency
the school administrators and teachers. Leadership Competency
Inventory (LCI) developed by Yoon, Song, Donahue and Woodley Scale development
(2010) and adapted into Turkish by the researchers was used with School administrator
the aim of gathering data in the study. (Detailed evidence about the
adaptation process of LCI was presented under the title of Method Article Info
II.) The research was realized with the participation of 121 school Received: 04.25.2013
administrators and 143 teachers. The research data was analyzed
Accepted: 10.31.2014
through descriptive statistics, Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficient, and multivariate analysis of variance Online Published: 02.15.2015
(MANOVA). According to the results, there were positive and
significant relationships between both school administrators' and
teachers' perceptions on the factors of LCI and school
administrators’ self-perceptions of their leadership competencies
and teacher’s perception of school administrators’ leadership
competencies differed significantly. As a result, school
administrators evaluated their leadership competencies more
positively. Several suggestions were proposed for improving
school administrators’ leadership competencies. DOI: 10.15390/EB.2015.3717

Introduction
Intelligent, flexible and dedicated labor force, innovative mentality of administration and the
employees’ capacity to improve their abilities are regarded as crucial elements for the effectiveness of
organizations and for achieving their goals (Visage, Linde, & Havenga, 2011). This fact makes it
inevitable to increase the need for well-qualified administrators in a rapidly changing and developing
societies (Livingston, 1998; Marshall & Spencer, 1999; Sherman, Tibbetts, Dobbins, & Weidler, 2001).
Particularly the increasing pressures of different social expectations and desires have diversified the
qualifications that administrators are expected to have. Therefore, organizations have started to attach
more importance to the competencies of administrators (Lado & Wilson, 1994). The fact that educated,
specialized, and well-qualified administrators have a major role in achievements of the organizations is
getting more acceptable (Snell & Dean, 1992). That the employees use their knowledge and
qualifications in accordance with organization’s goals and that the organizations’ turn this situation into
* This study is an extended version on a paper presented at the 7th National Educational Administration Congress in Malatya,
Turkey, May 24-26, 2012.
1 Cyprus International University, Faculty of Education, TRNC, [email protected]

2 Gazi University, Gazi Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Turkey, [email protected]

3 MoNE “kdeniz İleri Secondary School, Turkey, [email protected]

365
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 365-383 S. 5zdemir, F. Sezgin & D. 5zen Kılıç

an advantage in a competitive environment are becoming necessary. In this regard, considering that
organization’s administrators have a significant role in making the employees use their knowledge, skill
and specialization in accordance with the goals of the organization, it becomes important for
organizations to determine the qualifications that effective administrators are expected to have.
In his study conducted to determine the relationship between organizational effectiveness and
administrator behaviors, Colins (2001) examined lots of organizations and tried to identify the best
organizations. In the study, it was seen that the organizations’ administrators have common qualities
and qualifications regardless of their organization type. It was found out that the most significant
quality of the organizations which could achieve sustainable improvement were administrated by the
managers who had leadership qualities. These leaders hold the quality of modesty in the context of
personality and of ambition in the context of the profession.
It is possible to suggest that managing the change in a successful way, promoting employees'
professional improvement, sustaining the organizational effectiveness and leading the organization to
take a more advantageous place in a competitive environment by increasing the organizational capacity
are among the significant competencies of effective organization leaders (Bergstrom, 2012). Wang and
Lin (2011) suggest that the achievements of the organizations in management and application of the
human resources would enable the organization to have a more advantageous place and that the
organization can achieve its goals more effectively if the administrators build a link between
organizational resources, its capacity and employees’ basic competencies. Emphasizing the relationship
between competencies and organizational effectiveness Prahalad and Hamel (1990) state that the
competencies that leaders are expected to have are very effective for the organization to achieve its
goals. King, Fowler and Zeithaml (2001) further suggest that the process of determining, improving and
applying the competencies of administrators are closely related to the achievement of any organization.
Matters like the organizations function on a more global basis in the context of their services
and products when compared to the past, technological developments, variance of workforce, the
expectations of the workers and the consumers force the leaders to develop organizational capacity and
to define new strategies ensuring the success of the organizations (Ulrich, Brockbank, Johnson,
Sandholtz, & Younger, 2008). That the leaders can reconstruct organizational processes seems possible
by redefining job definitions, job analysis, and job features (Bergstrom, 2012). According to Dubois and
Rothwell (2004), qualities required for a job are of critical importance in terms of showing desired
performance in a suitable and consistent way.
Organizational competencies can be classified into such different forms as basic competencies,
work competencies, position competencies, and field competencies according to their extent and
significance. Furthermore, there are competency models that determine the competencies which are
necessary for the best performance according to work type (Dubois & Rothwell, 2004). Various models
have been developed to determine the necessary competencies for those who have common
responsibilities and similar work descriptions in order for them to exert the best work performance. In
their study, Ulrich et al. (2008) tried to detect the competencies that are needed by human resources
unit. For this purpose, they investigated the human resources units of many different organizations and
they tried to express the most significant competencies required for this job. In these studies they stated
that, in order to make a link between competencies and competency models, they tried to make an
evaluation according to the performance of the organization leaders and employees.
That the organizations learn more about employees' competencies and competency models may
well contribute to an increase in their work performance and the organizational effectiveness providing
a better understanding of work descriptions (Dubois & Rothwell, 2004). A review of literature indicates
that a range of studies conducted to investigate the competencies of successful leaders and to develop
a model of leadership competencies. These models of competencies can be analyzed under the
categories of basic competencies, work competencies, position competencies, and field or department
competencies. All these competency models aimed at ordering the necessary competencies according

