Performance agreements are part and parcel of the managerialistic approach to education as encouraged and associated with the neo-liberalistic achievement movement.  Performance agreements may be a possible motivational instrument to encourage or drive school leaders to enhance their and their school’s performance.  But the same agreement may be experienced as a threat or a risk and therefore loose the possible longer term motivational influence if the person or group are in place and at the right time.  The performance agreement must preferably have some external motivation, e.g. monetary value or internal drive, e.g. the principal’s need to excel against all odds.  But in extraordinary circumstances with low academic achievements, threats that principal’s may be removed from their posts if they do not achieve the agreements may also be motivational; to get the big ball rolling towards improved education for all.

Motivation is assumed to be one of the most basic human factors which move or drive people to achieve, to develop, to improve.  From Maslow’s needs theories and including expectancy, self-determination and attribute theories there are many possibilities for personal internal or external motivation.  What are needed are long term motivation levels to achieve in diverse and difficult circumstances.

Motivation – what is motivating different people in different contexts; and what is the best motivational theory and strategy for each individual or group or debatable and it may differ from person to person and context to context.  But there are some theories which can be used by leaders to ensure sustainable improvement of quality education in many schools or sustainable quality of education in the already well performing schools.  It must also be kept in mind that many individual teachers or schools (a team of teachers) are already performing at a very high level; hence they must at least continue the high quality and not fade to lower achievement levels.  This article will explore the possible motivational theories which may move a large number of teachers to improve on their current performance but then importantly sustain that improvement and development.

Quality education for all children and not only for a small number, who may be lucky to be at the right place with the right support, must be the ultimate aim of the South African education system.

Power is closely associated with motivation; it is to make people move; to make people do something what you as leader want them to do or achieve.  Therefore the motivational approach may differ on a continuum, and in line with MacGregor’s people approach – X and Y people and therefore a more autocratic or democratic leadership style. 

Research questions/focus of the enquiry

The key question explored in this paper is if a performance agreement may be able to motivate school leaders to achieve pre-determined standards as a long term process in less favourite education environments? 

Burns, J.M. 1978. Leadership. New York, N.Y.: Harper & Row. Elliott, C. & Turnbull, S. 2005. Critical thinking in human resource development. London: Routledge. English, F.W. 2008. The art of educational leadership: Balancing performance and accountability. Los Angeles: Sage. Enhanced motivation. 2004. ‘Movere’ [Online]. Available: http://www.webwzrd.com/motivation/movere.htm [April 2011]. Eyal, O. & Roth, G. 2011. Principals' leadership and teachers' motivation: Self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(3): 256-275. Forrester, G. 2011. Performance management in education: Milestone or millstone? Management in Education, 25(1): 5-9. Hallinger, P. 2011. Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2): 125-142. Harris, B. 2007. Supporting the emotional work of school leaders. London: PCP. Heck, R.H. & Hallinger, P. 2010. Testing a longitudinal model of distributed leadership effects on school improvement. Leadership Quarterly, 21(5): 867. Hong, Y., Catano, V.M. & Liao, H. 2011. Leader emergence: The role of emotional intelligence and motivation to lead. Journal of Business Strategy, 32(4): 320-343. Hoy, W.K. & Tarter, C.J. 2011. Positive psychology and educational administration: An optimistic research agenda. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3): 427-445. Kopelman, R.E., Prottas, D.J. & Davis, A.L. 2008. Douglas McGregor's theory X and Y: Toward a construct-valid measure. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20(2): 255-271. Martin, A.J. & Dowson, M. 2009. Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 79(1): 327-365. Penney, L.M., David, E. & Witt, L.A. 2011. A review of personality and performance: Identifying boundaries, contingencies, and future research directions. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4): 297-310. Pintrich, P.R. & Schunk, D.H. 2002. Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Merrill, Prentice-Hall International. Thrupp, M. & Willmott, R. 2003. Education management in managerialist times: Beyond the textual apologists. Buckingham: Open University Press.