Discernment as predictor for transformational leadership: a study of school leaders in Catholic schools in India

ABSTRACT

Transformational leaders are leaders who ‘transform and inspire followers to perform beyond expectations while transcending self-interest for the good of the organisation’. ‘Discernment’ is defined as the individual and communal practice of decision-making that is oriented on the future (educational aims), conditioned by the personal qualities of leaders (purity of heart), and which emphasises teleological ethics as source of reliance. In line with this concept, a scale of discernment was constructed and tested in a research study on 198 leaders of the Catholic schools of Don Bosco in India. Transformational leadership was measured with an existing scale which is part of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The results show that discernment (as measured) is the strongest predictor of transformational leadership, while controlling for background variables (such as age, gender, religious background, leadership position, type of school, and private or government-aided schools).

KEYWORDS:

• Discernment
• transformational leadership
• Catholic schools
• India

Introduction

Transformational leadership is a highly effective and valued type of leadership. It positively influences job satisfaction and motivation of employees, builds collaboration and a culture of innovation in organisations, provides a sense of purpose and mission, reduces feelings of stress, and stimulates commitment and engagement to the organisation (Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber 2009; Leithwood and Sun 2012; Boberg and Bourgeois 2016). What is unknown is how one becomes a transformational leader. What are the determinants and antecedents of transformational leadership?

In 2013, with Koerts, I published an article on spirituality and leadership in which we formulated the idea that (a) the acquisition of discernment is the (long-term) aim of spirituality; and (b) charismatic or transformational leadership is based on discernment (Hermans and Koerts 2013, 205). We stressed the importance of discernment, but had no instrument with which to test our theoretical claim. Since 2010 there have been some contributions on discernment and leadership that ground the concept of discernment on a combination of psychological theory and biblical literature (Bekker, Bocârnea, and Winston 2010; Hurlbut 2014; Joubert 2019). There are several problems with the concept and measurement of discernment in this line of research. First, what is the theoretical framework for this combination of psychology and biblical literature? Is it, in the end, psychological theory?¹ Is it the theology of leadership? Second, the authors claim to have constructed a concept for everyday organisational life and transformational leadership in general. But they end up with a Judeo-Christian construct of discernment, which includes a religious belief in God (Christ), praying, and the guidance of principles of faith (Bekker, Bocârnea, and Winston 2010). Third, there is no evidence that this construct and measurement of discernment can predict transformational leadership.

In this research, I take a different route. First, I ground the concept of discernment in the field of spirituality,² which I define in line with my Dutch colleague Kees Waaijman as a separate theological discipline within the encyclopaedia of theology (Waaijman 2010, 5), in which experience – in the sense of receptivity for what is considered to be ultimate – is a core concept (Waaijman 2010, 30). This discipline is increasingly interdisciplinary (Bible, ethics, practical theology, philosophy) and comparative (in the field of religion and non-religious experiences of the ultimate) (Waaijman 2010, 32–33). Second, I develop the concept of discernment from the early Christian tradition (‘context of discovery’), but propose it as a universal spiritual process of a community deciding for the common good (‘context of legitimation’) (see also Hermans and Koerts 2013, 205).

The outline of the article is as follows: I first describe the two main concepts of the theoretical frame of the research: discernment and transformational leadership, and the relation between them. Next, I show the research design and the results. Finally, I present a summary and discussion.

Theoretical frame

The core concepts of this research are discernment and transformational leadership. In this section, I first define spiritual discernment as a compass towards the good life with and for others. Next, I define the concept of transformational leadership. Finally, I argue that discernment is conditional for transformational leadership.

Discernment

First, a clarification: the concept of discernment in Christian spirituality is contextual, and open to renewal. Next, I focus on some dimensions in the theme of discernment that will help us to understand differences between contextual models of discernment in Christian spirituality. Finally, I present a four-stage model of discernment based on the work of Waaijman (2013b) and Nissen (2012).

