Leadership Concepts and Theories: Early Childhood Directors' Practice

This report examines the vital role of effective leadership in providing high-quality childcare services, particularly within the Australian context. It emphasizes the importance of leadership training and understanding various leadership frameworks for early childhood directors. The paper explores the evolution of childcare services, highlighting the shift from community-based to commercial models and the increasing number of children attending these services. It discusses the significance of quality childcare in children's social and cognitive development, and its impact on families. The report delves into the leadership challenges faced by childcare directors, including the lack of formal leadership training and the need for directors to develop their own leadership styles. It then outlines several leadership theories, including transformational, shared, and distributive leadership, providing insights into specific skills and knowledge required for leadership positions. The report emphasizes the need for leaders to be proactive, strategic, and responsive to the needs of staff, families, and the broader community. It argues that effective leadership is crucial for creating a supportive and high-quality environment in early childhood centers.

A u s t r a l i a n J o u r n a l o f E a r l y C h i l d h o o d
LEADERSHIP CONCEPTS AND THEORIES:
Reflections for practice for early childhood directors
Hanna Nupponen
MultiLink Community Services Inc.
This paper proposes that effective leadership is a vital component in providing quali
suggests that developing an enhanced understanding of effective leadership frameworks ca
for a quality process and can forge a commitment to working towards excellence in early ch
as well as be a tool for self-reflection. Theories of leadership are outlined for future preparat
complex environment in which centres now operate
Introduction
Many developments have occurred in the provision
and delivery of childcare services for young children
and their families in Australia in the past three
decades. Specifically, the development of an extensive
childcare system in the community and private
sector has been significant. Three decades ago, there
were minimal childcare services to enable women
with young children to work outside the home.
Childcare services that were available usually were
established locally under the auspices of community
organisations, church or neighbourhood groups. Now
there is an extensive commercial childcare service
sector. Since 1994, there has been a steady increase
in the number of children attending child care in
Queensland. The number of Australian children
attending an early childhood program is elusive as
there is no national data base for this calculation
(OECD Country Note, 2001). However, the Child
Care Census (2001) in Queensland indicated that the
majority (90%) of children attending child care at
licensed centres were below school age. Fourteen
per cent of these children attended long day care
centres full-time. In addition, more children attended
privately-owned (75,706) childcare services than
community-managed (47,110) centres.
Child care plays a crucial role in complementing
parental care and promoting children’s social and
cognitive development (Berger, 1995; Berk, 1991;
Feeney, Christensen & Moravcik, 1996; Ochiltree, 1994).
Childcare services enable parents, especially women, to
enter the workforce or access further education and
training. Child care also provides support to families
who have children with disabilities and additional needs.
Children’s development is influenced by many factor
such as the many interactions within the family
the community (Ochiltree, 1994). For instance, U
Bronfenbrenner (1989), an American psychologist,
proposed that a child’s development occurs in a
system of relationships affected by multiple levels of
the surrounding environment. Among researchers,
the established view is that quality child care
contributes to children’s developmental outcomes
with higher quality resulting in better outcomes
for the child (DeBord, 1991; 1996; Vandell & Wol
2003). Ultimately, quality child care preserves an
enhances the family’s capacity to function effecti
in supporting the ongoing health and wellbeing o
children (Edgar, 1997). As has been earlier establish
(Caldwell & Hillard, 1985), professional child care is a
supplement to parental care. Professional child care
not a substitute for family care, nor a competitor for
the role of parents in the upbringing of their children
Child care provides both care and early education to
children for their total development.
Leadership as a professional issue in
childcare centres
Despite the development of childcare services, both
in the United States and in Australia, there has been
little encouragement for directors to pursue form
leadership training or credentials. Many employer
consider it unnecessary for directors to seek higher
qualifications, because higher degrees are viewed
as ‘professional gatekeeping’ requiring increased
wages, thus increasing the costs of operating a
centre (Bowman, 1997; Jorde Bloom, 1992a; 1992
Most directors in childcare centres have had no
professional training for leadership and administratio
43

V o l u m e 3 1 N o 1 M a r c h 2 0 0 6 44
roles (Hayden, 1997a; 1997b; Jorde Bloom, 1992a;
Larkin, 1999; Mitchell, 1997; Seplocha, 1998). This
is despite recognition that leadership training is a
critical variable in program quality (Bowman, 1997;
Jorde Bloom & Rafanello, 1995).
Childcare directors are effectively change agents.
