INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Middle leaders and trust: A Mixed method Study of two private Secondary Schools in Islamabad in

Pakistan

Saira Riaz Pakistan

Pending

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100478

Received: 11 November 2025; Accepted: 18 November 2025; Published: 20 December2025

ABSTRACT

This is a case study of two private Secondary schools in Islamabad. The focus of school A is profit-based and

commercial whereas School B provides quality and values-based education. This study explored the

phenomenon of middle management with reference to their leadership roles in schools. Also this enquiry

measured the level of relational trust among the principal, middle leaders, teachers and clients (students and

parents) from faculty perspective by using the grounded theory of five facets of trust: benevolence, competence,

reliability, open communication and honesty. This study is more qualitative in nature. Questionnaire and semi-

structured interviews were used as research instruments.

The findings revealed that middle leaders practice Transformational leadership and play multifunctional roles

such as teachers, coordinators, managers, curriculum developers, mentors, monitors, trainers, event organizers

and advisors. Their leadership roles extend to the whole school development. High level of trust was found

among middle leaders, teachers and colleagues due to teachers’ participation in planning activities, friendly and

fear free work climate, healthy and productive work relations. It was found that school A was multilayered with

bureaucratic hierarchy system, power conscious, commercial mind set with low level of trust than School B. In

both schools it was found that middle managers were not given autonomy and authority by the principal.

Although private schools follow the western model of leadership based on democracy but the traditional elements

of delegation, control and uncertainty are still present.

Keywords: middle leaders, roles, trust, relationships, development.

INTRODUCTION:

This research encompasses the role of middle management in Secondary schools in Pakistan. At the same time,

this study also closely observes the level of trust among key social actors

in school such as the principal, teachers, and clients (students and parents) in the whole school development.

The “middle leaders” are the senior teachers in the hierarchy of school who work at middle ranking positions

between the principals and junior staff. They are associated with the curriculum development or supervision of

groups within the institution. They are not part of the senior management of the school (Busher, Fletcher,

Kirkham and Turner (2007). In hierarchal terms, Busher and Harris (1999) defined middle manager as the head

of department, supervisor or senior administrator who is responsible to supervise the execution of duties of

classroom teachers but not considered as a part of senior management. The current literature review served as a

base for theoretical framework. This a mixed method study. Questionnaire ( Omnibus- T scale) and semi

structured interviews were used as research instruments for data collection. Thematic analysis was used for the

qualitative data and the formula for calculations given by Tschannen-Moran (2003) was used for the quantitative

analysis. This study suggested that middle leaders are the key actors in nourishing and crafting school cultures

on one hand. On the other hand their leadership roles influence the school culture and progress to a great extent.

Hence they play a pivotal role in the school and influence both learning and teaching (Flemming, 2009, Leask

& Terrell, 2014), Harris and Jones, 2010), Mortimore, 1997, Sammons, 1997, Terrell, 2014 and Thomas, 1997).

Countries like England, Australia, New Zealand, USA and Canada were among the pioneers to launch middle

management concept in schools. In England, middle leaders in secondary schools function as heads of subject

departments, or faculties; coordinators of cross curriculum studies or teachers with advanced skills responsible

Page 6053

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

for teachers’ empowerment in their own school and in

linked schools. In addition to this they teach their own subject (Bennett, Wise, Woods, and Newton, 2003). In

New Zealand middle leaders are referred as faculty leader, subject head, head of department learning area leader

(Bassett 2016). Robinson (2007) derived five leadership dimensions: direction, strategy, improved learning

outcomes, constructive debate and development of smart tools from seventeen core studies. The challenge for

the middle leaders is to fight against traditional norms and professional autonomy and establish a culture of

collectivity by empowering teachers and leading towards sustainable development. In Asia, within the Chinese

context of leadership, Bush and Haiyan (2000) and Tam (2010) argued that middle leaders are ‘experienced

teachers’ who enjoy a position of respect with long-term professional commitment and loyalty to one school.

Bush and Haiyan (2000) and Tam (2010) concurred factors such as traditional and patriarchal culture, socialist

culture and enterprise culture which affected the education system in China. With the modifying worldly trends,

Chinese society also went through transformation with chinese traditions. Besides authoritative leadership,

leaders teach and create collaborative culture through group discussions (Jiaoyanzu) in schools which is named

as “collegiality” in western world (Bush 1995). In Pakistan, the role and responsibilities are “Complex, daunting,

multi-dimensional, and multilayered” (Khaki and Qutoshi, 2005, Lizotte and Moose, 2013). Bhatti, Hussain and

Iqbal (2013), Nawab (2011) and Niazi (2012) highlighted the roles of good middle managers who facilitated

teachers, collaborated and shared ideas, organized development programs, frequently visited classrooms and

gave feedback and guided students. Khaki and Qutoshi (2014) conducted a study in the community-based school

in Karachi in Pakistan and their research revealed the role of middle leaders:

“Her role is seen, on the one hand, as a moral agent – a leader with high levels of commitment, patience, care

and facilitative role, and on the other, an effective manager to run the affairs of school efficiently by fulfilling

expectations of the stakeholders in a participatory approach” (Lizotte, 2013, Sergiovanni 2000 and Williams,

2006, pg, 88).

Problem Statement:

Considering the changing worldly trends, the concept of educational leadership and management evolved from

the instructional leadership to the transformational leadership by the prominence of the middle management

between senior management and teachers. the observations brought about the fact that in the bureaucratic

education system of pakistan, the managerial role of the experienced teachers is missing. garret, memon, simkins,

(2000, p. 276) highlighted as “functionaries operating at fairly low level within a multi-layered hierarchy”. their

researches indicated that school policies create hindrance to change in school. the role of educational leadership

and management in developing countries is under searched domain and a gap exists in the current literature

(simkins et al., 2003). This gap of research pushes to follow the western theories and practices including the role

of middle management (dimmock, 2000). In the developing countries, especially in pakistan, the domain of

middle management in schools has not been much well searched (khaki, 2005, khaki, 2014, safdar, 2010, shafa,

2004). Inspite of the great contributions of the middle management in schools’ progress, separate identity,

recognition of the roles, responsibilities of middle leaders their respect remain problems in the school settings

(khan, 2013).

Purpose of study

The purpose of this research is to study the leadership roles and contribution of middle managers towards the

whole school development. The study also exhibits relational trust between teachers and middle leaders in

schools. So that leaders devise strategies to enhance leadership qualities to improve the level of trust. By fostering

trust among faculty, collective efficacy as an expected outcome can be enhanced which induces students’

achievement.

Research aims and objectives

The research aim is to develop an understanding of middle leaders’ contribution in the scenario of school

leadership and trust among social key actors (participants) in schools.

The following objectives were identified to achieve this aim:

Page 6054

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

1. To discover how teaching and learning outcomes are influenced by the effective middle leadership.

2. To investigate the level of trust in school among key social identities: principal, middle leaders, teachers,

students and parents.

3. To determine the impact of trust as an essential element on the school effectiveness.

Research questions

What leadership roles are performed by middle leaders to contribute to school effectiveness?

1. To what extent lies organizational trust in principal, teachers, students and parents in schools from

teachers’ perspective?

2. How is the relational trust between middle leaders and teachers in schools?

LITERATURE REVIEW

The advancement in science and technology, growing demands of stakeholders, escalating pressures and

increased needs of learning and teaching in the twenty first century gave a new dimension to educational

leadership as highlighted by Katzenmeyer and Moller (2009). This scenario manifested the need that the

principal’s workload should be shared by middle management. Hence a new concept developed that educational

leadership in school setting is not

only restricted to the principalship but another line of management that functions from the middle. Middle leaders

hold middle ranking position in a multi-layered hierarchal structure as mentioned by Busher et al., (2007).