Contextual and open to renewal

The theme of discernment in Christian spirituality is ambivalent, definitely plural, and perhaps more inconsistent than is sometimes acknowledged (Hense 2016, 10). Discernment has two different strands in the Christian tradition (Waaijman 2013a, 2–3). The first strand deals with the discernment of the spirits (discretio spirituum, in Latin), and the second with the virtue of discretion (known as discretio in Latin, and in Greek as diakrises). In history, the same authors sometimes take up both strands, connecting them in different ways; but there are also authors who stand for a specific line of thought. In the New Testament, Paul of Tarsus uses the term discernment of the spirits as one of the eight charismata or gifts to uplift the community (1 Cor 12: 8–10). But the term is vague, and open to many interpretations. According to Hense, there is no coherent theme regarding discernment until the writings of Origen (born AD 185/186) and Athanasius (born AD 295) (Hense 2016, 8). All models of discernment are contextual, serving the specific needs of persons or a community.

Dimensions

The differences between models of discernment can be mapped along five dimensions. I describe each dimension as a continuum of adjacent elements, the extremes of which are distinct but not completely disjunct. Specific concepts of discernment may be located somewhere in between the two extremes.

The first dimension is individual versus communal discernment. ‘There is, on the one hand, discernment for an individual by an individual, accompanied by an individual. There is, however, also a group discernment performed by the group for a person or for a group.’ (Waaijman 2013b, 5). The concept of discernment can be more individual, or more communal; but the two elements are not to be seen as disjunct, as if the becoming of a subject is outside the social realm.

The second dimension refers to the origin of the good (coming from God) versus the future of the coming of the good (the Kingdom come). According to Nissen (2012), in the strand of the ‘discernment of spirits’ the focus is on the origin of the spirits that inspire and orient the discernment of the good life with and for others. Christian spirituality in the Middle Ages developed a refined criteriology to decide whether the spirit comes from human beings (more specifically their fallen nature), from God or from the devil and its helpers (idem). On the other end of the continuum is an orientation focused on the opening of the future by the Holy Spirit (or the Kingdom come). It is not the origin but the destiny, as fullness of life, which emerges in the life of individuals or the community that defines the good life with and for others.

The third dimension is the focus of discernment on exceptional situations, versus decision making in general. According to Vecoli, discernment can be focused on an exceptional decision required in an exceptional situation using an exceptional authority (Vecoli 2014, 87). A situation is exceptional when the capacity of human beings to decide has disappeared, such that we need an extraordinary source for deciding the good.³ On the other end of the continuum is the idea that discernment is a general capacity and practice of deciding the good life with and for others. This idea is voiced by Waaijman when he refers to discernment as the compass used on the high sea of life (Waaijman 2013b). If we define these high seas as a life characterised by contingency, than we may consider this just part of becoming a subject, and not as exceptional.

The fourth dimension is the focus on the penultimate versus the ultimate goal(s) of discernment. According to Frederick Aquino, the penultimate goal of discernment is a purity of the heart, which implies the cultivation of a stable, tranquil, and properly disposed mind (Aquino 2017, 163). Purity of the heart has both a volitional and an epistemic dimension.

A volitional dimension insofar as it involves scrutinising and freeing one from improper desires and redirecting them towards ‘spiritual things’ (…). An epistemic dimension in that it plays a crucial role in developing a positive orientation towards cognitive states such as illumination, contemplation, and the vision of God, as well as fostering a steady pursuit of them. (Aquino 2017, 163)

The penultimate goal is the purity of the heart (volitional). The ultimate goal is the contemplative state of the beatific vision of God. This need not be just a place in the afterlife; but also, in moments, a ‘glimpse’ – however brief, limited, and tentative – of ‘heaven on earth’ (Aquino 2017, 158).

The fifth dimension in which concepts of discernment can differ concerns the source of reliance or authority for growing on the path of discernment, which may be ethics, dogma, or a spiritual director (Hense 2016, 190) – three sources from which authors select, and make different combinations. Dogma refers to the source of the teachings of the Church and the Bible, which offer a reliable foundation for truth in the process of discernment. Ethics refers to knowledge of the finality of human life (the good: telos) and developing virtues. In the spiritual tradition on discernment, Thomas Aquinas must be mentioned; he equates discernment with prudence (Kolski 1995; Sultana 2012):

Prudence is characterised on the one hand by the finality of all human life, which plays the role of universal principle, the starting point of reasoning; and on the other hand by the singular act of reasoning. It is therefore conceivable to see, with Thomas Aquinas, prudence as an application of the universal in the singular; or, going further, an implication of the universal in the singular. (Guery 2013, 12; our translation)

The third source is the spiritual director who has acquired experiential knowledge of the spiritual life and a spiritual perception of God (the good life) which emerges in life, and who can provide the appropriate direction to others (Aquino 2017, 7, 11).

