1. 1
Innovation in Educational Management and Leadership:
High Impact Competency for Malaysian School Leaders
By
Rosnarizah Abdul Halim
Amin Senin, PhD
Abdul Razak Manaf
Institute Aminuddin Baki
Ministry of Education Malaysia
Abstract
This study was aimed to identify the High Impact Competencies for Malaysian School
Leaders. An instrument named Instrumen Kompetensi Pemimpin Sekolah (KOMPAS©
)
were developed for this study. KOMPAS consists of 26 competencies grouped into six
domain namely the ‘Policy and Direction’, ‘Instructional and Achievement’, ‘Change and
Innovation’, ‘People and Relationship’, ‘Resource and Operation‘ and ‘Personal and
Effectiveness’.Factor analysis was used to identify the structure of the instrument by using
the principal component extraction and varimax rotation. The α-Cronbach values for all the
items were above 0.95 thus shows that the instrument had a high reliability and validity. 596
head teachers and school principals throughout Malaysia had participated in this study in
order to identify their perception of their level of competency mastery and their level of
competency need. The respondents were selected through stratified systematic random
sampling. KOMPAS©
was also administered to 140 officers in the Ministry of Education
(MOE), State Education Department (SED) as well as the District Education Department
(DED) throughout Malaysia. This served as a form of triangulation to identify which
competency the officers perceived as having future and strategic needs. Descriptive
statistic was used to describe the school leaders’ mastery and need while minimum
composite score was used to identify the high impact competencies. The result of the study
showed the overall level of competency mastery of the head teacher and principal were
moderate, while the officers in the MOE, SED and DED gave a high value of future and
strategic need for each competency. This study also identified the following competencies
as high impact competencies for Malaysian School Leaders; 1)Managing Change, 2)
Quality Focus, 3) Managing of ICT 4) Decision Making 5) Problem Solving 6) Performance
Management 7) School Improvement and 8) Capacity Building.
Keywords: Educational Leadership, Competency

2. 2
1. Introduction
Training and development of school leaders and school effectiveness had always catches
the eyes of researchers and policy makers and had created a polemic in finding suitable
training program for educational leaders (Anderson, 1991; Hanapiah, 1980; Hussein, 2007;
Ibrahim, 2007; Leithwood, 1995; and Olson, 2007). Research showed that leadership
training has no direct relationship with school effectiveness since what was learned in
university or training institutes would not be able to cater the real need in school leadership
and management (Amin & Abdul Razak, 2008; Leithwood, Begley and Cousins, 1994;
Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 1993). However, there were researches that support the ideas
that leadership training able to enhance and develop the knowledge, skill and attitude of
school leaders as well as future leaders (Bush, 1998; Nur Anuar & Faridah, 2006; Ruhaya,
Rosnarizah & Shariffah, 2006).
As the National Institute for Educational Leadership and Management, Institut Aminuddin
Baki (IAB) was commissioned to create and develop remarkable school leaders through
training and development. In line with this mandate, IAB was in constant effort to enhance
and improve its training program. Focus was given toward continuous professional
development for school leaders. In year 2008 IAB had introduces the Managing Educational
Leadership Talent (MELT) which focuses on the elements of continuous training and
development. MELT consists of five important elements that interconnected and related to
one another: Growth Oriented Training and Development (Khair, 2007), High Impact
Training and Development Initiatives (HITI), Leadership Competency Assessment (LCA),
School Leadership Competency (SLC) and its output which is the High Impact School
Leadership. The relationship of the five elements in MELT is shown in Figure 1.