Benetta (1995, p.18) commented that the term “middle management” is applied to hierarchal structure which

‘assumes a downward flow of authority from the leader, given in order to promote what the leader seeks’. The

information transmission and command ‘up’ and ‘down’ the line, highlights middle leaders as key brokers within

the organization. Benette (1995, p.28) observed that through ‘controlling and influencing the flow of

information, middle managers can be a creative force for organizational change’. Bell and Bush (2002) explained

that the main role of middle leaders is to teach, accomplish administrative tasks and human and physical resource

management. Basically middle leaders perform the responsibilities of the whole school which were previously

carried by senior management. Busher, Harris and Wise (2001), Sammons et al., (1996) indicated that middle

leaders have the potential to make a difference to departmental performance leading to the whole school progress.

(Bush,2003, p.1) described the leadership role of middle leaders:

“During the 1980s and into the 1990s, the traditional role of academic middle managers was that of subject

leader. They were often the most experienced teachers in the department and led by example.”

Glover et al., (1998) highlighted. that middle leaders uplift the standard of school through their tireless efforts

and recommended four dimensions of middle managers’ work. The first dimension is the translation of policies

into the implementation in classrooms, resource allocation and management. This is a brokering function as the

manager makes use of power where necessary (Blase, 1995). He also indicated that the second dimension is

about teachers’ empowerment and fostering collegiality in a collaborative culture. Third dimension is about staff

and students’ performance. Monitoring and expertise in the subject through mentoring. The final dimension is

the role as a representative and social networking (Busher and Harris, 1999). Murphy et al., (2007) indicated

characteristics of middle leaders such as knowledge, experience, values and beliefs and personality traits. All

these characteristics leave strong impact on the performance and improvement of students and school in general.

Chaplain (2003) and Sergiovanni (2000, p.103) highlighted that “heads are perceived as being responsible for

providing leadership; strategic planning….plus overall responsibility for student behavior”. Similarly

establishing trust and creation of positive climate is one of the major responsibilities of leaders as heads are the

bearers of beliefs, practices and culture as suggested by Johnson (2003). Drysdale and Gurr (2012) conducted a

research on middle leadership based on the works of Cotter (2011), Keane (2010) and White (2000). According

to their study, the role of leaders was to prepare teaching and learning material and to influence learning

outcomes. They empower teacher as mentors or trainers, create collaborative culture through professional

Page 6055

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

learning programs. Hallinger and Heck (2010) and Kinsler (2013) indicated that school leadership left indirect

impact on students’ learning. As ‘the captain of the ship’ (Baig and Nooruddin, 2014, p.3) middle leaders ensured

the progress in learning outcomes and smooth functioning of school through effective systems. Therefore, Blase

(1995), Fink and Stoll (1996) commented that middle managers are transformational leaders.

Middle Leaders as Transformational Leaders

Advisors/ mentors Trainers Performance monitors Relationship builder Teachers

Figure 1.2: Multi-dimensional roles of middle leaders as Transformational leaders (Fink, 1996, Khaki, 2005,

Lizotte, 2013, Qutoshi, 2005, Moose, 2013 and Stoll, 1996)

Figure 1.2 represents multiple functions of middle leaders. They guide the novice teachers, suggest solutions to

problems, train teachers and monitor their performance in classes. They maintain good relations at every level.

As experienced teachers, they teach in classrooms as well. By fostering collaborative culture in the department,

middle leaders improve trust among teachers and also practise leadership which is based on values and good

interpersonal skills more in terms of transformational leadership (Hodgkinson, 1991). Alam (2012), Baig and

Shafa (2011), Bryk et al., (2010), Elias et al., (2007), Leis et al., (2017) argued that school leaders and families

brought positive development in the community through collective work. Brady and Randle (1997) explained

that middle leaders keep abreast of the demands of new managerialism by fixing targets against performance

measurement indicators. Middle leaders also observe classes to improve students’ behavior and learning as well

as teachers’ instruction and class management. They provide observation feedback to teachers. Their monitoring

visits are a source of motivation for teachers (Gorman and Pauken, 2003 and Pastor, 2002). Consequently, they

feel “ready, able and willing to support” the students (Baig and Nooruddin, as cited in Baker, 2005, 2014, p.14),

Baker’s article (as cited in Baig and Nooruddin, 2014, p.14).

Middle managers also encounter obstacles in their professional domaines. Briggs (2001), Blaise (1995), Fink

and Stoll (1996), Campbell and Earley (1989) highlighted challenges such as multiple hierarchal structures,

senior managers’ traditional leadership and unwillingness to delegate authority, multitasking and restricted

autonomy, under rated professional expertise, lack of time and extra duties. Glover and Bush (2003), Ainley and

Bailey (1997, p.60) analyzed that middle leaders could be neglected in the whole school decision-making with

limited authority.

“Middle managers……inhibit two different worlds, returning from boardroom to staff room to communicate

the details of the decisions that have been taken by the principal” (Ainley & Bailey, 1997, p.57).

Brown et al., (2000) further elaborated that duties of middle leaders have grown tremendously and they are

‘sandwiched’ between the senior management and teachers (Bush, 2002).

Trust

In different eras, trust was defined in different ways. louis (2007) defined trust as reliability on integrity,

friendship, confidence and justice. arrow (1974) labeled it as “lubricant” that sticks the social exchange with

confidence in actions and words. mishra (1996) defined trust as a person’s belief in competency, reliability and

openness of another person. callaway (2006) highlighted it as belief in employer’s honesty and delegation. bryk

and scheider (2002) indicated trust as a vital resource for school development among school leaders, parents,

students, and teachers. trust is pivotal in the american society as baier (1986, p.234) explained that trust leads to

the effective communication by creating cohesive and productive relationships.

Page 6056

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

According to Baier (1986, p.236):

“Since the things we typically do care about and value include such things as we cannot easily single handedly

either create or sustain………we must allow many other people to get into positions where they can, if they

choose, injure, what we care about, since those are the same positions that they must be inorder to help us take

care what we care about” (Baier, 1986, p.236).

The five facets of trust:

Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (2007) presented five facets of trust: benevolence, reliability, competence,

openness and honesty which laid the foundation of trust. They defined trust as “an individual’s or

group’s willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on the confidence.” The most common facet is

benevolence which is “accepted vulnerability to another’s possible but not expected ill will” (Baier, 1986, p.

236). It indicates to confidence in another person, and the person will be protected or untormented by the trusted

party (Baier, 1986, Butler and Cantrell, 1984, Hoy and Tschannen-Moran, 1997 and Mishra, 1996). Trust is the

guarantee that people will not exploit vulnerability with authority (Cummings and Bromily, 1996). Mutual

attitude of goodwill is vital in interdependent relationships in school setting. Brodt, Korsgaard, Werner and

Whitener (1998) argued that trustworthy working environment is nurtured through trustworthy behavior of

managers.

Reliability:

Reliability is predictability and consistency of behavior and imagining what to expect from others (Butler and

Cantrell, 1984 and Hosmer, 1995). Reliability is associated with benevolence, in interdependent relations,

reliability demonstrates that the person can be relied upon in time of need.

Competence:

Competence is the ability to fulfill the expectations and demands of social relations (Cantrell, 1984, Mishra,

1996). The organizational tasks rely upon competency. Evans (1996) discovered

that trust is derived from consistency in personal beliefs, work performance and organizational goals.