Humphries and Senden (2000) proposed that
leaders need to recognise that an organisation must
continually anticipate opportunities for change,
which will advance its mission and aims. Childcare
centres are complex organisations influenced by the
external environment (Bergin-Seers & Breen, 2002;
Jorde Bloom, 1991). Uncertainty and change in child
care and family policies requires understanding of the
political climate. Directors in child care also need to
be sensitive to the local community needs in which
their centres operate.
Neugebauer (1990) noted that studies in leadership
and administration in early childhood had found that
the director’s style of leadership has a profound
effect on a total teaching approach of the centre. In
particular, Neugebauer proposed that the director’s
decision-making style was related to the quality of
interpersonal relations within the centre. When
decisions were made within a team environment, staff
were more motivated, dedicated, trusting and clear
on centre objectives than were staff who worked
in centres where less attention was given to the
quality of interpersonal relationships. Furthermore,
Neugebauer found that the best type of leader
within an early childhood program was a democratic
motivator. This type of leader trusts staff decision
making and creativity, rather than taking a strong
supervisory role. In 2000, Neugebauer noted that:
The director must set the course in order to lay out a
vision that all staff can use as a road map to guide their
day-to-day efforts ... Not only does the director set the
course, but [the director] must also keep her finger on
the pulse of the organisation (p. 99).
Effective leaders balance the concern for task, quality
and productivity with genuine concern for people
(Seplocha, 1998). Clyde (1995) interviewed 50
childcare directors and found that responsiveness
to staff was deemed important by 98.1 per cent
of the participants, as was building good working
relationships with all staff. This type of director
continually monitors and supports the performance
of staff to ensure that the organisational goals
and vision are achieved and that all parts of the
organisation are performing as expected. As
Sergiovanni (1984) pointed out, effective leadership is
about focusing on client-centred goals and to create a
challenging environment, which provides staff with
sense of purpose and accomplishment.
Childcare directors are usually aware of their
leadership responsibilities (Grey, 1999). However,
they often are not aware of their own leadership
style and how it can be developed effectively. A
vision of what they wish to achieve in their role
leaders is important in order to reach organisational
goals (Grey, 1999). A vision of quality in childcare
services benefits all members of the organisation
and the children and families that a centre serves
Capacities to implement a vision of quality care
include building supportive relationships with staff
through open communication and encouraging
participation in decision-making (Gardner & Terry,
1996). An organisational culture committed to
continuous improvement in the quality of programs is
necessary (Frede, 1995; Grey, 1999; Kapsalakis, Morda
& Waniganayake, 2000).
The following sections outline recent theories and
conceptions about leadership in organisations that can
offer useful insight into specific skills and knowled
needed for those practitioners aspiring toward
leadership positions in centre-based child care.
Leadership in organisations
Leadership has been defined as ‘knowing what
the next step is, and having the confidence and
commitment to take it’ (Sarros, Butchatsky &
Santora, 1996, p. 42). It has also been defined as
process that ranges from the avoidant through to
the transactional, to the inspirational, idealised an
transformational (Avolio, 1996; Parry & Sarros, 1996).
‘Leading must be seen in context and should not
be considered separate from strategy, organising,
learning and all those interactions that make
organisations’ (Clegg & Gray, 1996, p. 29). Leadership
is a ‘process of interpersonal influence from a person
unto other(s) in the direction of a goal, where the
other(s) subsequently act of their own will in the
direction sought for by the leader’ (Baruch, 1998,
p. 1). Leadership is a key issue in the developme
of groups and organisations and has been explore
extensively in the behavioural and management
sciences (Baruch, 1998). Researchers have sought
identify the means and strategies by which effecti
leaders ‘get the job done’ (Sarros et al., 1996, p. 4).

A u s t r a l i a n J o u r n a l o f E a r l y C h i l d h o o d45
Leaders are required to keep abreast of trends in
the political, social and economic arena and think
strategically about change and improvement. Leaders
need to consider the broader issues and future
developments of an organisation and look towards
opportunities for change (Humphries & Senden, 2000).
‘Future leaders need to be proactive rather than
reactive’ and, ‘they [leaders] will convert mandates
and problems into challenges and opportunities’ (Bass,
2000, p. 22). There are a number of different theories
about leadership such as Transformational Leadership
(Bass, 1985), Shared Leadership (Fletcher & Kaufer,
2003), and Distributive Leadership (Harris, 2002) that
can be considered when looking at leadership within
childcare centres. These theories are discussed below.
Further, information about school-based management
and leadership is explored, as is looking at women as
leaders; their relevance within the childcare context
is linked to theories such as distributed leadership
and transformational leadership theory.