3. 3
Figure 1: Managing Educational Leadership Talent Framework
GOTD is the core of MELT and serve as input for HITI as well as LCA. HITI and LCA are two
approaches employed by IAB to carry out GOTD hence translate the output of MELT into
High Impact School Leaders (HISL). However, the hub of every processes involve in MELT
is the School Leadership Competency (SLC). It is therefore, imperative for IAB to develop
the SLC in order to materialize this framework.
The School Leadership Competency was derived from an elaborate study on the trend of
educational leaderships’ traits. MacBeath (2004) had identified 25 leadership traits relevant
to the management and leadership practices in schools. A thorough review of literature
showed that the leadership traits were known by its adjective expressions such as
instructional, participative, democratic, strategic and transformational. These labels
compliment the differences in leadership traits and methodology in achieving two main
objectives in effective organization which is organization goal setting and influencing

4. 4
members towards the achieving the organizational goal (Leithwood et al, 2004). This
extensive review of literature produced the High Impact School Leadership Model which
encompasses six leadership traits: personal leadership, managerial leadership, instructional
leadership, transformational leadership, distributed leadership and value-based leadership
as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: High Impact School Leadership Model
The competencies of each leadership traits were scrutinize and analyze into a generic
competency suitable to the educational leadership and management in Malaysia. The
analysis yield 26 competencies and were grouped into six domains which is Policy and
Direction, Instructional and Achievement, Managing Change and Innovation, People and
Relationship, Resources and Operation and Personal Effectiveness (Figure 3).

5. 5
Figure 3: The Competencies of Malaysian School Leaders
2. Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to identify the High Impact Competencies for Malaysian
School Leaders.
3. Objective of the Study
3.1. To identify the current proficiency level of competency perceived by the school
leaders,
3.2. To identify the current need of competency perceived by the school leaders,
3.3. To identify which competency has future growth as perceived by the Ministry, State
and District Educational Leaders,
3.4. To identify which competency is strategically important as perceived by the Ministry,
State and District Educational Leaders,
3.5. To identify the high impact competencies needed by school leaders.

6. 6
4. Operational Definition
4.1. Competency refers to the combining element of knowledge, skills and personal
attributes needed to perform certain task and responsibility.
4.2. School leader refers to the principal of secondary school and head teacher for
primary school.
4.3. Ministry, State and District Educational Leaders refer to educational leaders
currently serving in the Ministry of Education Malaysia, State and District
Educational Offices.
4.4. High Impact Competency refers to the composite analysis based on the responds by
the school leader, the Ministry, State and District Educational Leaders. The
composite score is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Composite Score of High Impact Competency
5. Methodology
This research employs descriptive quantitative methodology. The data collection was
conducted through a survey method and was administered to the respondent without any
manipulation on the subject. A cross sectional approaches were used to get the data.
6. Population and Sampling
The population of school leaders in Malaysia was 10,058 (Educational Planning and
Research Department, 2006). Proportionate systematic random sampling was used for
sampling selection in order to have representative in each state in Malaysia. Though the
x + 0.5 σ High Impact Competency
x ± 0.5 σ Medium Impact Competency
x - 0.5 σ Low Impact Competency

7. 7
minimum number of sample required is 370 (Krejcie and Morgan, 1970), we had selected
801 respondents to ensure that the data is adequate.
7. Data Collection Procedure
There were three phases involve which is the field test, pilot test and actual data collection.
The field test was conducted in order to get feedbacks on the instrument used in the survey.
Five school leaders were chosen and were asked to response on the appropriate wordings,
number of items and the overall instruction in the instrument. The instrument was then
reviewed based on their feedbacks. The pilot testing was conducted in the month of
February and Mac 2008. Fifty school leaders were involved in the test. They were mainly the
participant in Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB). To ensure high rate of return, the data collection
was made through a half day colloquium session in IAB Genting Highlands and IAB Northern
Branch in Jitra, Kedah as well as in Sabah and Sarawak. The instrument were collectedat
the end of the colloquium.
8. Instrument
Instrument Kompetensi Pemimpin Sekolah (KOMPAS©
) is a self assess instrument, whereby
the respondents have to give honest responds on their proficiency and needs for each item.
KOMPAS©
was developed through several stages, which is constructing the item, validating
the instrument and pilot testing and reliability of the instrument.
8.1. Items Construction
The development of KOMPAS©
was based upon 26 competencies in the Competencies
of the Malaysian School Leaders as shown in Figure 3. For each competency three to
five items were constructed. Altogether there were 110 items constructed. KOMPAS©
was distributed to five school leaders for field test. Based on their feedbacks one item
had been dropped and modifications were made to several items to make it clear and
more comprehensible.