Honesty:

Honesty highlights individual’s integrity, character and authenticity. Rotter (1980, p.3) defined as “the

expectancy that the word promise, verbal or written statement of another individual or group can be trusted”.

Honesty also supports the notion to avoid blaming others and taking the responsibility of one’s actions (Hoy and

Tschannen-Moran, 1998).

Open communication:

Open communication is defined as the extent of information sharing. Openness also indicates reciprocal

confidence (Tschannen-Moran et al., 2003). It was observed that effective communication patterns improve the

level of trust (Korsgaard and Sapeienze, 1996). Teachers tend to share professional secrets, materials, teaching

strategies and equipment in high trust school environment (Short et al., 1997).

Relational trust

Dirks and Ferrin (2002) and Srivastava and Thomson (2009) stated that trust in leadership is visible through

relation-based approach. Teachers’ trust in school leaders could influence multiple factors such as performance,

knowledge sharing, job satisfaction and effective communication. On the other hand, principals were supposed

to create healthy and positive work climate to upgrade teachers’ skills above satisfactory level which is

impossible with autocratic attitude as suggested by Niazi (2012) and Khan et al., (2009).) Trust played a vital

role in schools’ improvement. Trust in the pairing of teachers and principals, teachers and middle managers,

teachers and teachers was based upon personal regard and competency, personal integrity, respect as highlighted

Page 6057

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

by Adams, Forsyth and Hoy (2011), Bryk and Schneider (2002), Tschannen-Moran (2009, 2014). However, De

Coninck (2010) highlighted that within the organization the equal distribution of resources, justice, equality, and

involvement of employee in decision making, established trust in their manager.

Trust climate Of Trust trust In Managers

Figure 2.4: Justice is the base of trust as mentioned by DeConinck (2010).

Schneider (2002), Smith et al., (2001), Tschannen-Moran (1997), Hoy et al., (1992), Hoy and Friedman, (1991)

suggested that higher levels of trust between principal-teachers led to increased collaboration between the two

and created positive work climate, higher rate of productivity and students’ achievement and satisfied parents.

Research methods

Questionnaires are commonly used in social sciences (Blaxter et al., 2001). The sample information results in

standardized data from identical questions (Denscombe, 2010). For this study, the Omnibus T-Scale

questionnaire designed by Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (2003)

was used due to short operational measure of three dimensions of trust in secondary schools setting (Appendix

A). The questionnaire items were designed on five constructs of trust: benevolence, competence, integrity,

reliability and open communication (Hoy & Tschannen- Moran (1999). Total eight items were related to

colleagues and principal and ten items were about clients (parents and students). The quantitative data was

analyzed by using a Likert scale. The questionnaire has 26 different items on Likert Scale ranging from 1

(strongly disagree), 2 (agree), 3 (no option), 4(agree), 5 (strongly agree). This was a quick and cost-effective

method to collect a considerable amount of genuine data. Before initiating data collection, the survey

questionnaire was pilot tested with 4 teachers in order to test the reliability of the questionnaire. All the questions

were clearly understood and there was no ambiguity. Therefore, no amendment was made in the questionnaire

items.

The second research instrument was interviews which are the most commonly used as stated by Wragg (2002)

and known to be the most efficient research instrument for qualitative research (Kosnik et al., 2009, King, 2004,

Jameson, 1999 and Elliott, 1991). For this research, semi- structured interviews were conducted which put the

participants at ease and flexibility to express their ideas openly. Two Interview Schedules were designed. One

for the coordinators and the second for the teachers. Research details were shared with the participants and they

signed the consent form. Then the appointment was fixed at their time of convenience. Each interview took about

20-30 minutes and was recorded. Same interview protocol was applied to the coordinators.

Data Analysis

Data were interpreted at two levels: quantitative and qualitative. although the objective of this enquiry was

predominantly qualitative; nonetheless, this study also yield numerical data. The demographic data collected

from the questionnaire was analyzed. data collection through questionnaires and interviews gave findings which

were merged for an interpretive analysis. the qualitative data was inductively analyzed by using coding and

thematic analysis. in the qualitative inquiry, data remain within boundaries and cannot always be bounded

precisely tesch (2013). the quantitative data analysis was done according to the formula given by hoy and

tschannen-moran (2003). the items of three subscales of the questionnaire: trust in principal, trust in colleagues

and trust in clients (parents and students) were summed and divided by 8 and 10 (trust in clients). the school

subscales scores were calculated to standardized scores with a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100 as

recommended by hoy and tschannen- moran (2003). trust in the principal (tp) =100(tp-4.42)/.725+500, trust in

colleagues (tco) = 100(tco-4.46)/.443+500 and trust in clients (tcl) = 100(tcl-3.53)/.621+500. hoy and tschannen-

moran (2003) indicated that if the score is 200, it is lower than 99% of the schools, if score is 300, it is lower

than 87% of the schools, score 400, it is lower than 84% of the schools. https://www.waynekhoy.com/faculty-

trust/

Page 6058

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Sampling

Sampling as a non-probability strategy which highlights “the segment of the population that is selected for

investigation” (Bryman, 2008, p.168). For this study Purposive sampling was used and the selected participants

were well aligned with the research questions as suggested by Hesse- Biber, leavy (2011) and Punch (2009). The

participants were two experienced coordinators and fourteen subject teachers from School A and School B. The

participants of this study were divided into two main groups. The first group was two coordinators who were

working as middle managers and head of departments and the second group comprised of subject teachers.

Validity, Reliability and Triangulation

Validity justifies the reasons for believing research claims (Norris, 1997) as to “whether an item measures or

describes what it is supposed to measure or describe” (Bush, 2002, p.65). Similar questions were asked to all the

participants to ensure validity. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. Later, member checking was

carried out to check the validity as suggested by Creswell and and (Clark (2007). Within this enquiry, the

Omnibus T-Scale questionnaire was used. The reliabilities of the three subscales ranged from .90 to .98.

Although the semi-structured interview seemed to compromise reliability. However, the impact was reduced

because all subject teachers were exposed to the same schedule. The participants were anonymous, and

questionnaires were treated with complete confidentiality. This research claims ‘strong’ validity and

trustworthiness (Anderson et al., 2007) and (Bassey 2002) as two research methods; questionnaire and interviews

were used which indicates methodological triangulation which makes this study “as robust as possible” (Yin,

2012, p.13).

Ethical considerations

Ethical considerations were taken care of through anonymity and confidentiality. The permission to conduct this

study was taken from the university and schools. BERA (British educational research Association) guidelines

were followed as a framework. Data collection proceeded only after getting the consent from schools and

participants. The participants were given surety that their participation was voluntary, data would be confidential

and kept in a password-secured computer to “keep participants safe from harm, build trust with participants and

ensure trustworthy outcomes from the research which [would] benefit society” (Busher, 2012 and James, 1999,

p.91).

Research limitations

Although the researcher had an easy access to school but still respondents took a long time to fill the

questionnaires. The researcher had to constantly follow up the teachers. The unequal number of subject teachers

in different departments was also a constraint. This enquiry explored one aspect of middle managers’

professional life, still many under searched aspects of middle management need to be uncovered. Time difference

between Malaysia and Pakistan was also a limitation.

FINDINGS

The qualitative data was distributed in themes. Each theme has different subthemes for different groups of

participants.

Leadership roles:

The findings indicated that coordinators as middle leaders performed multiple roles. They were facilitators,

trainers, advisors, mentors, class observers, event organizers, curriculum developers and users of social media

for social networking and school publicity.

Involvement of teachers in planning

It was found that middle leaders involved teachers in the planning of curriculum and event organization.

