Thesis Head Teacher

EFFECT OF HEAD TEACHER’S LEADERSHIP STYLE
ON TEACHER’S PERFORMANCE AT SECONDARY

LEVEL
By
AMIR ALI
Roll No. BM 603222
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for

B.Ed (1.5 year) program in Teacher Education at the Department of
Early Childhood Education and Elementary Teacher Education
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD
December, 2018
Amir Ali
In the Name of Almighty ALLAH,
The Most Beneficent, the most Merciful.

Faculty of Education
Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad
APPROVAL FORM
The research project attached here to, titled, “Effect of Head teacher’s Leadership
Style on Teacher’s Performance at Secondary Level” Proposed and submitted by
AMIR ALI Roll No. BM603222 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of B.Ed. (1.5 year) specialized in Teacher Education is hereby accepted.
Supervisor: ________________________(Signature)
Dr. Naseer Ahmad Salfi
Evaluator: ________________________(Signature)
(Evaluator Name)
Dated: _________________
(Day-Month-Year)
iii
DECLARATION
I Amir Ali son of Umar Din Roll No. BM303222 Registration No. 17 PKR-02509, a
student of B.Ed. (1.5 year) programme in Teacher Education at Allama Iqbal Open
University do hereby solemnly declare that the research project entitled“Effect of Head
teacher’s Leadership Style on Teacher’s Performance at Secondary Level”
submitted by me in partial fulfillment of B.Ed. (1.5 year) programme, is my original
work, and has not been submitted or published earlier. I also solemnly declare that it
shall not, in future, be submitted by me for obtaining any other degree from this or any
other university or institution.
I also understand that if evidence of plagiarism is found in my thesis at any
stage, even after the award of a degree, the work may be cancelled and the degree
revoked.
_________________________
Signature of Candidate
Date: ______________
(Day-Month-Year)
Amir Ali
_________________________
Name of Candidate
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher offers his humble and submissive words of thanks to Allah Almighty
who bestowed upon him towards knowledge contribution. He pays his passionate
tributes to his research supervisor Dr. Naseer Ahmad Salfi who motivated, guided and
supported the researcher round the clock with sincerity during the completion of this
research project.
He intends to express his feelings of gratitude to the Regional Director of
Allama Iqbal Open University Kasur Region, workshop coordinator Dr. Naseer Ahmad
Salfi, Resource persons and all the faculty members who provided guidance during
workshop in selection of this topic.
Acknowledgement is also due to his family members who encouraged him and
prayed for his success day and night especially hisfather and mother.
A.A.
v
EFFECT OF HEAD TEACHER’S LEADERSHIP
STYLE ON TEACHER’S PERFORMANCE AT
SECONDARY LEVEL
ABSTRACT
The researcher carried out a study to explore the effect of heads’ leadership style on
teachers’ performance in government secondary schools. One hundred head teachers
were selected through stratified random sampling. It is a descriptive in nature so the
researcher prepared one questionnaire for the collection of data. The researcher himself
developed the survey questionnaire. This questionnaire comprised with three factors of
leadership style as autocratic leadership style, democratic leadership style and laisses-
fair leadership style. And for the performance of the teachers the result of SSC is
analyzed of each school. This survey questionnaire was pilot tested by administrating
to three head teachers. The validity of this questionnaire was recognized through expert
judgment. The reliability of this questionnaire was analyzed by Cronbach’s Alpha. The
reliability of Head teachers, leadership style Cronbach’s Alpha was .93. Mean response
values, t test and Linear Regression Analysis were employed to know about the head
teachers’ leadership styles and its effect on teacher’s performance. Findings of the study
revealed that majority of the head teachers strongly believed on democratic and
autocratic leadership style in government secondary schools. There is no significant
difference between mean scores of male and female head teachers’ beliefs about
leadership style in government secondary schools. Findings also revealed that there is
a significant effect of head teachers’ leadership style on teachers’ performance.
Keywords:Leadership, Styles, Effects, Teacher’ performance, Secondary level
Areas, Kasur
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1
Background of The Study ............................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................. 2
Objectives of the Study ................................................................................ 3
Research Question ....................................................................................... 3
Hypotheses ................................................................................................... 4
Significance of the Study ............................................................................. 4
Delimitations of the Study ........................................................................... 5
Operational Definitions ................................................................................ 5
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.............................. 6
Conceptualization of Leadership ................................................................. 6
2.1.1 Concept of Leadership ..................................................................... 6
2.1.2 Comparison of Leadership with Management and Administration . 9
2.1.3 School Leadership: An Overview .................................................. 11
Theories of Leadership .............................................................................. 12
2.2.1 Personality or Trait Theories of Leadership .................................. 13