366
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 365-383 S. 5zdemir, F. Sezgin & D. 5zen Kılıç

to the desired competency category. According to Rothwell and Graber (2010), a competency model is
a set of competencies generally including 10-30 items that describe the capacity of successful
performances. Findings of the previous studies illustrated that the prominent competencies were
conceptual competencies (intelligence, technique), managerial competencies (doing things well, etc.),
leadership competencies (helping employees improve and coaching), competency of self-knowledge
and self-management (emotional intelligence), competency of sustaining interpersonal relationships
effectively (communication, effect, conflict management, negotiation), and competency of team
building (creating teams, mentoring, producing solutions for possible problems, and collaboration)
(Bergstrom, 2012; Gratton, 2011; Martin & Schmidt, 2010).
Barrett and Beeson (2002) have proposed that global competition atmosphere, information
technologies, rapid and flexible organization structures, differentiation in the needs of groups and
workers are likely to be effective upon shaping the competencies of administrators. In the related
literature, the existence of measurement instruments especially developed for measuring specific
competencies of administrators are conspicuous (Eichinger & Lombardo, 2003; Leslie & Fleenor, 1998;
Morical, 1999; Yoon, Song, Donahue, & Woodley, 2010). Measurement instruments developed in 1950s
were designed to identify the link between task and structure and evaluation and support to define
the leadership styles of individuals (Stogdill & Coons, 1957; Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958).
Subsequently, Multidimensional Leadership Questionnaire was developed by Bass and Avolio (1990).
Developing psychometric instruments are crucial for defining and developing the competencies
of organizational administrators. Koontz and Eincrich (1998) state that qualified administrators have an
important role in an organization’s reaching its aims successfully. “ccordingly, competencies of
administrators have to be known and measured. In this sense, it can be said that valid and reliable
measurement instruments are needed to be used effectively in the process of defining the competencies
of administrators.
Social changes and developments affect and change educational organizations. This situation
makes it necessary for school administrators to have competencies that are compatible with changing
circumstances as expressed in companies. School principal makes designs future plans for school, leads
school, and manages the changes in school with his or her knowledge and competencies (Garies &
Tschannen-Moran, . Considering that competency is defined as a person’s having the necessary
knowledge and skill to perform an act (Başaran, , importance of school administrators’
competencies once again appears for effectiveness in schools. Determining the competencies for
educational administrators is a prerequisite for policies of administrator training. Thus, determining the
necessary competencies and detecting the competencies that teachers and school administrators can
actualize become crucial.
In Turkey, there are several studies to determine the competencies of the school administrators
(“ğaoğlu, “ltınkurt, Yılmaz ve Karaköse, 2012; ”ursalıoğlu, Dönmez, G(nay, G(ven,
Karadağ, Madenoğlu, Şahin, Şener, ). Although these previous studies have
reported some important results regarding the school administrators’ competencies, the majority of
them have aimed to determine the competencies according to teachers’ or administrators perceptions
or views. However, there is a need for further studies exploring the school administrators’ leadership
competencies both in theory and practice beyond their administrative qualifications. It is hard to
develop a nationally standardized framework for competencies and accept school management as a
professional duty due to its unique characteristics and legal basis of Turkish educational system. One
of the most significant factors of this situation is that although regulation of training and assignment of
educational administrators says competency is the essence of assignment , being a teacher and having
a bachelor’s degree make it possible to be an educational administrator in practice. Consequently,
further studies focusing on school administrators’ leadership competencies should be given more
importance in making school administration as a profession and creating a nationally standardized
framework for competencies.

367
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 365-383 S. 5zdemir, F. Sezgin & D. 5zen Kılıç

In the Turkish educational system, when we look at the history of educational administrator
training, this process is divided into four periods as apprenticeship, educational sciences, examination
and arbitrariness by ”alcı . On the other hand, Şimşek suggests three phases for
administrator training. These are apprenticeship, educational sciences and annexed charts table in the
regulation of assignment of educational administrators. As a matter of fact, when we have examined
the trends so far, traditional apprenticeship model hasn’t been changed with another model for
administrative training Recepoğlu & Kılınç, . The mentality of teaching is the essence of the
profession and the belief that if someone is a successful teacher, he or she can also be a successful
administrator has never been changed at all.
Upon examining the policies of educational administrator training in foreign developed
countries, it is possible to conclude that in many countries, having a master’s degree in this field is a
prerequisite in order to be a school administrator. On the other hand, students who graduate from
master and doctoral programs in Turkey do not have a priority to become a school administrator
Şişman & Turan, . The countries with effective approaches in developing school administrators
first determine which competencies an administrator should have and they stimulate administrators to
meet these expectations. Both universities and private principal training programs detect the
competency level of school principals and trains them to improve the competencies.
It is known that there are some studies conducted by Ministry of National Education (MoNE)
upon the subject of developing competencies of administrators. In some of these studies, this subject
was briefly mentioned in some regulations such as Guide for School-Based Professional Development
(2010). However, no studies have been conducted to sort the competencies playing a critical role in
defining the educational administrators so far. The fact that educational administration doesn’t become
a profession is seen as a barrier in front of defining competencies in this field and developing an effective
model. Currently, it is possible that educational administrators develop themselves in the field through
postgraduate education. In this sense, it seems important to develop a competency inventory for the
related literature to both define the educational administrators' competencies in their own jobs and
descriptions and to meet the need of a suitable measurement instrument. Leadership Competency
Inventory LCI developed by Yoon et al. was adapted into Turkish as Liderlik Yeterliği
Envanteri LYE . In this way, this study aimed at developing a leadership competency inventory that
is valid, reliable, and suitable for Turkish educational organizations. Additionally, it is expected that
findings of the research will offer some implications for decision-makers in the points of developing
competencies of administrators and following related studies. This study which is expected to
contribute to determine competencies of the school principals and to help develop policies on this issue
aims at responding the following questions:
1. What are the perceptions of school administrators and teachers on leadership competencies
of the school administrators?
2. Are there positive relationships between the factors of Leadership Competency Inventory
according to school administrators 'own perceptions?
3. Are there positive relationships between the factors of Leadership Competency Inventory
according to teachers' own perceptions on school administrators' leadership competencies?
4. Do the means of scores built upon the linear components of leadership competencies differ
significantly according to the perceptions of the school administrators' and teachers'
perceptions?