Transformational leadership
The transformational model of leadership has been
influential since the work of Bass (1985) and Burns
(1978). Transformational leaders seek to motivate,
influence, empower and develop the skills of others
(Adamson, 1996). Leadership is a function of capacity
and motivation, meaning that people are more
motivated by affective factors than cognitive factors
(Crawford, 2003). Leaders need to understand the
importance of influencing the manner in which
people work together to create an organisational
culture where people have an intrinsic need to do
their best.
Transformative leadership explains and describes the
importance of the relational aspects of leadership
(Burns, 1978). Transformational leaders motivate
their followers to perform well while developing
the skills of the followers to allow those individuals
to make their own decisions, which consequently
enable them to take greater ownership and
responsibility for tasks (Adamson, 1996). ‘The needs,
values and goals of leaders and followers mesh and
create meaning and community in the context of
the organisation’ (Rogers, 1988, p. 143). This form of
leadership has been described as cultural expression
because it is about creating with followers a vision
for the organisation that is relevant for a specific
organisational culture such that followers are
empowered (Sergiovanni, 1998).
Shared leadership
In contrast to the transformational model is the
theory of shared leadership (Fletcher & Kaufer, 2003
Pearce & Conger, 2003). Within this model, leadershi
is embedded in the social system at different lev
leadership is conceptualised as a relational process,
distributed phenomenon occurring at various leve
and dependent on social interaction and network
of influence rather than traditional one-directional
models of leadership. The leader engages the gro
not the individual; people listen to each other; t
team is empowered and dynamic; and all are eq
(Locke, 2003).
Leading within this model may prove to be
challenging, as it requires letting go of power. Shared
or participative leadership may not always be possibl
if an organisation does not have adequately skill
and experienced staff. The group must have the
ability and relevant professional knowledge to enable
it to reach consensus and make informed decisio
(Locke, 2003). Locke suggests that perhaps a vertica
form of leadership may be more appropriate in some
cases. This would involve a top-down, authoritativ
stance, with some shared decision-making princip
However, despite the group members’ understanding
of what needs to happen, some situations requir
position of power and authority to implement change
(Seibert, Sparrowe & Leiden, 2003). The authors
further noted that such a leadership approach
requires high investment in building and maintain
group relationships while asserting a position of
authority for instigating action. The focus remains on
collegial activity.
Distributive leadership
Another form of shared leadership is known as
distributive leadership, with a strong emphasis on
skill development through collaboration and shari
of ideas (Harris, 2002). In educational contexts,
the intensification of tasks because of the assert
pace of change leads to overload, with an endle
schedule of meetings and administrative deadline
and only a limited number of hours in the day
complete them. Overloading is constant and can
physically and emotionally draining and cognitive
demanding (Gronn, 2003). To manage, physically
and emotionally, it is suggested that leaders ado
a distributive leadership framework (Gronn, 2003;
Harris, 2002; Lakomski, 2002). ‘Distributed leadershi
is characterised as a form of collective leadership in

V o l u m e 3 1 N o 1 M a r c h 2 0 0 6 46
which teachers develop skills and expertise through
working collaboratively’ (Harris, 2002, p. 3). The
ideology within this paradigm shifts the ‘doing’ and
‘thinking’ from one to many. It is about the division
of labour and creating a workplace that requires and
facilitates collaboration, teamwork and cooperation
(Gronn, 2003).
Distributive leadership is identified as a form of
collective leadership, incorporating many individual
viewpoints and maximising the human capacity of an
organisation. The idea of distributive leadership is not
new (Lakomski, 2002). The distribution of different
aspects of leadership could be seen as the result of
conciliation and evolving informally through day-to-
day activities. Leadership thus flows throughout an
organisation (Lumby, 2002).
School-based management and leadership
School-based management has been about unpacking
what it means to lead and manage in school systems
because of the increased devolution of management
decision-making to schools from centralised
bureaucracies. It has been argued that, for school-based
management to succeed, it is important to create a
truly professional environment in which everyone is
engaged (Smaby, Thomas, Harrison & Nelson, 1994).
This is a form of distributed leadership. School-based
management, and devolution of responsibility, has
become the norm in educational settings within the
past decade (Bennet, 1999; Beyer & Ruhl-Smith,
1998; Brown & Anfara, 2003). Administrators are
encouraged to promote collaboration and shared
decision-making toward professional growth
initiatives (Leonard & Leonard, 1999). To accomplish
this successfully, leaders in educational systems must
empower others and advocate continual learning
(Beyer & Ruhl-Smith, 1998).