Curriculum development was teamwork in schools. Coordinator A stated:

Page 6059

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

“Yes we plan curriculum with the inputs of teachers. I encourage creativity in classrooms. It makes teaching

more interesting and innovative.”

(Transcript of interview dated 2^ndApril, 2020) In contrast, Coordinator B highlighted:

“Not direct planning but we do want their input but the decision stays with the top.”

Teacher A mentioned:

“Yes we are involved in the planning of syllabus or events, that depends. We are motivated to bring in creativity

and innovation.”

Involvement in decision-making

It was found that both the coordinators took teachers’ opinions in decision-making process regarding academic

or non-academic activities. Coordinator A highlighted:

“Definitely, we involve teachers in decision making.”

Coordinator B highlighted that the principal takes the final decision.

“Decision making does lie with the principal, but we do involve teachers.”

Monitoring

The coordinators monitored the performance of teachers throughout the year in a collegial environment. The

purpose was to improve teaching and learning process for good learning outcomes through creativity and

innovation.

Coordinator B mentioned that teachers’ performance is evaluated through

“Class observations, students’ feedback, parents’ feedback and performance in the event.”

Collaborative learning in Teachers’ trainings

Both coordinators highlighted the importance of training for teachers’ professional life. They encouraged

collaborative learning in a positive and healthy climate and conducted trainings for teachers to upgrade their

skills.

According to Coordinator A mentioned:

“Yes definitely, we offer them workshops and trainings. Our trainings are well planned and regularly conducted.”

Coordinator B highlighted:

“You have to empower them and bring them with you. You have to take them as a team.”

(Transcription of Interview dated 3^rdApril, 2020).

Teacher B mentioned:

“Yes we are given workshops off and on.”

Relational Trust

The second research question aims to measure the level of trust from the perspective of teachers. Quantitative

data of three subscales of trust: trust in principal, trust in colleagues and trust in client (students and parents) was

collected and analyzed. The data manifested that mostly respondents were females who were of age group (30-

Page 6060

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

40 years). They had a Master degree with teaching experience (6-8 years). The two coordinators as respondents

belonged to the age group (40-50 years). They were well qualified with rich teaching experience and were

promoted as ‘Coordinators’ in Schools A and B. As middle leaders, they managed the whole school as middle

leaders between senior management, school owners, principal and the support staff and teachers as subordinates.

Also they were directly concerned with parents, students and community.

Table 5 shows the subscale of trust in principal. Average item scores were calculated for every item, values were

added and divided by eight. Therefore (TP) =100(TP-4.42)/.725+500 and values 133 (School A) and 134 (school

B) were added. As a result School B indicated high level of trust in principal than School A.

TABLE 5: Teachers’ Perspective Of Trust In The Principal.

Item no.

School A

School B

1

4

7

9

11

15

18

23

25

23

31

24

22

30

28

19

35

20

43

28

23

38

24

202/8= 25.25

249/8 = 31.12

Table 6 shows the subscale of trust in colleagues. Average item scores was calculated by adding the values and

dividing by eight. Resultingly, the formula (TP) = 100(TP-4.46)/.443+500 indicated values 208 for School A

and 209 for School B.

TABLE 6: Teachers’ Perspective of Trust in Colleagues.

Item no.

School A

School B

2.

4.

8.

12.

13.

16.

19.

21.

30

31

24

33

34

29

31

22

28

37

18

32

37

32

29

35

234/8= 29.25

248/8= 31

Table 7 shows the subscale of trust in clients. Average item score was calculated, values were added and divided

by ten (Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (2003). Therefore, (TCl) = 100(TCl- 3.53)/.621+500 indicated values 157

for School A and 158 for School B.

TABLE 7: Teachers’ Perspective of Trust in Clients.

Item no.

4.

5.

10.

14.

17.

22.

24.

25.

School A

School B

31

27

31

32

31

26

21

13

24

28

25

22

25

20

26.

20

Page 6061

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

204/10= 20.4

298/10= 29.8

Table 8 represents the percentage of trust for each subscale in school A and School B. Trust in Principal in

School A is 97% and in School B 99%. Trust in colleagues in School A is 95% and school B also has the same

level. Trust in clients in School A is 96% and 97% in School B.

Subscales

School A % % School B

Trust in Principal

97%

Trust in Colleagues

Trust in Clients (students & parents)

95%

96%

5%

7%

Figure 4.1: Three subscales of trust with percentage in Schools A & B

Figure 4.1. The high level of trust indicates good leadership skills of the principal.

Figure 4.2: Distribution of three subscales of trust in school A.

Page 6062

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Figure 4.3: Distribution of three subscales of trust in school B.

The third research question highlighted the level of trust between teachers and coordinators by using the

qualitative method of interviews. The five facets of trust open communication, reliability, benevolence, honesty

and integrity

Trust between Coordinators and teachers

It was found that coordinators had their trust and reliance in teachers. Both the coordinators valued good working

relationships based on trust. Their relationship with teachers was amicable, open and nonassertive. Coordinator

A mentioned:

“Yes I trust my teachers.”

Coordinator B expressed with much enthusiasm that teachers were comfortable to share their concerns and she

listened to teachers’ problems timely. Infact both teachers and coordinator appreciated the benefit of a healthy

and trust worthy professional relationship.

“Yes definitely, I trust them. I tell them how to do things after discussing with the principal. I have good

relationship with teachers. They are also comfortable in letting me know what are their concerns and issues. It

is a two way thing.”

Teacher B expressed her satisfaction and about her positive relationship with her boss. She described:

“It’s a comfortable relationship. Whatever issues we have, we go to our managers and speak to them. It’s a

cordial relation. There is no fear or inhibitions.”

Open communication

Data suggested that the coordinators had an open ended relationship with teachers rather than traditional or

autocratic relationship. By using democratic style of leadership, they encouraged open communication, took care

of staff, created healthy work climate and delegated duties as democratic leaders.

Coordinator A stated:

“I have open communication with my teachers. If there is any problem or issue, they come to me and discuss.”

Teacher A mentioned that she shared her thoughts openly with her boss:

“I have a good relationship. I discuss a lot of things with her. It is not based on fear.”

Page 6063

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Competence and Reliability

The findings showed that teachers referred to middle leaders for the solutions, support and guidance in different

situations. Due to open and effective communication with their leaders, teachers did not hesitate to ask for

assistance. This indicated a good level of teachers’ trust in middle leaders’ competence with a strong sense of

reliability in their leaders.

Coordinator A mentioned positively:

“They always refer to me.”

Coordinator B stated with complete confidence:

“Yes, yes, they do come.”

Teacher B gave her opinion in a positive way:

“Yes I seek my coordinator’s advice, depends on the area. Sometimes it is students’ behavior, sometimes student

who is not doing well. As a teacher, I always refer to the coordinator…..several times we go to them to discuss

our problems.” (Transcription of Interview dated 28^thMarch, 2020).

Integrity

The coordinators claimed that teachers honestly shared their mistakes and did not find excuses to hide the facts.

Teachers also confessed in the interviews that they worked honestly with the coordinators as they were not

treated harshly. So there was no fear of committing errors and this way they established healthy relationship.

This kind of relation led to teachers’ trust in their managers and developed a trustworthy relationship.

Coordinator B showed her confidence in her teachers who always share their mistakes with her: “They do come

to me. They don’t try to get away with this. They do inform me.”