Four-stage model

On the basis of Waaijman (2002, 483–514, 801–803, 2013b) and Nissen (2012), I constructed a model of discernment that may be characterised as individual and communal; future oriented, dealing with decision-making in general, focusing on purity of heart (the penultimate goal) and stressing teleological ethics as source of reliance (the good). This choice has to do with the fact that we are dealing with the discernment of school leaders who lead a school community of professionals and pupils, in light with their educational aims (future oriented), dealing with situations of ambiguity and uncertainty. We want the model of discernment to be universal, and to reflect a specific religious tradition. Therefore, I choose teleological ethics as an epistemic source of reliance on the truth for deciding what to do. We will describe the stage and the capacities that are included in each stage. There could be one or more capacities involved in each stage.

First stage: looking outwards

Discernment starts with seeing differences, which is a sign of the way God sees the world (Waaijman 2013b, 13). Seeing and hearing as ‘God sees the world’ requires two capacities. The first capacity refers to a kind of listening in which one becomes sensitive to different positions, experiences and perspectives (Waaijman 2013b, 20). The second capacity refers to the need to be open to hear the good that emerges in what others say. Listening to others must be generative, in the sense of being open to the new, the unexpected, the unpredicted; the unexpected possible. Therefore, we include the capacity to wonder referring to the event in which the good emerges.⁴

Second stage: looking inwards

This comprises the capacity of reflection and self-examination, both at individual and at community level. In order to discern the good, we need purity of heart. What motives drive our actions? Are they from the coming of the good, or the motives of ego? In order to be open to new possibilities, we need both peace of mind and the ability to change perspectives.

Third stage: discussion and evaluation

This stage is marked by the exchange of arguments in the process of deliberation, which implies that participants are sufficiently wise and willing to engage in critical deliberation. Discussion and evaluation (known as collatio) are indispensable to valid discernment. (Waaijman 2013b, 2). Every insight collected in the first two stages must be put into a so-called ’critical middle’ (Nissen 2012, 22–23). Leaders should create this ‘critical middle’, to come to a shared insight into what is good that needs to be done.

Fourth stage: decision and action

This final stage of discernment implies two capacities. First, the capacity to decide which action in a concrete situation could be viewed as wise, sensible and adequately representing the purpose of the good life with and for others. But the person who judges should also be virtuous in implementing this decision in an organisation. The second capacity involved in this stage is the capacity of virtuous action. Two cardinal virtues are important in this stage: the courage to face resistance, when implementing decisions in practice; and the test of justice and fairness, which any decision in a concrete situation should pass (Dupont 2010, 230–233).

Transformational leadership

Transformational leadership can be defined as ‘leader behaviours that transform and inspire followers to perform beyond expectations while transcending self-interest for the good of the organisation’ (Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber 2009, 423). Bernard Bass (1985) coined the term ‘transformational leadership’, in contrast to transactional leadership⁵ an passive avoidant leadership.⁶ Transformational leaders inspire associates to do more than they are inclined and motivated to do. Bass hypothesised that this transformation could be achieved in the following ways:

1. Raising our level of consciousness about the importance and value of designated outcomes and ways of reaching these outcomes.

2. Getting us to transcend our own self-interests for the sake of the team, organisation, or larger polity.

3. Raising our need level on Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy from, say, the need for security to the need for recognition, or expanding our portfolio of needs by, for example, adding the need for self-actualisation to the need for recognition.(Bass 1985, 31)

Transformational leadership is represented by four dimensions (see Bass and Avolio 1990, 1993; Avolio and Bass 2004, 26–28; Kwan 2019, 5)

First, idealised attributes and behaviour refer to the idea that leaders have ethical character qualities which instal respect and pride in their associates (i.e. idealised attributes), and are acting as role models to teachers in terms of highly ethical behaviour (i.e. show idealised behaviour). Leaders who have a clear vision and sense of purpose are less bureaucratic, and are willing to take risks. Their vision can be accomplished through extra personal effort. At the same time, they are role models, respected and admired by their followers. Followers identify with leaders, and want to imitate them.