The role and responsibilities of educational leaders
(who may be school principals or childcare directors)
now include encouraging flexibility, promoting
collaborative planning and shared decision-making,
and employing these qualities as a medium for
successful change and reform (Beyer & Ruhl-Smith,
1998; Simpson, 1998). Educational leaders are also
required to be active change agents in sustaining
a robust flow of information; obtaining sufficient
resources; coordinating continuous feedback from
their colleagues, community and outside agencies;
defining boundaries and interdependencies between
outside agencies and schools; and insisting upon
accountability to the organisational mission (Simpson,
1998).
Importantly, for local school-based management to
be successful, existing organisational structures need
to be reviewed so that people at the local level ar
given more authority to make decisions and allowed
to introduce changes (Wohlstetter, 1995). These
ideas have relevance within a childcare context.
Childcare centre directors are now, more than eve
before, required to make complex organisational
decisions. Successful school-based (and/or child
care) management must place priority on building
capacity for change, and engaging in creative effo
to communicate with families and the community
(Delgado, 1998) because of a strong focus on
achieving customer satisfaction as an outcome of
education (Simpson, 1998; Wohlstetter, 1995).
Distributive leadership, by its very nature, distributes
and allocates tasks so that organisational results
are joint products, which cannot be individually
disabled (Gronn, 2003). Principals (also directors)
can be key players in the broad array of activitie
and the rejuvenation of new cultures for quality
implementation of new forms of leadership and
management (Wilkinson, 1998).
The next section looks at women as leaders
in educational settings. Most early childhood
practitioners are female (Larkin, 1999; Press & Hayes,
2000) and therefore, almost without exception,
directors of childcare centres are women. Thus,
identifying the ethos of feminine leadership has
relevance to centre-based child care.
Women and leadership
In the early childhood sector, female teachers dominat
the field and thus many directors of early educati
services are women. Women have used their skills
nurturing and caring for others to structure childcare
services to adequately meet the needs of women
and families (Henderson-Kelly & Pamphilon, 2000).
2002 in Australia, the childcare workforce consisted
of an estimated 60,000 paid staff providing care i
Commonwealth-funded childcare services (Australian
Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2002). The ABS 1996 Censu
showed that only 3.3 per cent of Australian childca
workers are male (Press & Hayes, 2000). This finding i
similar to the situation in the United States where Salu
Early and Clifford (2002) found that only one per cent
the staff employed in early childhood programs were m

A u s t r a l i a n J o u r n a l o f E a r l y C h i l d h o o d47
There is ongoing recognition of how women’s ways
of connecting with others and their understanding
of children’s and families’ needs are important to
the delivery of childcare services (Henderson-
Kelly & Pamphilon, 2000). Lunn and Bishop (2002)
proposed that feminine leadership styles are seen to
empower rather than dominate, are facilitative rather
than authoritarian, and that women have strong
intrapersonal and interpersonal skills that facilitate
cooperation. Similar findings were reported by Hard
(2001), who proposed that women have developed
an interactive leadership style that is centred on
relationships with colleagues and collaborative
decision-making. Within this context, leadership has
been proposed as being about ‘social sense-making’
that uses interpersonal influence to advantage (Jorde
Bloom, 1995; Singer, 1996). In light of these ideas,
examining literature about women and leadership is
relevant to centre-based child care.
There is growing evidence in literature and
research stating that women managers demonstrate
behaviours consistent with both transactional and
transformational styles of leadership (Bass, 1990;
Bass & Avolio, 1994; Hard, 2001; Limerick & Lingard,
1995; Ozga & Walker, 1995; Rosener, 1990; Seplocha,
1998). Transactional leadership qualities include
behaviours that emphasise exchanges or bargains
between manager and follower, and focus on how
current needs of subordinates can be met (Bass &
Avolio, 1993). Transformational qualities are centred
on a notion that the leader is a motivator who has
the capacities to influence, empower and develop
the skills of others (Adamson, 1996). In educational
contexts, Ozga and Walker (1995) noted:
Women ... run more closely knit schools than men, and
communicate better with teachers. They use different,
less dominating body language. They seem to be more
flexible [than males] and sensitive (p. 37).
Transformational leadership may not be the only
model for leadership for childcare services but,
given that women are more likely to exhibit
transformational and/or transactional styles of
leadership, this warrants examining leadership
and management in child care because of the high
percentage of female childcare directors.