Teacher A stated mentioned:

“I share my mistakes with my boss. I don’t hide or lie about them.” Teacher B shared a good sense of values in

her statement:

“...if we hide our mistakes then what example are we setting and we will be at peace with ourselves if we are

honest with ourselves. If I make a mistake, I tell my coordinator and she rectifies it. There are no penalties. I

always tell her if I make a mistake.” (Transcription of Interview dated 28^thMarch, 2020)

Benevolence

Findings indicated that coordinators were satisfied about teachers’ cooperation in academic and nonacademic

activities such as mentoring, class observations, planning of curriculum and event organization. Even if there

are extra duties to perform, still teachers were found willing to perform. Coordinator A appreciated her teaching

staff:

“Teachers always cooperate.”

Coordinator B highlighted good teamwork of teachers:

“Teachers cooperate specially when there are events going on. Everyone looks after the other person. I think

everyone helps others.”

Teacher B shared about her cooperative boss and her motivation for work:

“As much as I feel I can cooperate as they cooperate with me…even if work is double, I do it willingly. I believe

Page 6064

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

that it is my duty to make sure that we implement the mission through the area designated to us that is teaching.”

Teachers’ dedication

It was found that teachers willingly spent extra time and performed extra tasks whenever required. The sense of

dedication was due to positive and trustworthy relationship between coordinators and teachers. Teacher A

expressed her views.

“Whenever needed, I spend extra time to complete some tasks.” Teacher B was focused on students’

improvement as she mentioned:

“I do not mind doing extra tasks as they complement teaching such as break duty. Such tasks improve discipline

in students.”

Teachers’ trust in colleagues

Findings manifested a good level of trust among colleagues due to positive and collaborative work environment

developed by coordinators. The sharing and caring culture was found prominent among teachers.

Teacher A gave her opinion enthusiastically:

“We trust eachother and we live like a family.”

Teacher B highlighted:

“There is a good level of trust. We confide in each other. We discuss our problems with each other without any

fear of politics or backstabbing. We do trust each other.”

Trust in senior management

It was found that Coordinators had good relationship with senior management. However, it was observed that

the principal controlled the coordinators. In school A, it was found that the principal’s influence was very strong

although they maintained good relations with middle leaders. However, middle leaders did not have the authority

and autonomy for decision-making. Coordinator A mentioned:

“I follow the principal and Leadership is democratic. You know people who run the schools know very well

how to get work done. Under the carpet things are different.”

Coordinator B expressed to have a good relationship with the principal:

“We are comfortable to discuss our issues but definitely there is somebody who has the final word. The person

who is going to say this is how we are going to do about it. I am principal’s person.”

Dedication and commitment of middle leaders

It was found that coordinators performed multitasking, extra duties and spent extra time in schools owing to their

trustworthy relationship with the senior management. Besides dedication, they were also found ambitious,

motivated, and enthusiastic to upgrade the quality and standard of the school. Coordinator A mentioned:

“Out of courtesy, you do so many things if your employer is cooperative. My employers were very supportive

and accommodating and so I try to do whatever I can even if I have to give an extra mile.”

Coordinator B discussed her longterm association with school owing to high level of trust:

“I have been long associated to them date back twenty years…….they maintain good discipline, healthy

relationships, they do try to look after all the staff. They create win win situation in which teachers, parents and

students, everybody’s interests are looked after

Page 6065

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Trust leading to school development

It was found that the coordinators and teachers rated trust as the vibrant force to achieve the good standard of

school. The key social actors in school settings worked as a team and relied on each other for school progress.

Coordinator A gave her opinion:

“Definitely trust is the base for good relationships. If teachers trust the management and each other, they will

work positively. Together with teachers, we find new ways of teaching and imparting knowledge to students, to

improve learning process. Without trust, a school cannot develop. Yes its trust that kept the school going on for

years and it is trust that school is trying to improve the standard.”

Coordinator B expressed her views:

“On the basis of trust you can build your relationships. If you do not have trust, your professional relations will

not long for last. Here every student’s performance is observed

carefully by teachers, coordinators and principal when needed. Working in a trustworthy climate leads to

professional and overall school development.”

Challenges faced by middle leaders:

Findings from the interviews indicated that coordinators encountered challenges in their professional life such

as relationship building, and multilayered hierarchy of senior managers. Data indicated that low layered

hierarchy (School B) was less traditional with cooperative and approachable managers whereas in School A,

multi layered hierarchy, traditional mindset and bureaucracy created complications. Coordinator A expressed

her true feelings that relationship with senior management could be demanding and tough as mentioned below:

“Getting along well with senior management is a challenge. Sometimes they do not understand the educational

philosophy. There are many managers deputy principal, directors and school owners. If I have to discuss a

problem, I have to go through different layers which is time consuming. and level of understanding is different.

Then to convince teachers to perform well in classes is also a challenge. You cannot please everyone.”

Coordinator B explained her challenging middle position:

“Middle leaders are usually stuck in a position when you have to consider the interest of one person and you

have to ignore the other one. So we do try for win win situation. Everybody’s interests are looked after but there

will be times that compromise has to be made….. There are three managers above me. I have a good relationship

with the principal. I do exactly what she expects me to do.”

DISCUSSION:

This study investigated the leadership roles of the middle management in schools. Middle leaders performed

multidimensional roles of manager, coordinator, facilitator, trainer, advisor and mentor Busher (2005). As

facilitators, they encouraged creativity to encourage intellectual stimulation in their classes (Glover et al., (1998).

They created healthy, cooperative, and trustworthy work environment for collaborative learning (Busher, Harris,

1999 and Hodgkinson, 1991). The role of the principal is very vital to create health and trustworthy environment

for their staff (Niazi, 2012). Monitoring visits were conducted to observe teachers in their classrooms. Trust is

the base for employees’ reactions to supervision as described by Barr, Brief and Fulk (1985). Also monitoring

is a source of motivation to teachers and students (Gorman and Pauken, 2003). As mentors, middle leaders build

the capacity of young and novice teachers (Harris and Jones, 2017) by conducting workshops and trainings

(Busher and Harris, 1999). Hence middle leaders create sharing and caring culture to work like a family (Wenger,

1998). Individual consideration, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation are the

prominent elements that middle managers followed as transformational leaders (Avolio and Bass (1994), Blaise

(1995), Cherry (2007), Fink and Stoll, (1996).

The five facets of trust as defined by Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (2007) such as open communication,

Page 6066

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

benevolence, competence, reliance and integrity were highlighted in both schools which indicated high level of

trust between coordinators and teachers. It is interesting to notice the difference in high and low percentages of

trust in both the schools. This relates to the fact that the principal is competent, reliable, benevolent and maintains

open communication with teachers. The principal a is concerned about teachers’ interests in her actions with

integrity. Also, teachers can depend on her in their difficult times. This leads to productive, amicable and open

comfortable as Khan et al., (2009) indicated that teachers are more productive in the presence of democratic

leadership. For trust in colleagues, teachers’ responses in both the schools indicate the same score. This shows

that colleagues trust each other through effective and open communication. They rely upon each other in the

time of difficulty. They enjoy good relationship with colleagues and work in close collaboration with integrity.

For trust in clients (students and parents), the highest percentage of trust indicates high level of faculty trust in

students and parents as Dirks and Ferrin (2002) suggested that trust in leadership is visible through relationships.