The second dimension is inspirational motivation, which refers to the fact that transformational leaders behave in ways that motivate others, generate enthusiasm, and challenge people. These leaders communicate expectations clearly, and demonstrate a commitment to goals and a shared vision. They enhance meaning and promote positive expectations about what needs to be done (Bass and Avolio 1993).

Thirdly, intellectual stimulation refers to the fact that transformational leaders actively solicit new ideas and new ways of doing things. They stimulate others to be creative, and they never publicly correct or criticise others (Avolio and Bass 2004; Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber 2009, 428).

Fourthly, individualised consideration refers to the fact that transformational leaders pay attention to the needs of others and the potential for developing others. Individualised consideration means attending to followers’ individual needs and concerns. Such leaders establish a supportive climate, in which individual differences are respected. Interactions with followers are encouraged, and leaders are aware of individual concerns (Avolio and Bass 1995).

Discernment as determinant of transformational leadership

How does a person become a transformational leader? We presume that a person can grow in transformational leadership if that person grows in the process of discernment, as defined above (see 2.1.3). Our model is characterised as individual and communal; future oriented, dealing with decision-making in general, focusing on purity of heart in order to be open for the coming of the good (penultimate goal), and stressing ethics as source of reliance (see 2.1.2)

Transformational leadership encourages others to both develop and perform beyond standard expectations. Such leaders raise associates’ aspirations and ‘activate their higher-order values (e.g. altruism) such that followers identify with the leader and his or her mission/vision, feel better about their work, and then work to perform beyond simple transactions and base expectations.’ (Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber 2009, 428). Transformational leaders believe their employees inherently aspire to accomplish goals, stimulate employees to embrace organisational goals and vision, and motivate them to take on responsibilities (Kwan 2019, 2).

Transformational leadership must be able to engage in a specific kind of deliberation, in which reasons for arriving at choices for how to act are informed by an inspiring vision (see Hermans and Koerts 2013, 206–207). This is a defining characteristic of the process of discernment. Secondly, decisions by transformational leaders should involve the whole school community. There can be no discernment without confidence in others to reach good decisions based on a process of deliberation that is grounded in the community of values (idem).

A third characteristic that transformational leaders should have is self-knowledge, as well as willingness to sacrifice self-interest for the sake of the greater good and the good life with and for others (Shamir and Howell 1999, 237). Transformational leaders need not be motivated by motives of ego; but in order to formulate a vision, they must be open to the coming of the good. Which path or practice brings the organisation closer to their purpose of the good life with and for others?

Finally, in discernment, there is no distinction between the right decision and the will to act accordingly. The will is involved in the process of deliberation, so the motivation to act accordingly is already implied. I incorporated two cardinal virtues (courage and justice) to direct the will in the process of transformation.

Method

In this section, I first list my research questions (3.1), then describe sampling and data collection (3.2), and finally detail the measuring instrument (3.3).

Research questions

I formulated five research questions:

1. What do school leaders report as their idea of transformational leadership?

2. To what degree do school leaders engage in transformational leadership?

3. What do school leaders report as their idea of discernment?

4. To what extent do school leaders engage in discernment?

5. To what extent can engagement in transformational leadership be explained by discernment, while controlling for background variables?

Sampling and data collection

In 2017, the Salesians of Don Bosco in India⁷ had 108 high schools and 113 higher secondary schools in the country. To be able to pull an a-select of all schools, the schools were stratified according to the 11 Salesian administrative provinces, level of education (‘higher education’, or ‘higher secondary’) and location (urban, semi-urban or rural). Most schools are private schools where parents pay a school-fee (86%), some schools (14%) were government-aided which get funded by the government.⁸

From this list, every second school was selected. Three respondents from each selected school were included in the sample: principal or headmaster, vice principal or assistant headmaster, and a key coordinating teacher (chosen by the school head). The school leaders were a mix of Salesian fathers and priests, persons associated with the Salesian family, and lay people. The online questionnaire with link was made available to the 318 potential respondents who formed the sample for a period of three and a half months (from 17 October 2016 to 31 January 2017). Of the 207 responses received, nine were found to be incomplete. Thus, my final respondent sample numbered 198, bringing the response rate to 62%, which is quite high for an online survey.