2.2.2 Behavioural Theories of Leadership .............................................. 15
2.2.3 Contingency or Situational Theories of Leadership ...................... 16
2.2.4 Transformational Theories of Leadership ...................................... 20
Approaches of School Leadership ............................................................. 22
2.3.1 Managerial Leadership Approaches .............................................. 22
2.3.2 Participative Leadership Approaches ............................................ 23
2.3.3 Transactional and Transformational Leadership Approaches ....... 25
2.3.4 Instructional Leadership Approaches ............................................ 27
2.3.5 Teacher Leadership Approach ....................................................... 29
Leadership Styles ....................................................................................... 31
Leadership of Head teacher and School Performance ............................... 38
2.5.1 Effective and Successful School Leadership ................................. 39
2.5.2 Effect of Leadership on Teachers’ Performance ........................... 41
2.5.3 Leadership Styles and Teachers’ Performance .............................. 46
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................... 49
Nature of the Study .................................................................................... 49
Research Design......................................................................................... 49
Population of the Study.............................................................................. 49
Sample and Sampling Procedure ............................................................... 49
Instrumentation .......................................................................................... 50
Validation of the Instrument ...................................................................... 50
vii
Data Collection .......................................................................................... 51
Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 51
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ................... 53
Head Teachers Autocratic Leadership Style in Government Secondary
Schools .................................................................................................... 53
Head Teachers Democratic Leadership Style in Government Secondary
Schools .................................................................................................... 55
Head Teachers Laisses-fair Leadership Style in Government Secondary
Schools .................................................................................................... 57
Comparison between Head teachers’ Leadership Style in Government
Secondary Schools on Gender Basis.......................................................... 58
Comparison between Heads’ Leadership Style in Government Secondary
Schools on Rural and Urban Basis............................................................. 59
Comparison between Heads’ Leadership Style in Government Secondary
Schools on the basis of Academic Qualification ....................................... 60
Effect of Head teachers’ Leadership Style on Teachers’ Performance ..... 61
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 62
SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 62
Findings…………………………………………………………………..63
5.2.1 Head teachers’ Leadership Styles .................................................. 63
5.2.2 Findings of Comparison and Effect of Variables .......................... 63
Conclusions ................................................................................................ 64
Discussion .................................................................................................. 65
Recommendations ...................................................................................... 66
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................... 67
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Name Page No.
Table 4.1: Mean Values of the Responses of Head Teachers’ Autocratic Leadership
Style .......................................................................................................... 53
Table 4.2: Mean Values of the Responses of Head Teachers’ Democratic Leadership
Style .......................................................................................................... 55
Table 4.3: Mean Values of the Responses of Head Teachers’ Laisses-fair Leadership
Style .......................................................................................................... 57
Table 4.4: Comparison between Head teachers’ Leadership Style in Government
Secondary Schools on Gender Basis ........................................................ 58
Table 4.5: Comparison between Heads’ Leadership Style in Government Secondary
Schools on Rural and Urban Basis ........................................................... 59
Schools on the Basis of Academic Qualification ..................................... 60
Table 4.7: Effect of Heads’ Leadership Style on Teachers’ Performance .................. 61
ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Purpose for Use
et al. Others
etc. And so forth
i.e., That is
e.g., For example,
C.T. Certificate of Teaching
p. for single page
pp. for multiple pages
x
Research Project Submission Approval Form
DR. NASEER AHMAD SALFI
Research project entitled “Effect of Head teacher’s Leadership Style on Teacher’s
Performance at Secondary Level” submitted by Amir Ali Roll
No.BM603222Registration No.17-PKR-02509 Programme B.Ed (1.5 year) has been
read by me and has been found to be satisfactory regarding its quality, content,
language, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and thus fulfils the
qualitative requirements of this study. It is ready for submission to Allama Iqbal Open
University for Evaluation.
Dr. Naseer Ahmad Salfi