368
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 365-383 S. 5zdemir, F. Sezgin & D. 5zen Kılıç

Method I
Research Model
This study was designed in survey model and included school principals and teachers (n = 264)
employed in Mersin. Survey model was suitable for studies aimed at determining the current situation
as it stands (Karasar, 2006). The purpose of this study was to determine the competencies of school
administrators through LCI and to detect whether there were significant differences among the
perceptions of school administrators and teachers. Therefore, this descriptive study investigated
whether school principals' competencies differed significantly according to teachers and school
administrators' points of view.
Population and Sample
The population of the study is comprised of school administrators and teachers employed in
Mersin city center in 2013-2014 educational year. The sample of this study was chosen though
convenience sampling method and applied to a total of 264 school administrators and teachers who
participated in a local in-service training program. The participants of the study were 121 (45.8%) school
administrators or vice-principal and 143 (54.2) were teachers. Majority of the participants (n = 224,
84.8%) were male. The number of female participants was 40 (15.2%). When we analyzed it according
to the distribution of branches, the number of classroom teachers was 107 (40.5%) whereas 157 (%59.5)
participants were in various branches. When we analyzed it according to the distribution of age
categories, it was noteworthy that most of the participants were between the ages of 31-40 (30.7%) and
41-50 (48.5%).
Instrumentation
In this study, a 30-item Leadership Competency Inventory adopted by 5zdemir, Sezgin and
5zen Kılıç was used to gather data. Participants were asked to determine to what extent school
administrators performed these competencies and teachers were asked to detect to what extent their
school administrators have these leadership competencies on a Likert type scale responded on a rating
scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Results revealed that the five factor structure of LCI
explained 69% of the total variance. CFA results also indicated that data of the study fitted to the model
good. Internal consistency coefficient for the factors ranged from .85 to .92. As a result, LCI can be
regarded as a valid and reliable scale in the field of educational administration. Additionally, in the
framework of the second study, CFAs were repeated for the teacher and the school administrator groups
separately, and for all participants of the study in order to confirm the construct validity of LCI (Table
1).

Table 1. CFA Results for LCI in the Samples of School Administrator, Teacher, and All Participants
Sample n X2/df RMSEA GFI RMR CFI
School administrator 121 1.778 .081 .749 .039 .929
Teacher 143 1.785 .074 .765 .060 .918
All participants 264 2.293 .070 .822 .049 .935

According to the Table 1, it can be said that goodness of fit indices of LCI which were obtained
as a result of CFAs for the teacher, the school administrator and the total participant samples showed
an acceptable fit. Especially the proportion of chi-square to degrees of freedom (X2/df) and RMSEA
values were found to be within the boundaries of an acceptable fit in every three analyses. When they
were generally considered, the fit indices were thought to indicate a sufficient fit. The reliability
coefficients which were calculated within the scope of the second study were found to be .96 for
managerial competencies, .93 for instructional leadership, .90 for organizational leadership, .93 for
professional mastery and .94 for supervision dimension respectively. These values ranged from .90 to
.92 for aforementioned dimensions in the teacher sample.

369
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 365-383 S. 5zdemir, F. Sezgin & D. 5zen Kılıç

Data Analysis
Data was analyzed though SPSS 19.00 program. Before analysis, erroneous codings were
checked out. Outliers in the data set were then cleaned. Total scores and subscale scores were calculated
for the factors of LCI. Descriptive statistics, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient and
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were performed to analyze the study data. The skewness
coefficients were examined for univariate normal distribution of the data and these values were found
to be acceptable limits. The results of the multivariate normal distribution analysis were not detected
any outliers. In determining whether there were linear relationships among the dependent variables
scatter diagrams were examined. Furthermore, it was concluded that the variance and covariance
results of the groups for each of the dependent variable were equal.

Method II
Population and Sample
The participants are composed of the study were 156 primary school administrators selected by
using convenience sampling method. The research was conducted through online questionnaire
method. The demographics of participants are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Distribution of Participants' Demographics

Variable n %
Gender
Male 128 81.9
Female 28 18.1
Seniority (years)
1-15 54 34.6
16-30 70 44.9
31 and over 32 20.5
Duty
Principal 57 36.6
Head vice principal 5 3.2
Vice principal 94 60.2

The availability of the sample for factor analysis was examined through Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
(KMO) and Bartlett's Sphericity tests. In the study, KMO value was .94 and the result of Bartlett's
Sphericity test was 6455.554 (p = . . Çokluk, Şekercioğlu and ”(y(közt(rk state that in the
cases that KMO value is higher than .60 and Bartlett's Sphericity test value is significant, data set
obtained from the sample is available for factor analysis. Accordingly, it is seen that data set to be used
in the study is available for factor analysis. Besides, whether the data obtained from the sample
distributed normally or not according to the items and factors in the scale were checked through scatter
diagram, cross value analysis, and descriptive statistics.
Instrumentation
The original scale was developed in USA by Yoon et al. (2010) to define the competencies of
administrators depending upon the evaluations of workers and administrators. Reports of LEF
Leadership Effectiveness Framework and SC“NS Secretary’s Commission on “chieving Necessary
Skills) (1992) were used in the process of developing the scale and preparing the items. Dimensions of
the original report are demonstrated in Table 3.

As can be seen from Table 3, it is clear that the scale adapted into Turkish has a five-factor
structure (Organizational leadership, technical acumen, professional mastery, resource management,
supervisory/management). There are a total of 35 items in the scale. 11 items are in the organizational
leadership dimension, 10 items are in the supervisory/management dimension, 6 items are in the

370
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 365-383 S. 5zdemir, F. Sezgin & D. 5zen Kılıç

professional mastery dimension, 5 items are in the resource management dimension and 3 items are in
the technical perception dimension.

Table 3. Original Dimensions of LCI

Human performance management, planning and evaluation, financial management and
Organizational
budgeting, technology management, creative thinking, vision, external awareness,
leadership
strategic thinking and planning, management controls and managing diverse workforce
Job-specific technical competencies, occupational technical competencies and industry-
Technical acumen
wide technical competencies
Conceptual thinking skills, learning and information skills, self-responsibility and
Professional mastery
management, interpersonal skills, oral communication and written communication
Computer and basic literacy skills, technical competence, resource usage, resource
Resource management
management and understands systems
Leadership and coaching, flexibility and resilience, problem solving decisiveness, self-
Supervisory /
direction, conflict management, teamwork and cooperation, influencing and negotiating,
management
customer focus and interpersonal relationship building