Measuring instruments

As background variables, I included gender, age and religion (‘Catholic’ or ‘other Christian denomination’ = reference category). Most of the school leaders had a Salesian identity (a Salesian father, or a lay person belonging to the Salesian family), but there is a gradual transformation towards more lay people as school leaders (‘Lay person’ = reference category). I also included three organisational contingencies that could influence the degree to which leaders manifest transformational leadership. First, the type of school (higher education, or secondary education = reference category); the funding of the school (government-aided, or private = reference category); and finally, the size of the school (above 1000 pupils, or up to 1000 pupils = reference category).

Transformational leadership is measured using an existing instrument, namely the Multi Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Avolio and Bass 2004). The MLQ measures three leadership scales: transformational leadership, transactional leadership and passive/avoidant leadership. Transformational leadership (section 2.2) consists of five subscales: idealised attributes (IA), idealised behaviour (IB), inspirational motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation (IS) and individual consideration (IC). Next to transformational leadership, the MLQ measures transactional leadership and passive avoidant leadership. Transactional leadership (see footnote 6) is divided into two subscales: contingent reward (CR), and management by exception (active) (MBEA). Passive avoidant leadership (see footnote 7) is also divided into two subscales: management by exception (passive) (MBEP) and laissez faire (LF). I used the complete MLQ, questionnaire but in this article report only on the results regarding transformational leadership.⁹

I constructed a scale of discernment, based on the four-stage model described in section 2.1. The first and fourth stage include two capacities; the second and third stages. include one capacity (see section 2.1.3). Two items were formulated for each of capacity (see Figure 1). The psychometric quality of the scale are part of the result section (research question 3).

Figure 1. Stages and capacities of discernment

Results

Research question 1

What do school leaders report as their idea of transformational leadership? The result for the first factor in the factor analysis is reported in Table 1 above (see Appendix A for the complete factor analysis)¹⁰ All dimensions of transformational leadership. re represented in this factor: idealised attributes (IA; one item), idealised behaviour (IB: one item), inspirational motivation (IM; three items), intellectual stimulation (IS; two items), and individual consideration (IC; two items). We also see three items of Contingent Reward (CR) in this factor. Contingent reward is theoretically a dimension of transactional leadership. Contingent rewards aim to clarify the expectations of staff, and offer recognition when goals are achieved (Avolio and Bass 2004, 99). Avolio and Bass (2004, 69) report that some items in this scale which refer to recognition (CR4; higher beta weight; sixth position) tend to correlate strongly with transformational leadership, because they also express a kind of individual consideration of associates. Other items in the scale (CR1 and CR3) formulate an exchange perspective (quid pro quo) and conceptually do not belong in the scale of transformational leadership. They have low beta weights. With this consideration in mind, I conclude that the scale measures transformational leadership in line with the theory. Reliability is very high (alpha of .87).

Table 1. Factor analysis (Principal Axis factoring; Varimax rotation; mineigen >.1) for transformational leadership (n = 198)

Items	F1
IM4: Express confidence that goals will be achieved	.64
IA2: Go beyond self-interest for the good of the group	.62
IB2: Specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose	.60
IC4: Help others to develop their strengths	.60
IM1: Talk optimistically about the future	.59
CR4: Express satisfaction when others meet expectations	.58
IM2: Talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished	.58
IC2: Treat others as individuals rather than just as members of the group	.57
IS2: Seek differing perspectives when solving problems	.54
CR3: Make clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved	.53
IS4: Suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments	.51
CR1: Provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts	.45
Cronbach Alpha	.87
Explained variance	17.3%

Legend:

IA = idealised attributes; IB = idealised behaviour; IM = inspirational motivation; IS = intellectual stimulation;

IC = individualised consideration; CR = contingent reward.