Name of Supervisor
Date: ______________ ____________________________

(Day-Month-Year) Signature of Supervisor
xi
INTRODUCTION
Background of The Study
Leadership style of school head plays an important role to run school and institution
effectively. Sergon (2005) stated that a head teacher makes successful to school by their
decision-making power. According to Sergon (2005) a leader has ability to inspire,
guide, direct, listen and motivate the people to do the things. An effective head teacher
has these crucial qualities to do their work. To run the school is as charting a ship
through turbulent waters for any head teacher.
Ndege as cited in Cheruiyot, (2003) says that teachers are likely to perform well
if they trust in their head teacher. A head teacher whose authorizations have a bias for
a better chance of bringing harmony between the administrative wing and a factor that
is essential for high performance. Due to performance of teacher’s education system
directly becomes excellent. Professional development of skills, teaching
methodologies, hard work, devotion and zeal of a teacher enhance the performance and
leads towards desired goals of leadership. “Though the professional components are
important yet the psychological aspects cannot be ignored. As in organizational
psychology it is focused that not only the ability of a person but also the motivation
plays very vital and effective role in improving the performance of an employee
(Compbell, 1995).
Effect of head teacher’s leadership style on teacher’s performance at secondary level |2
According to Policy Document Government of Pakistan 2009, performance of
a teacher is measured on the basis of academic achievement of his students (National
Educational Policy, 2009). Research exploring why some teaches perform better than
others; has revealed four theoretically important determinants. They include; teacher
characteristics, leadership styles of the head teacher, student behavior and school plant.
Eshiwani (1983) described the following policy-related factors that may cause poor
academic performance; school plant and school resources (library, laboratory facilities
and textbooks), leadership styles of the head teacher (school management and
administration), characteristics of the teacher and students’ behavior.
Statement of the Problem
The Punjab government and the citizens have attached higher importance to passing
national examinations. Parents have seen education as a tool to equip the children with
a good certificate for advancement to the next level of education. Therefore, the aim
has been to work hard in order to pass national examinations.
Passing in examination well is a prerequisite for admission into national and
provincial secondary schools which have good and adequate facilities. Given the
importance of passing examination, every secondary school in each district in Punjab
attaches high value of examination hence they strive to pass well. The majority of the
pupils who have sat for examination over the last many years in Lahore district had
average marks. This means that very few students joined provincial secondary schools
yet all the secondary schools in the district have qualified teachers, adequate supportive
educational resources like books and good facilities to enhance effective learning and
hence good performance in examination. Stakeholders are worried that although the
government of the Punjab has employed qualified teachers and posted them in the
schools in district and the facilities in the schools have been improved through the use
of Constituency Development Fund (CDF), the performance of the pupils has not
improved over years. Most studies done on leadership styles on teachers’ performance
give differing results and a few are in agreement. Amidst those contradictions and the
other mentioned reasons, there is need to carry out further research on effects of
leadership styles on performance. This study aimed to investigate the Effect of heads’
leadership style on teachers’ performance in public and private secondary schools.
Objectives of the Study
Specifically, the research objectives for this study were:
1. To discover the effect of leadership style of head teachers by their gender on
teachers’ performance.
2. To determine the effect of leadership style of head teachers by their academic
qualification on teachers’ performance
3. To find out the effect of leadership style of head teachers by their professional
qualification on teachers’ performance.
Research Question
1. What is the effect of leadership style of head teachers on teacher performance
regarding their group of gender?
regarding their group of academic qualification?
regarding their group of academic qualification?