8. 8
8.2. Validating the Instrument
The opinion of three distinguished expert in educational leadership and management
were seek for content validity of the instrument. The experts were two full professors
and a senior lecturer from two universities in Malaysia. The input from the experts were
used to improve the instrument.
8.3. Pilot testing and reliability of Instrument
The feedback received from fifty school leaders who had participated in the pilot testing
shows that KOMPAS©
was appropriate and easy to answer. Most of the participants
were able to complete the instrument within 30 minutes. The value of α-Cronbach for all
the items were above 0.96 thus shows that the instrument had a high reliability and
validity (Nunnally, 1978).
8.4. Data Collection
596 head teachers and school principals throughout Malaysia had participated in this
study in order to identify their perception of their level of competency proficiency and
their level of competency need. KOMPAS©
was also administered to 140 officers in the
Ministry of Education (MOE), State Education Department (SED) as well as the District
Education Department (DED) throughout Malaysia. This served as a form of triangulation
to identify which competency the officers perceived as having future and strategic needs.
Descriptive statistic was used to describe the school leaders’ proficiency and need while
minimum composite score was used to identify the high impact competencies.

9. 9
9. Findings
9.1. Objective 1: To identify the current proficiency level of competency perceived
by the school leaders
Figure 4: Mean of Competency Proficiency Level of School Leaders
9.2. Objective 2: To identify the current need of competency perceived by the
school leaders
Figure 5: Mean of Competency Need of School Leaders

10. 10
9.3. Objective 3: To identify which competency has future growth as perceived by
the Ministry, State and District Educational Leaders
Figure 6: Mean of Competency’s Future Growth Perceived by the Ministry, State and
District Educational Leaders
9.4. Objective 4: To identify which competency is strategically important as
perceived by the Ministry, State and District Educational Leaders
Figure 7: Mean of Competency’s Strategic Needs Perceived by the Ministry, State and
District Educational Leaders

11. 11
9.5. Objective 5: To identify the high impact competencies needed by school
leaders.
9.5.1. Composite Score of High Impact Competency for Head Teacher
Figure 8: Mean of Composite High Impact Competency for Head Teacher
(Mean: 62.5)
Mean= 62.5
H
M
L

12. 12
9.5.2. Composite Score of High Impact Competency for Principal
Figure 9: Mean of Composite High Impact Competency for Principal
(Mean: 62.7)
10. Discussion
The result of the study showed the overall level of competency proficiency of the
school leaders were moderate (Figure 4) with total mean of 3.74 (Appendix 1). The
overall competency needs of the school leaders were moderate with total mean of
3.60 (Appendix 2). Analysis on the responses by the Ministry, State and District
educational officers showed a high value of future and strategic need for each
competency (Figure 6 & 7). Figure 10 shows the composite analysis of proficiency,
need, strategic need and future growth based on the domain of competencies. The
analysis showed that there is a gap of what expected by the stakeholder as
compared to the need of the school leaders. The gap could only be narrowed by
continuous professional development either by IAB or other training provider.
Mean= 62.7
H
M
L

13. 13
Change Management
Quality Focus
Managing ICT
Decision Making
Problem solving
Implementing School
Improvement
Capacity
Development
Performance
Management
Principal Head Teacher
Figure 10: Mean of Domain of Competency
Based on Competency Proficiency, Need, Strategic and Future Growth
Figure 8 shows the composite score of high impact competency for head teachers.
The high impact competencies for head teachers were Managing Change, Managing
ICT, Quality Focus, Decision Making, Problem Solving, Implementing School
Improvement and Capacity Development. The high impact competencies for school
principasl were Managing Change, Managing ICT, Quality Focus, Decision Making,
Problem Solving and Performance Management (Figure 9). Figure 11 shows a Venn
diagram of the high impact competencies for Malaysian School Leaders.
Figure 10: High Impact Competency for Principal and Head Teacher