The factor analysis of all scales in the MLQ questionnaire, see Table a1 [Appedendix]

Research question 2

To what degree do school leaders engage in transformational leadership? The overall tendency among the heads of schools in this study is to engage in transformational leadership (mean 4.19). This average is in the ‘fairly often’ range (3.41–4.20) but almost in the ‘frequently/always’ range (> 4.21). This is to be expected among school leaders with a predominantly religious background (Salesian fathers or Salesian family). Standard deviation is low.

Research question 3

What do school leaders report as their idea of discernment? Table 2 shows the result of the factor analysis, after removing items with a communality lower than .20. All capacities are present in the scale but one, namely wonder.¹¹ I will return to this in the discussion. The first stage of discernment is still present, with the capacity of listening. I conclude that the scale measures our concept of discernment quite well. The scale also has moderate but acceptable reliability (Alpha) of .71.

Table 2. Factor analysis (principal component: mineigen >.1) for discernment (n = 198)

ITEMS	F1
Decision2: Ideals of the good life ultimately guide my decisions	.70
Action1: I make sure I have the courage to put decisions into action	.69
Intervision2: Good decisions should be made with the mutual involvement of all	.64
Listen1: I listen to people with different perspectives before deciding on the good	.62
Action2: I can only put decisions into action if they pass the test of justice and fairness	.60
Decision1: My decisions find their ultimate ground in the purpose of life	.56
Introspect1: Introspection of motives is indispensable in making good decisions	.50
Explained variance	38.1%
Reliability (Cronbach Alpha)	.71

Research question 4

To what degree do school leaders engage in discernment? On average, the school leaders reported that they engage in discernment fairly often (a mean of 3.58). If one assumes that 95% of the respondents are between two standard deviations (plus/minus the mean), there are not many school leaders performing discernment ‘frequently/always’ (>4.21), and there are quite a lot who only engage in discernment ‘sometimes’ (<3.40).¹²

Research question 5

To what extent can engagement in transformational leadership be explained by discernment, while controlling for background variables? I conducted a regression analysis with transformational leadership as the dependent variable (Table 3).

Table 3. Regression analysis of transformational leadership with weights (β) for each variable and total explained variance (R², adjusted R²)

VARIABLE	MODEL 1	MODEL 2
Gender (male, female = ref.)	−.08	−.09
Age-group (22–35, 36–45, 46–65 years)	.21***	.15*
Denomination (Catholic, other Christian denomination = ref.)	−.09	−.05
Salesian identity (Father or family, lay = ref.)	−.10	−.07
Leadership position (principal, vice-principal/coordinator, teacher = ref.)	−.17	−.17
Type of school (Higher education, secondary education = ref.)	−.18**	−.17*
Nature of school (Government-aided, private = ref.)	−.12	−.12*
Size of school (above 1000; up to 1 000 = ref.)	−.20***	−.19***
Discernment		.32***
Explained variance
R^2	.16	.30
R^2 adj.	.12	.26
R^2 change		.14

In the first model, I entered all the background variables. Of the personal variables, only age predicted a higher level of transformational leadership. Two markers of organisational contingency predict a higher level of transformational leadership: school leaders of schools for higher education show a higher level of transformative leadership than leaders of schools for higher secondary education. School size also predicts levels of transformational leadership: leaders engage more in transformational leadership at schools with fewer than 1000 students, compared to leaders at schools with more than 1000 students. I return to these findings in the discussion. The three variables explain 12% of the explained variance (R² adjusted).

In the second model, we see that discernment is the strongest predictor of transformational leadership (β .32). The predictive power of age decreased (β .15). Some of the power of age is taken over by discernment, which implies a process of maturation. Also, in model 2 the type of school and size of the school predicts the level of transformational leadership. Another contingency variable becomes significant: leaders at private schools show more transformational leadership than leaders in government-aided schools. If we take a strict criterion of significance of .01 or less, than there are two predictors of transformational leadership in model 2:

• size of school (moderate power), and

• discernment (high power).