Data Collection and Analysis

Online questionnaires prepared for LCI was sent to the school administrators via e-mail and
social media. With the purpose of examining the construct validity of the scale, firstly exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) and then confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed to test the congruence of
factor structure with the data. Margin of error were defined as .05. CFA is used for testing construct
validity in developing scale by examining the confirmation degree of formerly defined, built and
restricted structure by the collected data. While in EFA factor structure related to the collected data
depending upon factor load is discovered without a certain expectation and hypothesis, DFA defines
the coherence of the structure created by the data with a model describing the relations among some
certain latent variables. As a result CFA is an effective, strong and advanced statistical technique used
for testing the coherence of formerly selected factor model or theoretical structure with the data and
defining the construct validity of measurement instrument in social sciences Çokluk et al., S(mer,
2000).
It is suggested that the goodness of the model obtained by CFA should be evaluated with
considering a range of fit index. In the current study, the fit indexes used to confirm the five-factor
theoretical structure of leadership competencies defined by Yoon and others (2010) were as follows:
Chi-Square Goodness of Fit (X2), Goodness of Fit Index, (GFI), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index, (AGFI),
Comparative Fit Index, (CFI), Normed Fit Index, (NFI), Not-Normed Fit Index, (NNFI), Root Mean
Square Residuals, (RMR or RMS), Standardized Root Mean Square Residuals, (SRMR) and Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA).
In order to define how much the five-factor structure LCI items are sufficient enough to
distinguish the people in terms of the features measured, coefficients were calculated for the whole scale
and sub-scales by using Cronbach’s “lpha internal consistency coefficient. “dditionally, Pearson
product-moment correlation coefficient was calculated for the correlations between the factor values
and standard deviation of the scale and sub-dimensions, for reliability of the items in the scale; item-
total correlations were determined and t-test was performed to defined by total score if max % 27 and
min % groups’ between factor and item scores have significant differences or not.

371
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 365-383 S. 5zdemir, F. Sezgin & D. 5zen Kılıç

Ethical Matters in The Process of Developing Scale and Application

Firstly, with the purpose of conducting validity and reliability studies, online communication
was established with Hyung Joon Yoon who is one of the developers of the scale and working as Career
Development Specialist in Penn State University. The purpose of the study was explained, the necessary
permission was granted and taken, and then the study started. In this study, 3 items were added to the
scale which had originally 35 items, and validity and reliability analyses were conducted.
During the process of adapting the scale, the opinions of Hambleton and Patsula (1999) about
intercultural scale adaptation were considered. Accordingly, items of the original scale and choices were
initially translated by the researchers. Besides, items of the scale were translated by three instructors
independently. The original form of the scale and translations were examined by one professor. As a
result of this examination, necessary revisions were made by comparing English and Turkish forms and
the scale were made available for opinions of the experts who would evaluate the availability of the
instructions and items in the scale. In accordance with the opinions of the experts, some amendments
were conducted in a number of items and 3 items were found to be available to be added in the
instructional leadership dimension. Finally, the scale was administered to the sample group for
evaluating factor structure, construct validity, reliability of the scale points, and item discrimination.
Analyses were performed on the Likert-type scale consisted of 5.
With regard to the application process, permission was granted from MoNE and Provincial
Directorate of National education by an official paper including the process and content of the research.
Written permission indicating that the research can be conducted on voluntary basis was taken from
Provincial Directorate of National Education. The application was conducted via online questionnaire
method. For this process, a new domain was bought instead of using open-source software. In this way,
the data was secured.
Validity and Reliability
Table 4 presents the LCI's factor structure, factor loadings of each item, variance explained, and
total variance explained.
As can be seen from Table 4, the five-factor structure explained 68.52% of the total variance.
This value is acceptable in the field of social sciences. Furthermore, it is found out after rotation that
managerial competencies explained 16.06%, instructional leadership 14.86%, organizational leadership
13.10%, and professional mastery 12.35%, and supervisory 12.16% of the total variance. It is therefore
possible to suggest that the scale has a five-factor structure and seen to be congruent with the related
literature in the aspect of its structural characteristics. After conducting EFA, this study performed CFA
to test the factor structure of the scale and to learn whether the five-factor structure of this scale was
confirmed.

Goodness-fit indices are as such: X2 = 806.03 (df = 395, p < .05) and X2/df = 2.04. As stated by
Schumacher and Lomax (2004), this value below 1 refers to low fit whereas the value over 5 denotes to
the need to developing the model. In this regard, finding of this study indicating the goodness-fit value
as 2.04 can be regarded acceptable. It is also suggested that other goodness--fit indices should be
examined because of the fact that chi-square value has some constraints as sensitivity to study sample
(Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008).
Results also illustrated that RMSEA was .08, GFI .74, AGFI 0.70, RMR .033, and SRMR .061.
While the value between 0 and .08 was regarded as a sign for good-fit (Hooper et al., 2008), it is
suggested that the point .06 should be taken as breakpoint (Hu & Bentler, 1999). GFI and AGFI are
valued between 0 and 1 and 0 refers to the nonexistence of fit whereas 1 means perfect fit (Schumacker
& Lomax, 2004). These values being .90 or more refers to good fit. RMR or SRMR's being under .05 is a
sign for good fit (Hooper et al., 2008), while being under .08 points to an acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler,
1999).

372
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 365-383 S. 5zdemir, F. Sezgin & D. 5zen Kılıç

Values produced from this study are equal to or near breakpoints, which shows that there is a
good fit between data of the study and the structure of the model. This study also concluded that NFI
was .95, NNFI was .97, and CFI was .97. Hu and Bentler (1999) state that over .95 values for NFI, NNFI,
and CFI point to a good fit. Considering all the indices values above, it is evident that the structure of
the scale has an acceptable fit.

Table 4. LCI's Factor Structure, Factor Loadings of Each İtem, Variance Explained, and Total Variance
Explained
Factors*
Items Managerial Instructional Organizational Professional
Supervisory
competencies leadership leadership mastery
Item 1 .68 .37
Item 2 .66
Item 3 .62 .41
Item 4 .59 .35
Item 5 .58 .42 .32
Item 6 .57 .41 .36
Item 7 .55
Item 8 .54 .33
Item 9 .49
Item 10 .80 .38
Item 11 .78
Item 12 .77
Item 13 .39 .72
Item 14 .62 .47
Item 15 .72
Item 16 .36 .63
Item 17 .37 .59
Item 18 .58 .47
Item 19 .36 .58 .43
Item 20 .31 .47 .32
Item 21 .76
Item 22 .74 .33
Item 23 .49 .67
Item 24 .56
Item 25 .30 .52
Item 26 .37 .46
Item 27 .34 .67
Item 28 .34 .36 .67
Item 29 .33 .39 .65
Item 30 .46 .57
Eigenvalues 4.82 4.46 3.93 3.71 3.65
Variance
16.06 14.86 13.10 12.35 12.16
explained (%)
Total variance explained (%) 68.52
* Factor loadings below .30 are not shown in the table .