Hypotheses
To answer the research questions of the study, following hypotheses were test:
Ho1 There is no significant difference between mean scores of male and female head
teachers’ beliefs about Leadership Style in Government Secondary Schools
Ho2 There is no significant difference between mean scores of head teachers’ beliefs
about leadership style working in rural and urban secondary schools
about Leadership Style on the Basis of Academic Qualification
Ho4 There is no significant effect of head teachers’ leadership style on teachers’
Performance
Significance of the Study
It was hope that the findings from this study would be beneficial for head teacher by
providing them information about that factors that affect performance of teacher in their
schools. Secondly, it would also help the policy makers in general to assess
performance of the head teachers with a view of promoting only those who have high
organizational ability and good in achieving high academic performance. Thirdly, the
findings of this study would be important for the teachers’ training institutions such as
DSD, because they organize training of head teachers in areas of educational
administration and management. Finally, the information gathered from this study
would provide more literature for further studies in the field of school administration.
Delimitations of the Study
The study was delimited to;
1. The government boys’ and girls’ secondary schools located in district Kasur;
2. Explore the autocratic, democratic and laisses-fair leadership styles of head
teachers.
Operational Definitions
Head Teacher: Refer to the executive officer in a school who has been given the
authoritative power in matters concerning the administration of the school by the
Education department.
Teacher: A person who cares for their students is going to help that individual succeed
in their life in the future.
Academic qualifications: Educational standards achieved by the person.
Professional qualifications: Any training received by the person from institute.
Leadership Style: Leadership style will be that giving direction, actualizing plan, and
also inspiring teacher's testament as seen toward employees, it includes the total pattern
of explicit and implicit action of their leaders.
Teachers’ Performance: the annual results of the students.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This study was aiming at investigating the effect of leadership styles of head teachers
on the performance of teachers at secondary school level. This chapter deals with the
review of related literature. It starts with the conceptualization of leadership and its
comparison with administration and management. It further includes theories and
approaches of leadership and leadership styles. The concept of school effectiveness and
teacher performance and impact of school leadership on teachers’ have also been
discussed.
Conceptualization of Leadership
2.1.1 Concept of Leadership
Oxford English Dictionary (1933) noted the appearance of the word “leader” in the
English language as early as the year 1300 and it refers to the central or focal person
who integrates the group. Leadership is a universal phenomenon that has been defined
and studied at great lengths from a wide variety of perspectives and disciplinary
approaches (Yukl, 1989). As a result, there are almost as many definitions of the term
“leadership” as there are commentators. Leithwood, Jantzi and Mascall (1999) state,
that there is no agreed definition of the concept of leadership. Yukl (2002, pp.4–5) adds
that “the definition of leadership is arbitrary and very subjective. Some definitions are
more useful than others, but there is no ‘correct’ definition.” Cuban (1988, p.190) states
that “there are more than 350 definitions of leadership but no clear and unequivocal
understanding as to what distinguishes leaders from non-leaders”.
Some people see the leader as a motivator, while others define a leader as one
having extraordinary vision and decision-making power. Some authors define
leadership in terms of the relationship between the leader and the followers as well as
the motivational and reinforcement variables of the relationship. Gardner (1995) is of
the view that leaders are individuals who affect the thoughts, feelings and behaviours
of a significant number of individuals. Johns (1996, p. 309) says that “leadership occurs
when particularly individual exert influence upon the goal achievement of others in an
organisational setting by enhancing the productivity, innovation and commitment of the
work force”. Clark and Clark (1996, p. 25) provide a definition of leadership that
emphasizes working together. They state that “leadership is an activity or set of
activities, observable to others, that occurs in a group, organization, or institution and
which involves a leader and followers who willingly subscribe to common purposes
and work together to achieve them”.
Leadership is the capacity to add to a dream that inspires others to move with
an enthusiasm. Leadership is seen as the procedure of urging and helping other people
to work excitedly towards targets. The human element manufactures a transforming so
as to gather together and spurs it towards objectives the bunch's potential into
substances. Cole (1997) characterizes leadership as a dynamic procedure at work in a
gathering whereby one person over a specific span of time, and in a specific hierarchical
connection impacts the gathering individuals to submit themselves openly to the
accomplishment of gathering errands or objectives. He keeps on saying that leadership