This is an indication that teachers were satisfied with jobs that they did not mind doing extra duties as they took

the ownership of school and contributed with heart and soul for school’s good efficiency, quality education and

high standard. Findings reported good level of relational trust among coordinators, teachers and senior

management as trust is a base or binding force in cohesive and productive relationships (Arrow, 1974, Baier,

1986, Bottery, 2003 and Hosmer, 1995). Relational trust between middle leaders and teachers created positive,

healthy, supportive and productive work environment (Bryk and Schneider, 2002, Smith, Hoy and Sweetland,

2001) based on mutual respect, integrity, benevolence, competence, effective communication reliability. This

proves the theory of five facets or constructs of trust by Hoy & Tschannen-Moran (2007). Due to strong relational

trust, both teachers and coordinators perform extra responsibilities and extra time for the sake of school

efficiency. This indicates strong sense of ownership, duty and commitment as Singh and Srivastava (2009)

suggested that trust in management influences job satisfaction, communication and knowledge. Participation in

decision making also kept employees’ trust high and gave them a sense of security as mentioned by Driscoll

(1978), Greer, Melvin and Short (1994). They do not have autonomy to take decisions independently or delegate

tasks on their own (Javaid, 2004). Due to their middle position, the role of middle leaders is highly challenging

due to never ending responsibilities and expectations (Benette, 2007, Bush, 2002, Woods, Wise and Newton,

2007) with imbalance of power (Focault, 1990 and Siskin, 1994). From top and bottom, middle leaders take

pressures (Fullan 2010). Difference in mindset, perception and opinion with school principal is problematic as

found in school A. It is equally challenging to get quality work done by teachers as indicated by Wenger (1998).

CONCLUSION

This study investigated the leadership roles of middle managers, measured level of organizational trust among

principal, teachers and students from teachers’ perspective and also explored relational trust between middle

managers and teachers in their school settings. This study is generally qualitative in design although some

quantitative data was used to formulate lines of enquiry and less quantitative. Research instruments used

Omnibus-T scale questionnaire (Hoy & Tschannen- Moran, 2003) and semi- structured interviews with

coordinators and teachers working in two schools.

The research proved that coordinators as middle leaders practiced transformational leadership by playing

multiple roles and responsibilities in schools. They were involved in teaching, curriculum development,

mentoring, monitoring, empowerment of teachers, relationship building at different levels, event organization.

They created positive, comfortable and friendly work environment for teachers and students and promoted

collaborative learning through workshops. Coordinators conducted teachers’ class observation sessions with an

objective to improve teachers’ performance, students’ behavior and class management to give better teaching

and learning outcomes. At the same time, it was observed that a modified model of traditional leadership was

followed which is autocratic. Middle managers confessed to have democratic work environment where teachers

were involved in planning, implementation and decision making. Results confirm that teachers work in a positive

and friendly environment in schools but democracy was not completely practiced. Infect autocratic leadership

was not found in its severe or purely traditional form and the schools have adopted elements of Transformational

leadership. It was practiced in a diplomatic way in which teachers had the right to express their opinion in the

planning phase of

curriculum development or event organization. But the authority exerted its decision at the final step. Infect

Page 6067

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

“might is right” leadership could be observed under the surface of it as coordinators were completely dependent

on the principal’s decision. Their actions are determined after getting approval from the senior management in

spite of having knowledge of subject area and years of experience. Coordinators followed their senior managers

in a friendly kind of relationship and then they accomplished tasks according to the policy and rules made by

senior managers. Therefore, lack of autonomy and authority were experienced as well as challenges from top to

bottom even though coordinators made sincere and dedicated efforts to ensure quality. This position in the middle

is very fragile and challenging. Middle management in private schools evolved the traditional leadership style

in schools in Pakistan. Although Coordinators were not given a separate identity of “middle leaders” but their

efforts, commitment and loyalty highly contributed to the whole school development. Any improvement or

change is brought through middle management (Busher and Harris, 2010). They are the agents of change in the

social phenomenon of education and leadership. Hence to upgrade a school, it is important to focus and

strengthen middle leadership. A new and hybrid culture of leadership has developed, a blend of traditional and

western leadership styles. There is an obvious conflict of interest in terms of balancing the quality of education

and business objectives.

The statistics from the questionnaire prove that there is a high level of organizational trust among principal and

teachers and clients (students and parents). The level of trust is higher in School B as compared to School A.

The highest level of trust in principal is 99% in School B. The reasons are good communication, open and

friendly relationship, few layers of hierarchy, good and accommodating senior managers who are conscious of

quality education rather than commercialism, positive work environment, teachers’ involvement in planning and

execution of

the activities, helpful, caring and trustworthy colleagues which gained 95% of faculty’s trust. 97% of teachers

trust in clients: students and parents due to their healthy relations and cooperation.

The School A accounts for 97% of faculty trust in principal. It is lower than School B. The reasons are

multilayered the hierarchal structure, bureaucratic, old and traditional autocratic style leadership of senior

management with profit-based approach to attract more students for high profits. Coordinators’

recommendations regarding educational philosophy and teaching methodologies are not much valued. The

relationship between coordinator and teachers is healthy, friendly and productive. Coordinators involve teachers,

value their suggestions and promote team work, colleagues are also helpful with each other and make 95% of

faculty trust in colleagues. As this school follows commercial approach so client satisfaction is one of the top

priorities. Therefore teachers enjoy healthy relations with students and parents which account for 97% of the

teachers’ trust in their clients. Thus the five facets competence, reliability, honesty, open communication and

benevolence (Hoy and Tschannen-Moran, 2003) are stronger in School B than school A.

This investigation discovered a high level of trust between coordinators and teachers in both schools A and B.

Coordinators encourage open communication with their teachers. Coordinators created favorable, encouraging,

positive and fear free work climate for their subordinates. They encourage collaborative culture of learning.

Teachers are also comfortable to share their mistakes with coordinators and fully cooperated in every academic

or non- academic activity. Teachers had high sense of dutifulness which indicated high sense of integrity to set

an example for students. Teachers do not mind spending extra time for work specially during events or doing

extra tasks in teams. This was due to their good relationship based on trust and high sense of ownership with the

school. Coordinators promote the concept of collaborative team work which inculcated the concept

of “one family” and the elements of open communication, competence, reliance, integrity and benevolence were

prominent. The theory of five facets by Hoy & Tschannen-Moran (2007) was proved.

Future Implications

For future implications, researches related to the separate identity of subject leaders as middle managers in

schools in Pakistan may be conducted. The interesting findings may fill the gaps in research and contribute to

the literature of educational leadership and management in Pakistan.

The middle managers in school may be offered professional leadership trainings to strengthen leadership

component for the whole school development.

Page 6068

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.

Ainley, P.& Bailey, B. (1997) The business of learning: staff and student experiences of further

education in the 1990s. London: cassel.

2.

3.

4.

Alam, S. (2012). Crafting Leaders for Educational Change: Head Teacher’s Perspectives.

International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 2(1), 193.

Anderson, G.L., Herr, K. & Nihlen, A.S. (2007) Studying Your Own School: An Educator’s Guide

to Practitioner Action Research. California: Corwin Press.

5.

6.

Arrow, K.J. (1974). The limits of organization. New York: Norton.

Baier, A.C.(1986). Trust and antitrust, Ethics, 96, 231-260. Chicago: The University of Chicago

press

7.

Baig, S., & Shafa, M. D. (2011). The influence of a whole school improvement program on the

value orientation of a headteacher in the mountainous region of Gilgit Baltistan, Pakistan.

Journal of Authentic Leadership in Education, 2(1), 1.

Bassett, M. (2016). The Role of Middle Leaders in New Zealand Secondary Schools: Expectations

and Challenges. Waikato Journal of Education, 21(1), 97-108.

8.

9.

10. Bassey, M. (2002). Education: towards a sustainable society. Management in Education, 16(4), 12-

15.

11. Bennette, N. (1995) Managing Professional teachers: middle management in primary and

secondary schools. London: Paul Chapman.

12. Bennett, N., Woods, P., Wise, C., & Newton, W. (2007). Understandings of middle leadership in

secondary schools: A review of empirical research. School Leadership and Management, 27(5),

453–470.