The transformational leader attends to the culture
of the organisation and makes individuals feel
part of something worthwhile. The emphasis is on
relationships, respect for others, processes rather
than products, and the valuing of networking and
collaboration. Ozga and Walker (1995) commented
that women seem to place greater emphasis on
cohesiveness and integration, demonstrate less
stress and conflict, use less anger as a control
mechanism, participate in many more group
activities, and tend to avoid authoritarian solution
This is perceived as a feminine ethos of leadersh
(Ozga & Walker, 1995). Bernard (1981) proposed
that the female ethos is generally characterised
by mutuality, cooperation, and affiliation. Loden
(1985), drawing on this work, proposed a feminin
leadership model which has qualities of low control,
greater empathy, and a focus on quality output. Such
an operating style is typically, but not always, gende
related. However, Rogers (1988) argued that the
transformational leadership paradigm (Adamson,
1996; Burns, 1978) is about those qualities associate
with a female ethos. Women tend to view the world
as a web of relationships, and their mode of leading
includes hearing others and being open to other
through expressing how they feel (Rogers, 1988)
Women place strong emphasis on teaching (othe
and learning, and use a leadership style that is
hierarchical, more democratic, and demonstrates
supportive and enabling strategies (Hard, 2001; Ozga
& Walker, 1995). Also, it has been established tha
early childhood services for families and children
have a strong focus on supportive relationships
which are characterised by ideals of respect,
sensitivity, commitment to continual growth and
change, collegiality of shared goals, and setting
standards for the staff concerning values and eth
(Grey, 1999).
Childcare work is a highly feminised occupation,
not least because of the nurturing role at its co
Research points to an affirmation that the female
ethos of leadership raises the awareness of thos
within the organisation and focuses on developin
a democratic community that is ethical at both
personal and organisational levels, through which
staff are empowered to take control and make
decisions that affect their lives (Applebaum, Herbert
& Leroux, 1999; Manning & Robertson, 2002). Th
type of a leader (whether male or female) tends to
distribute the management functions, characterise
by the desire to empower rather than dominate, as
facilitative rather than authoritarian (Rogers, 1998).

V o l u m e 3 1 N o 1 M a r c h 2 0 0 6 48
Future considerations
Because of extensive growth in the childcare sector,
a rapidly changing environment and the increasing
complexity of families’ needs, there is a requirement
to review how childcare centres are led and
managed to achieve organisational and community
vision. Skilled leaders are needed who have the
energy and ability to influence others to take the
organisation forward. Directors in childcare centres
are responsible for the day-to-day operation of their
centres as well as accountable to a larger organisation
and/or government departments. They require specific
knowledge in leadership and management, both at the
micro and the macro level. Most directors have risen
to their positions from the teaching ranks, rather than
having prior training for the position; consequently
they have had to learn ‘the hard way’ while engaged
in the job. More emphasis is required in creating a
professional environment, including adequate training
for the role, as the director is in an influential
position which can shape the childcare centre.
Effective leadership and management can assist in
creating a coherent, collegial working environment
where staff are motivated and engaged in working
toward organisational goals. Literature identifies this
as a shared form of leadership (Fletcher & Kaufer,
2003; Gronn, 2003; Locke, 2003), with emphasis on
building and maintaining open, caring relationships
with staff, families and the community. Childcare
centres are mostly flat organisations (Hard, 2001),
thus directors are required to both lead and manage
their centres. For effective leadership and management
to succeed, managers/directors need to be visionary
(Brown & Anfara, 2003; Manning & Robertson, 2002;
Siegrist, 1999) yet have the skills and ability to be
competent in multifarious administrative duties.
Directors often have felt under-prepared for their
role before they took on the position (Hayden, 1997b;
Jorde Bloom, 1997; Robert, Woodrow & Moreton,
1998). Limited access to further professional
development has added to this pressure, despite
various models of professional development being
effective in enhancing directors’ competence and
confidence in performing their duties (Jorde Bloom &
Sheerer, 1992; Kearns, 1996; Rodd, 1997). Jorde Bloom
(1997) shows that directors go through ‘stages’ in
their development; thus professional development
tailored to their developmental needs at different
career stages may assist them in their leadership
role. Further, directors do not consider themselves as
experienced in advocacy (Clyde, 1995; Lunn & Bishop,
2002; Rodd, 1997), which has a negative effect o
their professional standing in the wider community
This indicates that directors may benefit from
additional support in their leadership role, as they
are in a unique position to take part in a broad array
of activities and the rejuvenation of new cultures
towards implementation of quality programs.