Figure 1 shows the five-factor structure of LCI and the relationships between items and factors
in the scale along with path diagram. The values over one-way lines drawn from factors (latent
variables) to item (observed variable) indicate that the magnitude of causal effect of factors over items,
in other words factor leadings, and the values over the arrows drawn to the items from outside and left

373
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 365-383 S. 5zdemir, F. Sezgin & D. 5zen Kılıç

side demonstrate the variances of error. Values over two-way arrows between factors indicate the
correlation coefficients, namely the values of covariation of variables.

Figure 1. Path Diagram of Leadership Competency Inventory

According to Figure 1, variances of error point with the arrow positioned to item from the left
side were between .18 and .72, which can be regarded acceptable. It is also seen that factor loadings over
arrows drawn from each factor to item ranging between .53 and .90 were at desirable level. Correlations
between latent variables ranged between 70 and. 87.
Table 5 mirrors the means and standard deviation values of factors and correlations between
factor scores.

Table 5. The Means and Standard Deviation Values of Factors and Correlations between Factors
Factors Χ S 1 2 3 4 5
1. Managerial competencies 4.37 .54 -
2. Instructional leadership 4.42 .67 .71** -
3. Organizational leadership 4.26 .58 .77** .71** -
4. Professional mastery 4.34 .56 .76** .60** .63** -
5. Supervisory 4.39 .61 .79** .69** .73** .69** -
** p < .01

374
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 365-383 S. 5zdemir, F. Sezgin & D. 5zen Kılıç

Correlations illustrated in Table 5 indicate that five factors of leadership competency increased
and decreased together. Managerial competencies was highly positively correlated with instructional
leadership (r = .71), organizational leadership (r = .77), professional mastery (r = .76), and supervisory (r
= .61). Instructional leadership was also highly associated with organizational leadership (r = .71),
professional mastery (r = .60), and supervisory (r = .69). Similarly, there were strong relationships
between organizational leadership and professional mastery (r = .63) and between supervisory and
organizational leadership (r = .73) and professional mastery (r = .69). According to Kline (2005), the fact
that correlations among variables are not very high (r > .85) should be taken into consideration to be
able to confirm the model structure. Correlations values of administrator competencies pointed to
strong relationships among factors. Considering that these values are important for questioning the
distinctive validity of factors, it is arguable that five factors of administrator competencies developed
by Yoon et al. (2010) are closely related to each other and have difficulty in discriminating the
competency areas. High correlations among factors of this model denote to the integrated structure of
factors. Thus, correlations among factors can be regarded as theoretically acceptable in this model. It
was also seen that all t values of factor loadings determined based on the path diagram of LCI were
significant.
Standardized factor loadings indicate the correlations between observed and latent variable. In
other words, it shows to what extent a single-bit change in latent variable leads to another change in
observed variable. High values refer to strong relationships between latent and observed variable
Çokluk et al., Yılmaz & Çelik, . When the loadings of each factor are examined, it is possible
to suggest that items are highly correlated with the related factor. Taking these results into
consideration, data derived from the scale can be said to have an acceptable level of validity.
The reliability of LCI was examined through Cronbach’s “lpha coefficient in the aspect of both
whole scale and separate factors. Furthermore, t-test was performed to examine the difference between
the scores of lower 27% and upper 27% groups and results were presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Cronbach’s “lpha Coefficient of the Scale and Separate Factors and the Means, Standard
Deviations, and t-Test Values of Lower 27% and Upper 27% Groups
Cronbach’s Lower 27% Upper 27% Lower 27% – Upper
Factors
Alpha Χ S Χ S 27% t-test
Managerial competencies .92 3.80 .57 4.89 .17 11.87**
Instructional leadership .92 3.72 .82 4.95 .13 9.61**
Organizational leadership .85 3.69 .51 4.88 .19 14.24**
Professional mastery .86 3.80 .58 4.86 .21 11.13**
Supervisory .87 3.75 .67 4.94 .16 11.19**
Total .97 3.75 .52 4.90 .10 14.25**
** p < .01

As can be seen from Table 6, internal consistency coefficient calculated for the all items of LCI
was . . Cronbach’s “lpha coefficients for the factors of the scale ranged from . to . . T-test values
comparing the scores of lower 27% and upper 27% groups were between 9.61 and 14.25 and t-test values
were seen to be statistically significant (p < .01). These findings indicated that the reliability of the whole
scale and sub-dimensions were at good level.

375
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 365-383 S. 5zdemir, F. Sezgin & D. 5zen Kılıç

Results
This part of the study tries to respond the research questions. School administrators'
competency levels of the sub-dimensions of LCI according to the perceptions of school administrators
and teachers were presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Correlations among Sub-Dimensions of Administrator Competencies According to the

Perceptions of School Administrators (n = 121) and Teachers (n = 143)
Factors 1 2 3 4 5
1. Managerial competencies – .88** .77** .66** .65**
2. Instructional leadership .85** – .78** .66** .66**
3. Organizational leadership .83** .86** – .85** .82**
4. Professional mastery .76** .82** .86** – .89**
5. Supervisory .79** .78** .77** .74** –
** p < .01
Note: Values over diagonal line present the correlation coefficients for school administrator sample whereas values under
diagonal line refer to the correlation coefficients for teacher sample.

As can be seen from Table 7, there were highly positive correlations between the views of both
school administrators and teachers about the factors of LCI. The highest correlations occurred between
managerial competencies and professional mastery (r = .89, p < .01), and the lowest were found between
managerial competencies and supervisory (r = .65, p < .01) for school administrators. On examining the
values under diagonal line, the highest correlations were between instructional leadership and
organizational leadership (r = .86, p < .01) and organizational leadership and professional mastery (r =
.86, p < .01) for teachers. Correlations between other sub-dimensions were also high, positive, and
statistically significant. High correlations among the factors of LCI stems from the holistic structure of
LCI.
This study conducted MANOVA to examine the views of school principals and teachers on the
factors of LCI. ”(y(közt(rk , p. states that M“NOV“ was performed to examine that groups
built upon one or more factors have statistically significant differences in the aspect of more than one
dependent variables. In this analysis, each subject has a component composed of points related to
dependent variable. This analysis tests the significance of difference between mean group scores
derived from this component.

