The Viability and Reliability of the Fractal Leadership Practices Scale

  • Şefika Şule Erçetin
  • Ssali Muhammadi Bisaso
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)


Leadership has undoubtedly become the fulcrum of educational institutions in a bid to transform the education system. It remains the most critical process at all levels of education and in all forms of educational institutions. The way leadership is served is directly related to the success or otherwise of a particular educational institution. This explains why all leaders at various levels have been grappling with establishing the best way of leading their followers and institutions alike. The outcome of such efforts has been the emergence and re-emergence of leadership styles and approaches within the education system from the traditional (autocratic, bureaucratic, democratic and laissez-faire leadership), modern (transformational, transactional and charismatic leadership) to the more contemporary ones which are born of specificity (servant, people, shared, values based, ethical, service, quantum, plazma and fractal leadership among others). In order to establish the fractal leadership practices of school principals, a scale was developed by the authors following ten adopted constructs. This paper, therefore, aimed at exploring the validity and reliability of the fractal leadership practices scale. The validity was computed via responses of experts, and the reliability was analysed basing on views of respondents using the statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) programme. First, a general reliability measure was undertaken for all the items in the scale, and later, the reliability of each of the ten constructs was also measured. The items found as desired based on their Cronbach alpha scores were excluded, and the scale was remeasured. The scale was found suitable enough to measure fractal leadership practices of school principals.