Summary and discussion

What new knowledge have we developed with regard to the relation between spirituality and leadership? I constructed a model of discernment that can be characterised as individual and communal, future oriented, dealing with decision-making in general, focusing on purity of heart (the penultimate goal) and stressing teleological ethics as a source of reliance. I was able to construct a scale of this model of discernment representing all stages and capacities except for wonder. The scale has moderate but acceptable reliability (Alpha = .71). I was able to measure transformational leadership as defined by Bass and Avolio, with one additional component, namely contingent reward. Discernment (as measured) is a strong predictor of transformational leadership (as measured). It is twice as strong as every other predictor.

Firstly, in terms of age: older persons act as transformational leaders more frequently than younger people. Secondly, there are three contingency factors influencing transformational leadership: being a school leader in a school of up to 1000 students (compared to schools with more than 1000); being a leader in a private school (compared to government-aided schools); and being a leader in a school for higher secondary education (compared to those for higher education). In total, the variables predict 26% of the variance of transformational leadership.

The results raise some questions. Why did the dimension of wonder not enter the concept of discernment of school leaders in India? Does this result reveal a problem with how we measure wonder, or a conceptual problem? I measured wonder with two items. The first was negatively formulated, and all negatively formulated items needed to be removed because of low communality. The second item (see footnote 8, above) speaks of a ‘sense of wonder that needs to emerge’. In retrospect, we miss a reference to the ‘ideals of the good life’ that need to emerge. Conceptually, we still consider wonder to be ‘sensing’ the good that emerges. New research should formulate new items for this dimension in line with the definition, and test the scale with other groups of school leaders.

Three organisational contingencies influence the level of transformational behaviour. Why would the size of a school influence the level of transformational leadership? One explanation could be that transformational leadership presupposes a direct relational contact between the leader and his or her associates in order for it to be inspirational, motivational and transformational. Leaders in large schools do not show themselves as often on the working floor compared to those in small schools, concentrating more on management (rules and control). Second, why would leaders at private schools show a higher level of transformational leadership behaviour? An explanation could be that Salesian schools have a budget compared with government-aided school, which lead to better teacher salaries and better-qualified teachers. School leaders at government-aided school need to invest more time in finding money to run the schools and invest in the quality of teaching of their teaching staff. This leaves them less time to ‘transform and inspire followers to perform beyond expectations while transcending self-interest for the good of the organisation’ (Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber 2009, 423). Finally, leaders in schools for secondary education report a higher level of transformational leadership than leaders in schools for higher education. A possible explanation could be that teachers at higher education schools are more likely to be experts in a certain subject, compared to teachers in secondary education, who are – next to transfer of knowledge – are expected to educate the ‘whole person’. Transformational leadership aligns with this pedagogical orientation of teachers in secondary education.

The findings of this research are limited to a specific group of school leaders at Catholic schools in India (the Don Bosco schools). New research is needed to corroborate my results.

Acknowledgments

I thank the bureau of the All India Don Bosco schools, and especially their director, Dr. Maria Charles, for the data collection. I also thank my colleague in Rome, Prof. Dr. Francis Vincent Anthony, for his advice and assistance in this research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Social cognitive theory on self-regulation (Bandura) in Bekker, Bocârnea, and Winston (2010); psychological theory on the experience of flow (Csíkszentmihályi) in Joubert (2019).

2. Avolio, Walumbwa and Weber conclude in their review study that the concept of spirituality is often shallow, not grounded in the intellectual traditions of an academic discipline (Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber 2009, 438). In this study, we take as base the definition of Waaijman (2010).

3. According to Vecoli, the concept of discernment in the Middle Ages must be understood in a political context. The king has exceptional authority to make decisions in exceptional situations, including the authority to decide that a situation is exceptional (Vecoli 2014).

4. See below Figure 1 for a summary of the stages and capacities. Here the reader can find also the items in which the capacities are operationalised in the instrument of discernment which we constructed and tested in this research.

5. Transactional leadership clarify (a) role and task requirements for their for their subordinates so that they are confident in exerting necessary efforts; (b) recognise subordinates’ needs and wants (c) and use contingent rewards (positive reinforcement by praise, increase of salary, promotion) or contingent punishment (negative feedback, loss of tasks or penalties) to influence the efforts by employees. (Bass 1985: 27–29).