376
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 365-383 S. 5zdemir, F. Sezgin & D. 5zen Kılıç

MANOVA results for the difference between school administrators' and teachers' views on the
factors of LCI were presented in Table 8.

Table 8. MANOVA Results for the Factors of LCI According to Duty Variable
School
Teacher
Administrator
Factors (n = 143) F p
(n = 121)
Χ S Χ S
Managerial competencies 3.89 .98 3.22 .91 33.21 .000
Instructional leadership 3.86 .90 3.29 .96 24.79 .000
Organizational leadership 3.83 .83 3.26 .92 27.38 .000
Professional mastery 4.01 .84 3.31 .95 39.34 .000
Supervisory 4.05 .90 3.40 1.01 29.56 .000

As can be seen from Table 8, school administrators' and teachers' perception scores differed
significantly for the subscales of LCI [Wilks’ Lambda = . , F (5-258) = 8.99, p < .01]. The test of Wilks'
Lambda was a negative-valued one and therefore a decrease in its value denotes to the increase of factor
effect's contribution to the model. If p value is under .05, it is concluded that there is a significant
difference at least between the two groups of the factor and in at least one of the dependent variable
Kalaycı, .
When the means of school administrators and teachers for the factors of LCI are examined
separately, it is seen that school administrators' scores are higher than those of teachers in all factors. In
other words, school administrators' perceptions of their leadership competencies were more positive
than teachers' perceptions on school administrators' leadership competencies. This finding may stem
from school administrators' more optimistic point of view for self-evaluating of their leadership
competencies. When the means of each factor are compared with regard to school administrators and
teachers, it is clear that the highest rated factor of LCI for school principals was supervisory ( Χ = 4.05).
Teachers also perceived that school administrators had more leadership competencies in the factor of
supervisory ( Χ = 3.40) than of other scales. School administrators rated organizational leadership the
lowest ( Χ = 3.83), whereas teachers rated managerial competencies the lowest ( Χ = 3.22).

377
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 365-383 S. 5zdemir, F. Sezgin & D. 5zen Kılıç

Discussion and Conclusion

This study examined the leadership competencies of school administrators according to their
perceptions and the views of teachers by using LCI originally developed by Yoon et al. (2010) and
adapted into Turkish culture by the researchers. Results of this adaptation process indicated that the
scale was reliable both in the aspect of whole scale and its factors. Results also revealed that each factor
was positively and highly correlated with both other factors' scores and with the whole scale scores and
that t-test results for the comparison of competencies of upper 27% and lower 27% groups were also
significant. These findings evidenced that the scale was highly reliable.
DFA was applied to test the factor structure of the Turkish adopted form of the model
developed originally by Yoon et al. (2010). It was found out that standardized factor loadings of the
model were high and that t value was significant. Fit indices used to evaluate the model pointed to a
good fit between the study data and the model. Some correlations between the factors of the model may
stem from the conceptual framework.
The final form of the LCI includes 30 items under such factors as managerial competencies
(resource usage, resource management, problem solving, self-direction, technology management,
strategic thinking and planning, interpersonal competence, leadership and mentorship, flexibility and
resilience), instructional leadership (school vision and mission, education program and the management
of teaching, professionals competencies, climate of learning, industry-wide competencies),
organizational leadership (diverse workforce, financial management and budgeting, human performance
management, understands systems, external awareness, management controls), professional mastery
(computer and basic literacy, conceptual thinking, technical competencies, learning and information,
written communication, self-responsibility and management) and supervisory (conflict management,
teamwork and collaboration, interpersonal relationship building and consistency) (Appendix 1). Şahin
(2000) also conducted a study to determine the competencies of elementary school principals and
reported a large scale of competencies. His study have identified the main competencies of school
principals as instructional leadership, research and professional development, human resources
management, school-community relations, communication, student affairs, school management and
some personality characteristics. School management is a profession that requires multiple skills and
competencies due to its unique characteristics and complex nature. Therefore, the fact that the school
administrators’ leadership competencies have a wide range of qualifications including from
instructional leadership to school management stems from the multivariate structure of school settings.
For that reason, school administrators must have a holistic view of education, schooling and
management.
Another powerful side of LCI is that it can be used for educational administrators besides that
it functions as a valid and reliable scale in Turkish culture. Furthermore, the instructional leadership
scale that was added to the scale merged with the items of professional competency and do not harm
the basic structure. This may increase the functionality of the scale to evaluate education and school
administrators' competencies.
Administrating this scale, which was adopted into Turkish and was found out to have an
acceptable fit, in a larger sample including school administrators and teachers may produce more
effective findings to show how to use it in Turkey. LCI may also contribute to the evidence base on
which competencies education and school administrators have in the processes of choosing and training
school administrators and on which competencies should be developed and on building certain
standards.

378
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 365-383 S. 5zdemir, F. Sezgin & D. 5zen Kılıç

On the other hand, results revealed that the factors of LCI were highly positively correlated
with each other. Depending on the common perceptions of school administrators and teachers, this
finding refers that LCI has a holistic structure and that managerial competencies, instructional
leadership, professional mastery and supervisory factors are dependent on each other, however, they
are related to each other in a holistic structure. Evaluations of school administrators' competencies
should be premised upon these factors.
In school administrator sample, managerial competencies and professional mastery were the
highest correlated factors. However, instructional leadership and organizational leadership were the
factors with highest correlation in teacher sample. This finding suggest that school principal pay more
attention to managerial processes while teachers give priority to educational activities. Results
illustrated that the least correlated factors of LCI were managerial competencies and supervisory
according to school administrators while supervisory and professional mastery were the least
associated factors for teachers. The finding indicating that both school administrators and teachers think
the least correlated subscale with other factors was supervisory might stem from the fact that it is
inspector, not school administrator, to be responsible for supervising the schools.
Results revealed that linear component mean scores comprised of the factors of LCI differed
significantly according to school principals and teachers. School administrators' perceptions on their
leadership competencies were higher than those of teachers on school administrators in all of the LCI
dimensions. In a study conducted by “ğaoğlu et al. (2012) about the proficiency of school
administrators, similar results indicating that school administrators' perceptions of their competencies
were higher than teachers' perceptions on school administrators' competencies were produced. This
finding referring that school administrators had more positive perceptions on their competencies might
be congruent with the expectations. In his analysis based on the perceptions of teachers, supervisors,
and school administrators about the competencies of school principals, Dönmez (2002) also reported
that teachers and supervisors tended to more poorly evaluate school principals than the school
principals own perceptions about themselves. Consequently, people's perceptions of the self are
generally positive.
School administrators play a key role in student achievement and school improvement and
determining their competencies is crucial in rapidly changing and improving social conditions. The
more the school principals have competencies, the higher the student achievement is. This study aimed
at determining the school administrators' competencies by using a comprehensive perspective. More
research is needed to contribute to build a standard administrator competency framework.