14. 14
11. Implication
Reaserch and development (R&D) is a valued approach in field outside of education
(Hallinger, 2009), Among the steps used in most R&D’s are 1) identified a problem, 2)
sought information through synthesis and new research, 3) developed tools that applied
knowledge, 4) use in practice, 5) evaluate result 6) improve tools and contribute back to
knowledge. The study had indeed completed two cycles of R&D and able to provide
important data for stakeholder in planning an accurate training and development program
for school leaders.
IAB had taken a step further in intensifying the uses of KOMPAS©
among the school
leaders by developing the application online. With the help of IAB’s own system
programmer KOMPAS©
is now accessible through www.iab.edu.my/kompas. School
leaders are able to assess their competency proficiency and need based on the result
obtain immediately after administering the instrument. They are also able to plan for their
own professional development either by attending courses in IAB or by other training
institutes. Beginning 2009, IAB had launch 53 high impact courses based on the eight high
impact competencies shown in Figure 10. A continuous review will be made towards
updating KOMPAS©
as the competency of the school leaders is generic in nature and
might vary in time.

15. 15
Appendix 1
Mean of the Malaysian School Leaders Competency Proficiency
Competencies Mean
Vision Building 3.88
Quality Focus 3.50
Strategic Thinking 3.71
Proactive 3.88
Achievement Performance Orientation 3.98
Instructional Development 3.83
Knowledge Sharing 3.74
Curriculum Focus 3.84
Supervision 3.71
Problem-Solving 3.60
Decision Making 3.51
Managing Change 3.30
Implementing School Improvement 3.59
Creativity and Innovation 3.71
Financial Management 3.78
Physical and Asset Management 3.76
ICT Management 3.51
Performance Management 3.63
Capacity Development 3.64
Communication 3.88
Relationship Building 3.70
Teamwork 3.92
Self Awareness 3.98
Social Awareness 3.92
Self Management 3.84
Social Management 3.81
Total Mean 3.74

16. 16
Appendix 2
Mean of the Malaysian School Leaders Competency Need
Competencies Mean
Vision Building 3.35
Quality Focus 3.74
Strategic Thinking 3.60
Proactive 3.43
Achievement Performance Orientation 3.51
Instructional Development 3.62
Knowledge Sharing 3.66
Curriculum Focus 3.63
Supervision 3.61
Problem-Solving 3.71
Decision Making 3.71
Managing Change 3.85
Implementing School Improvement 3.73
Creativity and Innovation 3.64
Financial Management 3.72
Physical and Asset Management 3.52
ICT Management 3.83
Performance Management 3.64
Capacity Development 3.65
Communication 3.51
Relationship Building 3.46
Teamwork 3.53
Self Awareness 3.50
Social Awareness 3.44
Self Management 3.43
Social Management 3.57
Total Mean 3.60

17. 17
Appendix 3
Mean of the School Leaders’ Competency baded on Strategic and Future Need
Perceived by the Ministerial, State, District Educational Officers
Competencies
Mean
Strategic
Need
Future Need
Vision Building 4.73 4.53
Quality Focus 4.73 4.49
Strategic Thinking 4.67 4.47
Proactive 4.74 4.57
Achievement Performance Orientation 4.77 4.57
Instructional Development 4.77 4.58
Knowledge Sharing 4.73 4.54
Curriculum Focus 4.81 4.62
Supervision 4.72 4.53
Problem-Solving 4.69 4.46
Decision Making 4.71 4.44
Managing Change 4.66 4.38
Implementing School Improvement 4.69 4.38
Creativity and Innovation 4.74 4.48
Financial Management 4.77 4.56
Physical and Asset Management 4.67 4.44
ICT Management 4.65 4.52
Performance Management 4.64 4.47
Capacity Development 4.66 4.51
Communication 4.70 4.53
Relationship Building 4.67 4.47
Teamwork 4.74 4.55
Self Awareness 4.70 4.58
Social Awareness 4.66 4.53
Self Management 4.65 4.50
Social Management 4.67 4.57
Total Mean 4.70 4.51