6. Passive avoidant leadership tend (a) to react only when problems emerge (Bass 1985:38), (b) in contexts when noncontingent rewards (employees are treated well, regardless of performance) will work just as well to boost performance as contingent rewards or punishment. (Bass 1985:29)

7. We thank the bureau of the All India Don Bosco school, and especially their director, Dr. Maria Charles, for the data collection. I also thank my colleague in Rome, Prof. Dr. Francis Vincent Anthony, for his advice and assistance in this research.

8. In 2017 half of the schools in India are government schools, 12% government-aided schools and the rest of the private schools just under one third of all schools. (Anderson and Lightfoot 2019: 21). Government-aided schools are managed privately but receive regular maintenance grants from the government, local body or other public authority, and as such are subject to regulations applied to government schools. Fees (if any) are nominal (idem: 23). The majority of the private schools in India have very low fee levels. (Kingdom 2020: 1814) As a result of this, these schools have a lower budget, pay a lower salary to teachers and have many teachers who do not have the proper training as teacher. Private Salesian school are schools with a higher school fee compared to most private schools, pay better salaries to teachers and have better-trained teachers.

9. For the initial conceptualisation of the three models, see Bass (1985). An overview of the validation of the MLQ instrument can be found in the MLQ manual (latest version; Avolio and Bass 2004). For a further development of the conceptualisation, see (Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber 2009;; Schriesheim, Wu, and Scandura 2009).

10. All items with low commonality (<.20) and items loading on two factors with less than .10 difference were removed in the final solution.

11. Items that are removed because of low commonality (<.20), are listen2, wonder1, wonder2, introspect2, intervision1 (for the labels of the items, see Figure 1). All items with a negative formulation had to be removed from the final solution, as also the two items of wonder.

12. Scale from: 1.00 (not at all); 2 (once in a while); 3 (sometimes), 4 (fairly often) to 5 (frequently/always).

Appendix A.

Table A1. Factor analysis (Principal Axis Factoring; varimax rotation; mineigen >.1; criteria (4) of the multileadership questionnaire (n = 198)

Leadership style items	Factor
	1	2	3	4
39. IM4: Express confidence that goals will be achieved	.639	−.216	.233	.160
21. IA2: Go beyond self-interest for the good of the group	.624
16. IB2: Specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose	.603	−.191	.301	.109
34. IC4: Help others to develop their strengths	.601	−.221		−.116
10. IM1: Talk optimistically about the future	.589	−.103	.310
38. CR4: Express satisfaction when others meet expectations	.584	−.365
37. IB4: Emphasise the importance of having a collective sense of mission	.582	−.221	.156
15. IM2: Talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished	.576	−.255	.283	.251
22. IC2: Treat others as individuals rather than just members of the group	.571
09. IS2: Seek differing perspectives when solving problems	.536		.161
19. CR3: Make clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved	.529	−.149	.143	.252
35. IS4: Suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments	.515	−.227		.281
01. CR1: Provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts	.445	.108	.150
08. LF2: Am absent when needed		.670	−.110
36. LF4: Delay responding to urgent questions		.650
14. MBEP2: Wait for things to go wrong before taking action		.579
03. MBEP1: Fail to interfere until problems become serious		.574		.204
05. LF1: Avoid getting involved when important issues arise		.556	−.216
31. LF3: Avoid making decisions	−.138	.542
27. MBEA3: Keep track of all mistakes		−.125	.720	−.130
28. IA4: Display a sense of power and confidence	.307		.629
25. MBEA2: Concentrate my full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints and failures	.150		.611
30. MBEA4: Direct my attention towards failures to meet standards	.169	−.119	.491	.160
12. Trust2: Need to be reliable in keeping my promises	−.101			.798
06. Trust3: Need to act in a way that others can entrust themselves to me				.708
33. IS3: Get others to look at problems from many different angles	.289		−.127	.469
02. IS1: Re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate	.349		.140	.466
Reliability (Cronbach Alpha)	.87	.78	.74	.70
Explained variance (in%)	17.3	9.9	7.8	7.2
Total explained variance	41.97%

Legend:

Factor 1 Transformational leadership;

Factor 2 Passive/avoidant leadership;

Factor 3 Transactional leadership;

Factor 4 Intellectually Stimulating Trustworthy leadership