379
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 365-383 S. 5zdemir, F. Sezgin & D. 5zen Kılıç

References

“ğaoğlu, E., “ltınkurt, Y., Yılmaz, K., & Karaköse, T. . Okul yöneticilerinin yeterliklerine ilişkin
okul yöneticilerinin ve öğretmenlerin gör(şleri K(tahya İli . Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(164), 159-175.
”alcı, “. . T(rkiye’de eğitim yönetiminin bilimleşme d(zeyi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim
Yönetimi, 14(54), 181-209.
Barrett, A., & Beeson, J. (2002). Develop leaders for 2010. New York: The Conference Board of Canada.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor
leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.
Başaran, İ. E. . Örgütsel davranış. “nkara G(l.
Bergstrom, E. J. (2012). A comparison of the leadership competencies of leaders in manufacturing, hospitals, and
community banking industries in the State of Pennsylvania (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1038135032)
”ursalıoğlu, Z. . Eğitim yöneticisinin yeterlikleri. “nkara “nkara Üniversitesi Eğitim ”ilimleri
Fak(ltesi.
”(y(közt(rk, Ş. . Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi elkitabı (İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları
ve yorum). Ankara: Pegem A.
Colins, J. (2001). Good to great L. Cinemre, Çev. . İstanbul ”oyner Orijinal basım yılı .
Çokluk, 5., Şekercioğlu, G., & ”(y(közt(rk, Ş. . Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve
Lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Dönmez, ”. . M(fettiş, okul m(d(r( ve öğretmen algılarına göre ilköğretim okulu m(d(rlerinin
yeterlikleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 29, 27-45.
Dubois, D. D., & Rothwell, W. J. (2004). Competency-based human resource management. Palo Alto, CA:
Davies-Black.
Eichinger, R. W., & Lombardo, M. M. (2003). Knowledge summary series: 360-degree assessment.
Human Resource Planning, 26(4), 34-44.
Garies, C., R., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2005). Cultivating principals’ sense of efficacy: Supports that matter.
Paper to be presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational
Administration, Nashville, TN. http://coe.ksu.edu/ucea/2005/TschannenUCEA2005.pdf.
Gratton, L. (2011). The end of the middle manager. Harvard Business Review, 89(4), 36-47.
G(nay, M. . İlköğretim devlet okulu müdürlerinin yeterlik düzeylerinin öğretmenlerin ve müdürlerin
kendi algıları ile incelenmesi Doctoral dissertation . Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, “nkara.
G(ven, İ. H. . İlköğretim okulu yöneticilerinin yeterliklerinin değerlendirilmesi (Master's thesis).
Sakarya Üniversitesi, Sakarya.
Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and
guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Retrieved from
http://www.testpublishers.org/assets/documents/volume%201%20issue%201Increasing%20validi
ty.pdf
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for
determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Kalaycı, Ş. . SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Ankara: Asil.
Karadağ, E. . Okul m(d(rlerinin niteliklerine ilişkin olarak öğretmenlerin oluşturdukları bilişsel
kurgular Fenomonolojik bir çöz(mleme. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(159), 25-40.
Karasar, N. (2006). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel.

380
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 365-383 S. 5zdemir, F. Sezgin & D. 5zen Kılıç

King, A. W., Fowler, S. W., & Zeithaml, C. P. (2001). Managing organizational competencies for
competitive advantage: The middle-management edge. The Academy of Management Executive, 15(2),
95-106.
Koontz, H., & Eincrich, H. (1998). Management. Stockholm: McGraw-Hill.
Lado, A. A., & Wilson, M. C. (1994). Human resource systems and sustained competitive advantage: A
competency-based perspective. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 699-727.
Leslie, J. B., & Fleenor, J. W. (1998). Feedback to managers: A review and comparison of multi-rater instruments
for management development. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Livingston, M. (1998). Career paths: Selected attitudes of new rural school administrators. Education,
118(3), 371-375.
Madenoğlu, C. . Ortaöğretim kurumu yöneticileri ve öğretmenlerinin okul yöneticilerinde bulunması
gereken niteliklere ilişkin öncelikleri Master's thesis . “nadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
Marshall, M. E., & Spencer, W. A. (1999). Public school administrator competencies: A comparison of
the perceptions of stakeholders in Alabama. Economics of Education Review, 14(3), 243-252.
Martin, J., & Schmidt, C. (2010). How to keep your top talent. Harvard Business Review, 88(5), 54-61.
Morical, K. E. (1999). A product review: 360 assessments. Training & Development, 53(4), 43-47.
Okul Temelli Mesleki Gelişim Kılavuzu. (2010). Öğretmen yeterlikleri ve okul temelli mesleki gelişim
kılavuzu. “nkara 5ğretmen Yetiştirme ve Eğitimi Genel M(d(rl(ğ(.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review,
68(3), 79-93.
Recepoğlu, E., & Kılınç, “. Ç. . T(rkiye’de okul yöneticilerinin seçilmesi ve yerleştirilmesi, mevcut
sorunlar ve çöz(m önerileri. Turkish Studies: International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and
History of Turkish or Turkic, 9(2), 1817-1845.
Rothwell, W. J., & Graber, J. M. (2010). Competency-based training basics. Alexandria, VA: American
Society for Training and Development.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Secretary’s Commission on “chieving Necessary Skills. SC“NS . . Skills and tasks for jobs: A
SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor.
Sherman, R., Tibbetts, J., Dobbins, D., & Weidler, D. (2001). Management competencies and sample indicators
for the improvement of adult education programs. Washington, DC: Building Professional Development
Partnerships for Adult Educators Project (Pro-Net) Pelavin Research Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.calpro-online.org/pubs/mgmt_comp_samp_ind_ 63.pdf
Snell, S. A., & Dean, J. W. (1992). Integrated manufacturing and human resource management: A human
capital perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 467-504.
Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (Eds.). (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus:
Ohio State University College of Administrative Science.
S(mer, N. . Yapısal eşitlik modelleri Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji
Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
Şahin, “. E. . İlköğretim okulu m(d(rlerinin yeterlikleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi,
22, 243-260.
Şener, S. . İlköğretim okul müdürlerinin müdürlük yeterliklerine ilişkin öğretmen algıları (Master's
thesis . Dokuz Eyl(l Üniversitesi, İzmir.
Şimşek, H. . Eğitim yöneticilerinin yetiştirilmesi: Karşılaştırmalı örnekler ve Türkiye için öneriler.
Retrieved from http://www.hasansimsek.net
Şişman, M., & Turan, S. . Eğitim ve okul yönetimi. Y. 5zden Ed. , Eğitim ve okul yöneticiliği el kitabı
içinde ss. -146). Ankara: Pegem A.