References
Adamson, L. (1996). Transformational leadership amongst
occupational therapy managers. In K. W. Parry (Ed.), Leadership
research and practice: Emerging themes and new challenges (pp
63). Warriewood, NSW: Business & Professional.
Applebaum, S., Herbert, D., & Leroux, S. (1999). Empowerment:
Power, culture and leadership—a strategy or fad for the
millennium? Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counsellin
Today, 11(7), 233-254.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2002). Year book Australia
Retrieved 20 January 2003, http://www.abs.gov.au.
Avolio, B. J. (1996). What’s all the karping about down under?
Transforming Australia’s leadership systems for the twenty-first
century. In K. W. Parry (Ed.), Leadership research and practice:
Emerging themes and new challenges (pp. 3-15). Warriewood, N
Business & Professional.
Baruch, Y. (1998). Is that what we study? Journal of Leadership
Studies, 5(1), 100.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expecta
New York: Free Press.
Bass, M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook on leadership: Th
research, and managerial applications (3rd edn). New York: Free
Press.
Bass, M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organisation
Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), 18-40.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership:
A response to critiques. In M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.),
Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp
80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Shatter the glass ceiling: Wom
may make better managers. Human Resource Management, 33,
549-560.
Bennet, J. (1999). Micropolitics in the Tasmanian context of
school reform. School Leadership and Management, 19(2), 197-2
Retrieved 17 September 2001, http://proquest.umi.com.
Berger, E. H. (1995). Parents as partners in education families an
schools working together (4th edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentic
Hall.
Bergin-Seers, S., & Breen, J. (2002). The performance of long day
care centres in rural and remote areas. Australian Journal of Earl
Childhood, 27(1), 24-32.
Berk, L. E. (1991). Child development (2nd edn). Needham Heigh
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bernard, J. (1981). The female world. New York: Free Press.
Beyer, B., & Ruhl-Smith, C. (1998). The principal’s role in school
restructuring and reform: An examination of self-perceived
leadership styles. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(2), 116.
Bowman, B. (1997). New directions in higher education. In S. L.

A u s t r a l i a n J o u r n a l o f E a r l y C h i l d h o o d49
Kagan & B. T. Bowman (Ed.), Leadership in early care and education
(pp. 107-113). Washington, DC: NAEYC.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). The ecology of human development:
Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Brown, K., & Anfara, V. (2003). Paving the way for change:
Visionary leadership in action at the middle level. National
Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin,
87(635), 16-34.
Burns. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Caldwell, B. M., & Hillard III, A. G. (1985). What is quality child
care? Washington, DC: National Association for the Education
of Young Children.
Child Care Census (2001). Licensed child care services in
Queensland. Brisbane: Queensland Government, Department of
Families.
Clegg, S. R., & Gray, J. T. (1996). Leadership research and
embryonic industry: Harvesting competitive advantage. In K.
W. Parry (Ed.), Leadership research and practice: Emerging themes
and new challenges (pp. 29-40). Warriewood, NSW: Business &
Professional.
Clyde, M. (1995). Child care directors’ perceptions of their roles
and attitudes needed to contribute to those roles. Melbourne:
Department of Early Childhood Studies.
Crawford, M. (2003). Inventive management and wise
leadership. In N. Bennett, M. Crawford & M. Cartwright
(Eds.), Effective educational leadership (pp. 62-73). London: Paul
Chapman.
DeBord, K. (1991). Selecting child care: The quality question.
Retrieved 23 January 2003, http://www.nncc.org/
Choose.Quality.Care.
DeBord, K. (1996). Quality child care: What does it really
mean? Retrieved 23 January 2003, http://www.nncc.org/
Choose.Quality.Care.
Delgado, M. (1998). Linking schools, human services, and
community: A Puerto Rican perspective. Social Work in
Education, 20(2), 121-130. Retrieved 13 July 2000, http://
proquest.umi.com.
Edgar, D. (1997). Sharing the caring: Rethinking current
policies. In W. Weeks & J. Wilson (Eds.), Issues facing Australian
families (2nd edn) (pp. 274-302). Melbourne: Longman.
Feeney, S., Christensen, D., & Moravcik, E. (1996). Who am I in
the lives of children? (5th edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fletcher, J., & Kaufer, K. (2003). Shared leadership. In C. Pearce
& J. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys
of leadership (pp. 21-47). London: Sage.
Frede, E. (1995). The role of program quality in producing
early childhood program benefits. Future of Children, 5(3), 115-
132.