13. Bhatti, W. A., Hussain, N., & Iqbal, J. (2013). Leadership role in integrating knowledge

management enablers. World Applied Sciences Journal, 26(1), 55-60.

14. Blase, J., & Anderson, G. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From control to

empowerment. Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1234 Amsterdam Ave., New York,

NY 10027.

15. Blase, J. (1995) The Micropolitical Orientation of Facilitative School Principals and its effects on

Teachers’ sense of empowerment paper presented at the American educational Research

Association Conference, San Francisco, April.

16. Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. & Tight, M. (2001) How to Research. Buckingham: Open University Press.

17. Bottery, M. (2003). The management and mismanagement of trust. Hull, UK: University of Hull.

18. Briggs, A. R. (2001). Academic middle managers in further education: Reflections on leadership.

Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 6(2), 223-236.

19. Brown, M., Rutherford, D. and Boyle, B. (2000a), leadership for school improvement: the role of

the head of department in UK secondary schools', School Effectiveness and School Improvement,

11 (2), 237-258.

20. Bryk, A. S. & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools : A core resource for improvement.

21. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

22. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010).

23. Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press.

24. Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

25. Bush, T., & Bell, L. (Eds.). (2002). The principles and practice of educational management. Sage.

26. Bush, T. (2012). International perspectives on leadership development: making a difference.

Professional development in education, 38(4), 663-678.

27. Bush, T., & Jackson, D. (2002). A preparation for school leadership: International perspectives.

Educational Management & Administration, 30(4), 417-429.

28. Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2003). School leadership: Concepts and evidence.

29. Bush, T., & Haiyan, Q. (2000). Leadership and culture in Chinese education. Asia Pacific Journal

of Education, 20(2), 58-67.

30. Bush, T., & Jackson, D. (2002). A preparation for school leadership: International perspectives.

Educational Management & Administration, 30(4), 417-429.

31. Busher, H., Hammersley-Fletcher, L., & Turner, C. (2007). Making sense of middle leadership:

Page 6069

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Community, power and practice. School Leadership and Management, 27(5), 405–422.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701606061

32. Busher, H. (2005). Being a middle leader: exploring professional identities. School leadership &

management, 25(2), 137-153.

33. Busher, H. & Harris, A. (1999) Leadership of School Subject Areas: tensions and dimensions of

‘managing in the middle’, School Leadership and Management, 19, pp, 305-317.

34. Butler, J.K., & Cantrell, R.S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic

trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55, 81-105

35. Callaway, P. L. (2006). Relationship between organizational trust and job satisfaction: An analysis

in the United States federal work force (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University).

36. Chaplain, R. (2003). Teaching without disruption in the secondary school. London: Rouledge.

Clark, S., & Clark, S. (2007). Vanities of the eye: Vision in early modern European culture.

37. Oxford University Press.

38. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard

University Press.

39. Cotter, M. (2011), “Examination of the leadership expectations of curriculum coordinators in the

archdiocese of Melbourne – a case study approach”, doctoral thesis, University of

40. Melbourne, Melbourne.

41. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark,V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into

practice 39, 124-130.

43. Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. (2000). Trust and the design of work: Complementary

constructs in satisfaction and performance. Human Relations, 53(12), 1575–1591.

44. Davies, B., & Brundrett, M. (Eds.). (2010). Developing successful leadership (Vol. 11). Springer

Science & Business Media.

45. Day, C. (1998). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning?. London: Falmer Press.

46. DeConinck, J.B. (2010). The effect of organizational justice, perceived organizational support, and

perceived supervisor support on marketing employees’ level of trust. Journal of Business Research,

63, 1349-1355.

47. Denscombe, M. (2010) The Good Research Guide: for Small-scale Social Research Projects.

Maidenhead: Open University Press.

48. Dimmock, C. (2000) Designing the Learning-centered School: A Cross-cultural perspective

49. (London: Falmer Press)

50. Dirks, K.T., Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for

research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611-628.

51. Dixon, P. & Woolner, P. (2012) “Quantitative data analysis: using SPSS”, In A.R.J. Briggs, M.

Coleman & M. Morrison (eds.), Research Methods in Educational Leadership & Management.

London: Sage.

52. Driscoll, J. W. (1978). Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors of

satisfaction. Academy of management journal, 21(1), 44-56.

53. Earley, P., & Fletcher‐Campbell, F. (1989). Managing school departments and faculties: Towards

better practice. Educational Research, 31(2), 98-112.

54. Elliott, J. (1991) A practical guide to action research, Action Research for Educational Change, 69–

89. Buckingham: Open University Press.

55. Elias, M. J., Patrikakou, E. N., & Weissberg, R. P. (2007). A competence-based framework for

parent—school—community partnerships in secondary schools. School Psychology International,

28(5), 540-554.

56. Evans, T. (1996). Encouragement: The Key to Reforming Classrooms. Educational Leadership,

54(1), 81-85.

57. Flemming, P. L. (2009). A study of the relationship between transformational leadership traits and

organizational culture types in improving performance in public sector organizations: A Caribbean

perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University, USA. Hartog, D. N., Muijen, J.

J., & Flick, U. (2009) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

58. Forsyth, P. B., Adams, C. M., & Hoy, W. K. (2011). Collective trust. Why schools can’t improve,

Page 6070

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

101-171.

59. Friedman, I. (1991). High and low-burnout schools: School culture aspects of teacher burnout.

Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 325–333.

60. Fulk, J., Brief, A. P., & Barr, S. H, (1985). Trust in the supervisor and perceived fairness and

accuracy of performance evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 13, 301-313.

61. Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole system reform. London:

Corwin Press.

62. Glover, D., Gleeson, D., Gough, G & Johnson, M. (1998) The meaning of management: the

development needs of middle managers in secondary schools, Educational Management and

Administration, 26(3), 279/292.

63. Gorman, K., & Pauken, P. (2003). The ethics of zero tolerance. Journal of Educational

Administration, 41(1), 24-36.

64. Grey, C., & Garsten, C. (2001). Trust, control and post-bureaucracy. Organization Studies, 22(2),

229–250.

65. Gurr, D., & Drysdale, L. (2012). Tensions and dilemmas in leading Australia's schools. School

Leadership & Management, 32(5), 403-420.

66. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement:

Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and

Management, 30(2), 95-110.

67. Hammersley-Fletcher, L., & Kirkham, G. (2007). Middle leadership in primary school

communities of practice: distribution or deception. School Leadership and Management, 27(5),

423-435.

68. Harris, A., Busher, H., & Wise, C. (2001). Effective training for subject leaders. Journal of In-

Service Education, 27(1), 83-94.

69. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system improvement.

Improving schools, 13(2), 172-181.

70. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2017). Leading in context: Putting international comparisons into

perspective. School Leadership & Management, 37(5), 431-433.

71. Hesse-Biber, S.N. & Leavy, P. (2011) The Practice of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

72. Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership: The moral art. New York: Suny Press.

73. Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical

ethics. The Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379–403.

74. Hoy, W., Tartar, J. C., & Witkoskie, L. (1992). Faculty trust in colleagues: Linking the principal

with school effectiveness. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26(1), 38–45.

75. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004, November). Whatʼs trust got to do with it? The role of faculty and

principal trust in fostering student achievement. In UCEA Conference Proceedings for Convention.

76. Uline, C., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Perez, L. (2003). Constructive conflict: How controversy can

contribute to school improvement. Teachers College Record, 105(5), 782-816.

77. Hoy, W., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1997). Trust in schools: A conceptual and empirical analysis.

Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4).