381
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 365-383 S. 5zdemir, F. Sezgin & D. 5zen Kılıç

Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review,
36(2), 95-101.
Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., Johnson, D., Sandholyz, K., & Younger, J. (2008). HR competencies: Mastery at
the intersection of people and business. Virginia: Society for Human Resource Management.
Visagie, J., Linde, H., & Havenga, W. (2011). Leadership competencies for managing diversity. Managing
Global Transitions: International Research Journal, 9(3), 225-247.
Wang, W. C., & Lin, C. H. (2011). Types of competitive advantage and analysis. International Journal of
Business and Management, 6(5), 100-104.
Yılmaz, V., & Çelik, H. E. (2009). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi-I. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Yoon, J. H., Song, J. H., Donahue, W. E., & Woodley K. K. (2010). Leadership competency inventory: A
systematic process of developing and validating a leadership competency scale. Journal of
Leadership Studies, 4(3), 39-50.

382
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 365-383 S. 5zdemir, F. Sezgin & D. 5zen Kılıç

Appendix 1. Leadership Competency Inventory

1. Resource Usage: Identifies, organizes, plans and allocates resources.
2. Resource Management: Demonstrates awareness of technical resources; knows how to apply resources to achieve
desired outcomes.
3. Problem Solving: Recognizes and defines problems; analyzes relevant information; encourages alternative solutions
and plans to solve problems.
4. Self-Direction: Realistically assesses own strengths and weaknesses; invests in self-development; demonstrates self-
confidence; can work persistently toward a goal; manages own time effectively.
5. Technology Management: Stays informed about new technology; applies new technologies to organizational needs;
ensures staff is trained and able to use technology required for the job.
6. Strategic Thinking and Planning: Advocates and participates in strategic planning to define and achieve
organizational goals.
7. Interpersonal Competence: Appropriately sociable, interacts effectively with others.
8. Leadership and Coaching: Models and encourages high standards of ethical behavior; adapts leadership styles to
situations and people; empowers, motivates, guides, and coaches others.
9. Flexibility and Resilience: Adapts to change in the work environment; effectively copes with stress and ambiguity.
10. Vision and Mission: Defines, shares, develops and applies the goals of the schools, defines a mission related to
learning in school.
11. Management of Education Programme and Teaching: Controls and evaluates teaching; coordinates education
programme and follows student development.
12. Occupational Technical Competencies: Demonstrates knowledge, skills, and abilities needed within current
occupation (e.g., engineer, HR professional, lawyer, nurse, etc.) and stays up-to-date with the changes and
developments in the occupation.
13. Learning Climate: Protects teaching time; makes his presence felt in school, encourages teachers to work, supports
professional development of teachers, develops and applies academic standards, encourages students to learn.
14. Industry-Wide Technical Competencies: Demonstrates knowledge, skills, and abilities needed within the industry
of context (e.g., manufacturing, hospitality, financial services, education, healthcare, transportation, etc.) and stay up-
to-date with the changes and developments in the industry.
15. Diverse Workforce: Recognizes the value of cultural, ethnic, gender, and other individual difference; provides
employment and development opportunities for a diverse workforce.
16. Financial Management and Budgeting: Understands budget process; prepares and justifies budget; monitors
expenses; manages profit/loss ratios as appropriate.
17. Human Performance Management: Ensures effective systems for employee selection, placement, development,
performance appraisal, recognition and disciplinary action; promotes positive labor relations and employee well-
being.
18. Understands Systems: Grasps complex interrelationships and interdependencies.
19. External Awareness: Stays informed on policies, priorities, trends and special interests and uses this information in
making decisions; considers external impact of statements, decisions or actions.
20. Management Controls: Ensures the integrity of the organization’s processes promotes ethical and effective practices.
21. Computer and Basic Literacy: Proficient in using personal computer and learning new software; reads, writes, and
performs mathematical operations; speaks and listens with comprehension.
22. Conceptual Thinking: Thinks creatively, can visualize concepts; uses reasoning to make decisions and solve
problems.
23. Technical Competence: Works with various technologies as required for the job.
24. Learning and Information: Demonstrates ability to develop new awareness, knowledge and skills; acquires and uses
information productively.
25. Written Communication: Communicates effectively in writing; can critically review and comprehend information
written by others.
26. Self-Responsibility and Management: Displays responsibility, self-confidence, emotional self-control, integrity and
honesty.
27. Conflict Management: Anticipates and seeks to resolve disagreements, complaints and confrontations in a
constructive manner.
28. Teamwork and Cooperation: Demonstrates and fosters cooperation, communication and consensus among
individuals and groups.
29. Interpersonal Relationship Building: Considers and responds appropriately to the needs, feelings and capabilities
of others; seeks feedback and accurately assesses impact on others; provides helpful feedback; builds trust with
others.
30. Decisiveness: Can decide and respond quickly and make difficult decisions when necessary.

383