Gardner, J., & Terry, D. (1996). Communication, leadership
and organisational change. In K. Parry (Ed.), Leadership research
and practice (pp. 153-161). Warriewood, NSW: Business &
Professional.
Grey, A. (1999). A vision for quality in early childhood
education. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24(3), 1-4.
Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders: Changing
leadership practice in an era of school reform. London: Paul
Chapman.
Hard, L. (2001). Investigating leadership in early childhood
education and care in Australia. In P. Singh & E. McWilliam
(Eds.), Designing educational research: Theories, methods and
(pp. 177-190). Flaxton, Qld: Post Pressed.
Harris, A. (2002, September). Distributed leadership in schools
Leading or misleading. Paper presented at the Belmas
Conferences and Seminars, Birmingham, UK.
Hayden, J. (1997a). Directors of early childhood services:
Experience, preparedness and selection. Journal of Australian
Research in Early Childhood Education, 1, 49-61.
Hayden, J. (1997b). Administrators of early childhood services:
Responsibilities, supports and training needs. Journal of
Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 2, 38-47.
Henderson-Kelly, L., & Pamphilon, B. (2000). Women’s models
of leadership in the child care sector. Australian Journal of Early
Childhood, 25(5), 8-12.
Humphries, E., & Senden, B. (2000). Leadership and change:
A dialogue of theory and practice. Australian Journal of Early
Childhood, 25(1), 26-31.
Jorde Bloom, P. (1991). Child care centers as organisations:
A social systems perspective. Child & Youth Care Forum, 20(5),
313-333.
Jorde Bloom, P. (1992a). Staffing issues in child care. In B.
Spodek & O. Saracho (Eds.), Yearbook of early childhood educa
(Vol. 3) (pp. 226-312). New York: Teachers College Press.
Jorde Bloom, P. (1992b). The child care centre director: A
critical component of program quality. Educational Horizons,
Spring, 138-145.
Jorde Bloom, P. (1995). Shared decision-making: The
centrepiece of participatory management. Young Children, 50(
55-60.
Jorde Bloom, P. (1997). Navigating the rapids: Directors reflect
on their careers and professional development. Young Children
52(7), 32-35.
Jorde Bloom, P., & Rafanello, D. (1995). The professional
development of early childhood center directors: Key
elements of effective training models. Journal of Early Childhoo
Teacher Education, 16(1), 3-8.
Jorde Bloom, P., & Sheerer, M. (1992). Changing organisations
by changing individuals: A model of leadership training. The
Urban Review, 24(4), 263-286.
Kapsalakis, A., Morda, R., & Waniganayake, M. (2000).
Leadership in child care centres: Is it just another job?
Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25(1), 13-19.
Kearns, K. (1996). Staff supervision in long-day care centres in
New South Wales. Journal of Australian Research in Early Educa
1, 85-99.
Lakomski, G. (2002, September). Distributed leadership: An
idea whose time has come? Paper presented at the Belmas
Conferences and Seminars, Birmingham, UK.
Larkin, E. (1999). The transition from direct caregiver to
administrator in early childhood education. Child and Youth Ca
Forum, 28(1), 21-32.
Leonard, L., & Leonard, P. (1999). Reculturing for collaboration
and leadership. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 237
Limerick, B., & Lingard, B. (Eds.) (1995). Gender and changing
educational management. Rydalmere, NSW: Hodder Education

V o l u m e 3 1 N o 1 M a r c h 2 0 0 6 50
Locke, E. (2003). Leadership: Starting at the top. In C. Pearce &
J. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of
leadership (pp. 271-284). London: Sage.
Loden, M. (1985). Feminine leadership: Or how to succeed in business
without being one of the boys. New York: Times Books.
Lumby, J. (2002, September). Distributed leadership in colleges:
Leading or misleading? Paper presented at the Belmas
Conferences and Seminars, Birmingham, UK.
Lunn, P., & Bishop, A. (2002). Nursery teachers as leaders and
managers: A pedagogical and subsidiarity model of leadership.
Retrieved 13 January 2003, http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au:
2057/pqdweb?TS=1042405606&RQT=309&cc=2.
Manning, T., & Robertson, B. (2002). The dynamic leader:
Leadership beyond the visionary leader. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 34(4), 137-143.
Mitchell, A. (1997). Reflections on early childhood leadership
development: Finding your own path. In S. L. Kagan & B. T.
Bowman (Eds.), Leadership in early care and education (pp. 85-94).
Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of
Young Children.