18. 18
Appendix 4
Mean of Domain of Competency
Based on Competency Proficiency, Need, Strategic and Future Growth
Domain of
Competencies
Mean
Competenc
y
Proficiency
Competen
cy Need
Stategic
Need
Future
Growth
Policy & Direction 3.54 3.75 4.72 4.51
Instructional &
Achievement
3.61 3.82 4.73 4.52
Change &
Innovation
3.73 3.55 4.74 4.55
Resource &
Operation
3.68 3.67 4.75 4.56
People &
Relationship
3.54 3.79 4.77 4.58
Personal
Effectiveness
3.49 4.05 4.75 4.57
Total Mean 3.60 3.74 4.74 4.55

19. 19
References
Amin, S. & Abdul Razak, M (2008). ‘Competency based training and development’, Paper
presented in Oman – Malaysia Educational Seminar, Muscat, Oman.
Anderson, M. E. (1991). How to train, recruit, select, induct, and evaluate leaders for
American Schools. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management College of
Education University of Oregon.
Educational Planning and Reasearch Department (2006). Risalah Maklumat Asas
Pendidikan 2006. Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. Putrajaya.
Boyatzis, R. (1982). The competent manager. New York :Wiley.
Bush, T. (1998). The national professional qualification for headship: the key to effective
school leadership. School Leadership & Management, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 321- 333.
Hallinger, P. (2009). Research and development that makes a difference: Opportunities and
challenges in educstion, Paper presented in Institut Aminuddin Baki on 14 January 2009.
Hanapiah. ( 1980). Developing a strategy for training programmes of school principals in
Malaysia: What can be learned from American experience. Unpublished Dissertation
(Ph.D.), University of California, Santa Barbara.
Hughes, Richard L; Ginnett, Robert C.; and Curphy, Gordon J. (1993). Assessing leadership
and measuring its effects. In Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience.
Homewood, Ill.: Irwin.
Hussein Ahmad. (2007). Towards world class leadership model of principals for schools in
the future. Kertas Kerja dibentangkan di Seminar Nasional Pengurusan dan Kepimpinan
Pendidikan Kali Ke-14. Institut Aminuddin Baki. Genting Highlands.
Ibrahim, A. B. (2007). Not Scions of Lesser Heritage and Ancestry: The reawakening of
educational leadership in the emerging world order and the reshaping of educational
landscapes. Kertas Ucap Utama The 5th Asean/Asian Symposium On Educational
Management And Leadership. Kuala Lumpur.

20. 20
Krejcie, R.V. & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational & Psychological Measurement, 30: 607-610.
Khair, M. Y. (2007). Latihan berorientasikan pertumbuhan untuk pemimpin pendidikan.
Pahang: Institut Aminuddin Baki.
Leithwood, K. (1995). Preparing school leaders: What works? Connections! 3, 3 (Spring
1995): 1-8.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson S. & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences
student learning. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied Research and Educational
Improvement.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED485932).
Leithwood, K., Begley, P. T. & Cousins, J. B. (1994). Performance appraisal and selection of
school leaders: Selection processes and measurement issues. In Developing Expert
Leadership for Future Schools. London: Falmer Press.
MacBeath, J. (2004). The leadership file. Glasgow: Learning Files Scotland.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory, 2nd
Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nur Anuar, A. M., Faridah, A. H., Rohana, Z., Monoto, M. K. & Nur Fakhriyyah, E. M. (2006).
Kajian penilaian graduan NPQH. Kertas kerja dibentangkan di Seminar Nasional
Pengurusan dan Kepimpinan Pendidikan Kali ke-13. Institut Aminuddin Baki. Genting
Highlands.
Olson, O. (2007). Getting serious about preparation. Education Week. V27 (3) [on-line]:
HUhttp://web.ebscohost.comUH, Retrieved on the 12th
June 2008.
Ruhaya, H., Rosnarizah, A. H. & Shariffah, S. J. (2006). Penilaian program latihan IAB: Satu
tinjauan terhadap program NPQH Kohort 9/2005. Kertas Kerja dibentangkan di Seminar
Nasional Pengurusan dan Kepimpinan Pendidikan Kali ke-13. Institut Aminuddin Baki.
Genting Highlands.
Sekaran, U. (2000). Research methods for business, 3rd
Ed. New York : John Wiley.