Fractal Leadership Fractal Leadership Validity Reliability 


  1. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baloğlu, N., & ve Karadağ, E. (2009). Ruhsal liderlik üzerine teorik bir çözümleme. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 58, 165–190.Google Scholar
  4. Binsztok, A., & Krzysztof, L. (2006). University as a fractal organization of knowledge. In Annual Conference on Higher Education Management and Development in Central, Southern and Eastern Europe: Danube University Krems, 26–28 Nov 2006.Google Scholar
  5. Bisaso, S. M., & Saeed, F. (2016). Chapter 40: Coping mechanisms of effective leaders in chaotic and complex educational settings. In Ş. Ş. Erçetin (Ed.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2014 (pp. 439–450). Springer Proceedings in Complexity.
  6. Blum, D., & Ullman, C. (2012). The globalization and corporatization of education: The limits and liminality of the market mantra. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(4), 367–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boekhorst, J. A. (2015). The Role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace inclusion: A social information processing perspective. Human Resource Management, 54, 241–264. Scholar
  8. Brown, M. E., Trevinõ, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc..Google Scholar
  10. Buytendijk, F. (2011) Performance leadership.
  11. Chepyator-Thomson, J. R. (2014). Public policy, physical education and sport in english-speaking Africa. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 9(5), 512–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Covey, S. (1992). Principle-centered leadership. London: Simon & Schuster UK.Google Scholar
  13. Dansereau, D. F., Knight, D. K., & Flynn, P. M. (2013). Improving adolescent judgment and decision making. Professional Psychology Research and Practice., 44(4), 274–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dean, J. (2000). Improving children’s learning: Effective teaching in the primary school. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership and followership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of information-processing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 858–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erçetin, Ş. Ş. (1999). Biyoteknolojiyle Değişen Dünya Düzeni ve Eğitim-1 (Changing World Order With Biotechnology and Education). Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 18, 169–180.Google Scholar
  17. Erçetin, Ş. Ş. (2000). Lider Sarmalında Vizyon. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.Google Scholar
  18. Erçetin, Ş. Ş., & Bisaso, S. M. (2015). Chapter 4: The incorporation of fractals into educational management and its implications for school management models. In Ş.Ş. Erçetin, S. Banerjee (Eds.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2013 (pp. 35–55). Springer Proceedings in Complexity.Google Scholar
  19. Erçetin, Ş. Ş., & Kamacı, M. C. (2008). Quantum leadership paradigm. World Applied Sciences Journal, 3(6), 865–868.Google Scholar
  20. Erçetin, Ş. Ş., Bisaso, S. M., Saeed, F. (2015). Ch 12: Understanding chaos and complexity in education systems through conceptualization of fractal properties. In Ş. Ş. Erçetin, S. Banerjee (Eds.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2013 (pp. 147–161). Springer Proceedings in Complexity.Google Scholar
  21. Fein, O., Yeari, M., & Giora, R. (2015). On the priority of salience-based interpretations: The case of sarcastic irony. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 1–32. Scholar
  22. Fischer, T., Strässer, K., Rácz, A., Rodriguez-Navarro, S., Oppizzi, M., Ihrig, P., Lechner, J., & Hurt, E. (2002). The mRNA export machinery requires the novel Sac3p-Thp1p complex to dock at the nucleoplasmic entrance of the nuclear pores. EMBO J, 21(21), 5843–5852. “”; “”; “”; “”; “”; “”; “”; “”.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Galbraith, P. (2004). Organisational leadership and chaos theory. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(1), 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glickman, C. D. (2001). Supervision and instructional leadership. Allyn: Bacon.Google Scholar
  25. Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 82–83.Google Scholar
  26. Hoffman, T. (2010). Self-regulation: The key to successful students? Google Scholar
  27. Hollins, E. R. (2006). Diversity in preservice teacher education. In A presentation at the AACTE/NCATE accreditation, accountability, and quality conference. VA: Arlington.Google Scholar
  28. Kara, A. (2008). Understanding today’s schools with Chaos theory.Google Scholar
  29. Lartey, G. K. (2007). Primary grade teachers’ perceptions and practices regarding pedestrian safety education. Journal of School Health, 77(5), 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lester, C. N. (1975). Leadership styles: A key to effectiveness. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.Google Scholar
  31. Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  32. Martin, J. L. (2015). What is ideology. Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas, 77, 9–31. Scholar
  33. McDaniel, R. R., Jr. (1997). Strategic leadership: a view from quantum and chaos theories. Health Care Manage Rev., 22(1), 21–37. “”.Google Scholar
  34. Mennin, S. (2010). Complexity in education. Self-organization, integration and curriculum in the complex world of medical education. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Medical Education, 44, 20–30.Google Scholar
  35. Morgan, P. (2008). Teacher perceptions of physical education in the primary school: Attitudes, values and curriculum preferences. Journal of Physical Education, 65(1), 46–56.Google Scholar
  36. Musisi, B. (2012). Pedagogic ramifications of the competitive secondary education market in Uganda: A case of proprietary schools. Unpublished PhD thesis. School of Education, Makerere University, Kampala.Google Scholar
  37. Payne, P. M. (2008). Developing leadership skills in schools of public policy and administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education 7/1/2008, 14(2), 175–189.Google Scholar
  38. Powers, T. (2011). Fractal leadership: Replicating success. Assistant superintendent. Wichita Falls ISD.Google Scholar
  39. Praught, H. (2004). An overview of complexity science and its relevance to the health care sector. In F. Cloete (Ed.), Contemporary trends in public policy analysis (pp. 433–446). Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.Google Scholar
  40. Raye, J. (2012). Fractal organization theory. Petaluma, 2012.
  41. Russell, M. E. (2011). Leadership theories and style: A transitional approach. Submitted for: General Douglas MacArthur, military leadership writing competition. CGSC Class 11–02.Google Scholar
  42. Shoham, S., & Hasgall, A. (2005). Knowledge workers as fractals in a complex adaptive organization. Knowledge and Process Management, 12(3), 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shoham, A., Rose, G. M., & Kropp, F. (2005). Market orientation and performance: a meta-analysis. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23(5), 435–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Teichler, U. (2002). Changing structures of the higher education systems: The increasing complexity of underlying forces. Higher education policy, 19(4), 447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Too, E. K., Chepchieng, M. C., & Ochola, J. (2015). Effect of academic staff retention on quality education in private universities in Kenya. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 64, 86–94.Google Scholar
  47. Tripathi, S. (2013). Fluid fractals: Leadership at the apex of local authority in England. Thesis Paper.
  48. Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Waldman, D. A., & Galvin, B. M. (2008). Alternative perspectives of responsible leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37(4), 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yan-zhong, L. (2005). Fractal administrative organization: New exploration on administrative organizational pattern. Workshop on innovations in governance and public service to achieve a harmonious society. Beijing: Dec 7, 2005.Google Scholar
  51. Zhang, X., & Zhou, J. (2014). Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust, and employee creativity: Interaction effects and a mediating mechanism. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(2), 150–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Additional Reading List

  1. Curtin, L. (2011). Quantum leadership: Succeeding in interesting times. Nurse Leader, 9(1), 35–38.Google Scholar
  2. Edwards, A. M. (2015). Thank you for your leadership: The power of distributed leadership in a digital conversion model. ISBN-10: 0133563189 • ISBN-13: 9780133563184.Google Scholar
  3. Erçetin, Ş. Ş. (2016). Chapter 1: Understanding Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Turkey with plasma as a metaphor of the fourth state of matter. In Ş. Ş. Erçetin (Ed.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2014 (pp. 1–12). Springer Proceedings in Complexity.
  4. Hall, H. P. (2008). The development of a quantum leadership model and quantum leadership questionnaire in South Africa. Thesis paper.Google Scholar
  5. Vodicka, D. (2015). Fractal leadership. School Administrator, 72(8), 1–4. American Association of School Administrators.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Şefika Şule Erçetin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ssali Muhammadi Bisaso
    • 3
  1. 1.Hacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Lancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  3. 3.Islamic University in UgandaMbaleUganda

Personalised recommendations