Neugebauer, B. (1990). Evaluation of director by staff. Child
Care Information Exchange, 20-21.
Neugebauer, R. (2000). What is management ability? In M.
L. Culkin (Ed.), Managing quality in young children’s programs: The
leader’s role (pp. 97-111). New York: Teachers College Press.
Ochiltree, G. (1994). Effects of child care on young children: Forty
years of research (Paper No 5). Melbourne: Australian Institute
of Family Studies.
OECD Country Note (2001). Early childhood education and care
policy in Australia. Retrieved 16 July 2005, http://www.oecd.org./
oecd/pages/home/displaygeneral/0,3380,EN-document-592-17-
no21-17182-592-no-no,FF.html.
Ozga, J., & Walker, L. (1995). Women in education management:
Theory and practice. In B. Limerick & B. Lingard (Eds.), Gender
and changing educational management (pp. 34-43). Rydalmere,
NSW: Hodder Education.
Parry, K. W., & Sarros, J. C. (1996). An Australian perspective
on transformational leadership. In K. W. Parry (Ed.), Leadership
research and practice: Emerging themes and new challenges (pp. 105-
111). Warriewood, NSW: Business & Professional.
Pearce, C., & Conger, J. (Eds.). 2003). Shared leadership: Reframing
the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Press, F., & Hayes, A. (2000). OECD thematic review of early
childhood education and care policy. Sydney: Macquarie University.
Robert, C., Woodrow, C., & Moreton, A. (1998, June). Caring for
directors: Reconsidering professional development. Paper presented
at the International Early Childhood conference, Creche and
Kindergarten Association of Queensland, Brisbane.
Rodd, J. (1997). Learning to be leaders: Perceptions of
early childhood professionals about leadership roles and
responsibilities. Early Years, 18(1), 40-46.
Rogers, J. (1988). New paradigm leadership: Integrating the
female ethos. Initiatives, 51, 1-8.
Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review,
Nov-Dec, 119-125.
Saluja, G., Early, D. M., & Clifford, R. M. (2002). Demographic
characteristics of early childhood teachers and structural elements of
early care and education in the United States. [Online]. Available:
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1.
Sarros, J. C., Butchatsky, O., & Santora, J. C. (1996).
Breakthrough leadership: Leadership skills for the twenty-
first century. In W. Parry (Ed.), Leadership research and practice
Emerging themes and new challenges (pp. 41-52). Warriewood,
NSW: Business & Professional.
Seibert, S., Sparrowe, T., & Leiden, R. (2003). A group exchange
structure approach to leadership in groups. In C. Pearce & J.
Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys
leadership (pp. 173-214). London: Sage.
Seplocha, H. (1998). The good preschool: Profiles in leadership.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The State University of
New Jersey, New Brunswick.
Sergiovanni, T. (1984). Leadership as cultural expression. In T. J.
Sergiovanni & J. E. Corbally (Eds.), Leadership and organisationa
culture: New perspectives on administrative theory and practice
105-114). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Sergiovanni, T. (1998). Leadership as pedagogy, capital
development and school effectiveness. International Journal of
Leadership in Education, 1(1), 37-46.
Siegrist, G. (1999). Educational leadership must move beyond
management training to visionary and moral transformational
leaders. Education, 120(2), 297-303.
Simpson, T. (1998). Progressive attempts to turn crisis into
challenge. In C. Ehrich & J. Knight (Eds.), Leadership in crisis?
Restructuring principled practice (pp. 27-35). Flaxton, Qld: Post
Pressed.
Singer, M. S. (1996). Leadership: Overt behaviour, covert
cognition and personal ethics. In K. W. Parry (Ed.), Leadership
research and practice: Emerging themes and new challenges (pp
124). Warriewood, NSW: Business & Professional.
Smaby, M., Thomas, C., Harrison, T., & Nelson, M. (1994).
Principals as facilitators for school site-based management team
Retreived 16 July 2003, http://www.questia.com./PM.qst?action
=print&docId=5000290238&pgNum=1.
Vandell, D., & Wolfe, B. (2003). Child care quality: Does it matter
and does it need to be improved. Retrieved 24 January 2003, htt
//aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/ccquality00/ccqual.htm.
Wilkinson, M. (1998). Principals as agents of change in new
times. In C. Ehrich & J. Knight (Eds.), Leadership in crisis?
Restructuring principled practice (pp. 11-18). Flaxton, Qld: Post
Pressed.
Wohlstetter, P. (1995). Getting school-based management
right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1),
22-24.