78. Tschannen‐Moran, M., & Hoy, W. (1998). Trust in schools: A conceptual and empirical analysis.

Journal of Educational administration..

79. Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical confirmation in

urban elementary schools. Journal of School leadership, 9(3), 184-208.

80. Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). The conceptualization and measurement of faculty

trust in schools. Essential ideas for the reform of American schools, 87-114.

81. Jameson, S. (1999). Beyond Action Research, Conducting Teacher-based Research. NSW Child

ESL and Literacy Research Centre, Australia.

82. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams.

83. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815.

84. Javedi, V. (2004). Role of middle managers lessons from an international secondary school.

85. Research gate, 1-69.

86. Johnson, H. (2003). Using a Catholic model: The consequences of the changing strategic purpose

of Anglican faith schools and the contrasting interpretation within

87. liberalism. School Leadership and Management, 23(4), 469-480.

Page 6071

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

88. Katzenmeyer, Marilyn, and Gayle Moller. Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop

as leaders. London: Corwin Press, 2009.

89. Keane, W. (2010). Case studies in learning area leadership in catholic secondary schools in

Melbourne, Australia. Unpublished doctor of education thesis, The University of Melbourne,

Parkville.

90. Khaki, J. E. A., & Safdar, Q. (2010). Educational leadership in Pakistan: Ideals and realities.

91. Khaki, J. (2005). Exploring beliefs and behaviors of effective head teachers in government schools

in Pakistan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada

92. Khan, A. (2013). A qualitative study of foreign funded capacity development program of head

teachers—Lessons from Pakistan. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 1(12), 107-

123.

93. Khan, S. H., Saeed, M., & Fatima, K. (2009). Assessing the Performance of Secondary School

Headteachers A survey study based on Teachers’ Views in Punjab. Educational Management

Administration & Leadership,37(6), 766-783.

94. King, N. (2004) “Using interviews in qualitative research”, In C. Cassell & G. Symon (eds.),

Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research.

95. London: Sage.

96. Kosnik, C., Cleovoulou, Y. & Fletcher, T. (2009) “ The use of interviews in self-study Research”,

In C.A. Lassonde, S. Galman, & C. Kosnik, (eds.), Self-Study Research Methodologies for Teacher

Educators. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers

97. Kinsler, J. (2013). School discipline: A source or salve for the racial achievement gap?

98. International Economic Review, 54(1), 355-383.

99. Kursunoglu, A. (2009). An investigation of organizational trust level of teachers according to some

variables. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 915-920.

100. Leask, M., & Terrell, I. (2014). Development planning and school improvement for middle

managers. New York: Routledge

101. Leis, M., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Paxton, C. L., & Sandilos, L. E. (2017). Leading Together:

Strengthening Relational Trust in the Adult School Community. Journal of School Leadership,

27(6), 831-859.

102. Lizotte, J. O. C. (2013). A qualitative analysis of distributed leadership and teacher perspective of

principal leadership effectiveness (Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University).

103. Louis, K. S. (2007). Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of educational change, 8(1), 1- 24.

104. Memon, M., Ali, R. N., Simkins, T., & Garret, V. (2000). Understanding the headteachers’ role in

Pakistan: Emerging role demands, constraints and choices. International Studies in Educational

Administration Journal, 28(2), 48.

105. Mishra, A.K. (1996).Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. Kramer. In,

M.Roderick & T. Tyler, (Eds.), Trust in organizations (p.261-287). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

106. Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2007). Leadership for learning: A research-

based model and taxonomy of behaviors 1. School Leadership and Management, 27(2), 179-201.

107. Nawab, A. (2011). Exploring leadership practices in rural context of a developing country.

108. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 1(3), 181.

109. Niazi, S. (2012). School leadership and educational practices in pakistan. Dimensions, 1, 5.

Peterson, K. D. (1987). Administrative control and instructional leadership. Instructional

leadership: Concepts, issues, and controversies, 139-152. Rizvi, S. (2010). A Transnational

Approach

110. Norris, C., & Norris. (1997). Against relativism: Philosophy of science, deconstruction, and critical

theory (p. 330). Oxford: Blackwell.

111. Nooruddin, S., & Baig, S. (2014). Student behavior management: School leader’s role in the eyes

of the teachers and students. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 10(2), 1.

112. Pastor, P. (2002). School discipline and the character of our schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(9), 658–

661.

113. Punch, K.F. (2009) Introduction to Research Methods in Education. London: Sage.

114. Qutoshi, S. B., & Khaki, J. A. (2014). The Role of a principal/headteacher in school improvement:

A case study of a community-based school in Karachi, Pakistan. Journal of Research and

Reflections in Education, 8(2), 86-96. Retrieved from http://www.ue.edu.pk/jrre

Page 6072

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

115. Randle, K. & Brady, N. (1997) Managerialism and Professionalism in the Cinderella Service,

Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 49, pp. 121–139.

116. Ridings, C. M., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2002). Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual

communities. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3–4), 271–295.

117. Robinson, V. (2007). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: Making sense of the evidence.

118. Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trust worthiness and gullibility. American Psychologist,

119. 35, 1-7

120. Sammons, P., Thomas, S., Mortimore, P. (1997) Forging links: effective schools and effective

departments, London: Paul Chapman.

121. Sammons, P., Thomas, S., Mortimore, P. (1996) Promoting school and departmental effectiveness,

Management in Education, 10, 22-24

122. Sapienza, H. J., ve Korsgaard, M. A. (1996). Managing investor relations: The impact of procedural

justice in establishing and sustaining investor support. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 544-

574.

123. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000). The life world of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

124. Shafa, M. D. (2004). Understanding how a government secondary school head teacher addresses

school improvement challenges in the Northern Areas of Pakistan. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation,(University of Toronto, 2003).

125. Simkins, T., Sisum, C., & Memon, M. (2003). School leadership in Pakistan: Exploring the

headteacher’s role. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(3), 275-291.

126. Singh, U., Srivastava, K. B. L. (2009). Interpersonal Trust and Organizational Citizenship

Behavior. Psychological studies, 54, 65-76

127. Smith, P. A., Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Organizational health of high schools and

dimensions of faculty trust. Journal of School leadership, 11(2), 135-151.

128. Srivastava, A., & Thomson, S. B. (2009). Framework analysis: a qualitative methodology for

applied policy research.

129. Stake, R.E. (2000) Case studies, cited In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of

Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

130. Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools: Linking school effectiveness and school

improvement. London: Open University Press.

131. Tam, A.C.F. (2010). Understanding the leadership qualities of a head of department coping with

curriculum changes in a Hong Kong secondary school. School Leadership & Management, 30, 367-

386.

132. Tesch, R. (2013). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software. London, UK: Routledge.

133. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. John Wiley &

Sons.

134. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). Fostering organizational citizenship: Transformational leadership

and trust. In W. K. Hoy & C. G. Miskel (Eds.), Studies in Leading and Organizing Schools (Vol.

2, pp. pp. 157-179). Greenwich: CT: Information Age Publishing.

135. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The role of leadership

orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 217-247.

136. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems thinker, 9(5),

2-3.

137. White, P. (2000). The leadership role of curriculum area middle managers in selected victorian

government secondary schools. Unpublished doctor of philosophy thesis, The University of

Mebourne, Melbourne.

138. Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of

trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior.

Academy of Management review, 23, 513-530

139. Wragg, T. (2002). Interviewing’, In M. Coleman & A.R.J. Briggs (eds.), Research Methods in

Educational Leadership and Management. London: Sage.

140. Yin, R. K. (2012). Case study methods.

Page 6073

www.rsisinternational.org