improvement must be a quality and a procedure that develops inside of the foundation
over a time of five to ten years.
Camman, Fischman, Jenkins, and Wesh (2005) stated that leadership is an
impact effect process in which the leader searches for the purposeful enthusiasm of
subordinates with an ultimate objective to accomplish affiliation targets, a method
whereby one individual applies impact effect over various people from the gathering a
methodology of influencing the activities of an individual or a gathering of individuals
in an effort towards target achievement in given conditions, and impact thought
including both the affecting professionals and the individual being influenced
Dubrin (1997, p. 2) defines leadership as the “key dynamic force that motivates
and coordinates the organisation in the accomplishment of its objectives”. Preedy
(1993) quotes Greenfield’s (1986) definition of leadership, as “leadership is a willful
act where one person attempts to construct the social order for others”. Weihrich and
Koontz (1993, p. 490) recognize that:
Leadership is the art or process of influencing people so that they will strive
willingly and enthusiastically toward the achievement of group goals. And the
leader acts to help a group to attain objectives through the maximum application
of its capabilities, they place themselves before the group as they facilitate
progress and inspire the group to accomplish organisational goal.
A fundamental aspect in many definitions of leadership is that there is a process
of influence. Yukl (2002, p.3) describes this influence process as “most definitions of
leadership reflect the assumption that it involves a social influence process whereby
intentional influence is exerted by one person [or group] over other people [or groups]
to structure the activities and relationships in a group or organisation”.
After going through the various concepts and definitions of leadership it is not
an easy task to form a single viewpoint about the concept of leadership. But there is a
common thing in all these definitions of leadership that is the relationship between the
individual and a group of followers relative to a particular context. There are three
things that stand out in this respect. First, to lead involves influencing others. Second,
where there are leaders there are followers. Third, leaders are people who have a clear
idea of what they want to achieve and why. So arguably it may be stated that leaders
are the people who are able to think and act creatively in non-routine situations and who
set out to influence the actions, beliefs and feelings of others.
2.1.2 Comparison of Leadership with Management and
Administration
The concept of leadership overlaps with two similar terms, management and
administration. ‘Management’ is widely used in Britain, Europe and Africa while
‘administration’ is preferred in the United States, Canada and Australia. Although the
meaning of administration, management and leadership is debated, there is some
agreement that administration is the broadest term related to organizational
responsibility, management focuses on efficient use of resources, and leadership
focuses on organizational direction and purpose. Leadership is doing the right things,
management is doing things right, and administration is responsible for both.
Administrators are expected to be effective leaders and efficient managers
(Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2006).

Effect of head teacher’s leadership style on teacher’s performance at secondary level | 10
Some people see the terms leadership and management as synonymous.
However, both the terms differ from each other. Leadership incorporates influencing
people towards the satisfaction of impact occasion goals while management
incorporates masterminding, sorting out, staffing, planning, and controlling gathering
activities to complete various leveled targets. Manager regulates things while leader
leads the people (Bennis, 1989). Northhouse (1997, p. 8) states that “management is
about seeking order and stability; leadership is about seeking adaptive and constructive
change”. Sergiovanni (2001) suggests that leadership relates to vision, mission,
purpose, direction and inspiration and management to implementing plans, arranging
resources, coordinating effort and generally seeing the things done. You can have
strong leaders who are weak managers and vice versa. Strong administrators are good
at both leadership and management. Bush (1998, p.328) asserts that “leadership links
to values or purpose while management relates to implementation or technical issues”.
Cheng (1996) differentiates between a leader and a manger in this way. A leader
is proactive about true organisational goals, shaping the people’s behaviour, values and
attitudes and developing options for future, while a manger is reactive about
organisational goals using transactional approach to motivate his followers. Day (2000)
stated that leadership is creating and maintaining a sense of vision, culture, and
interpersonal relationships. However, management is coordinating, supporting, and
monitoring the activities of an organisation.
In conclusion, managing and leading are two different ways of organising
people. The manager uses a formal, rational method whilst the leader uses passion and
stirs emotions. Arguably, it may be stated that leadership is just one of the many assets
that a successful manager must possess. The main aim of a manager is to maximize the
output of the organisation through administrative implementation. To achieve this,
managers must undertake some functions i.e. Organising, Planning, Staffing, Directing
and Controlling. Leadership is just one important component of the directing function.
2.1.3 School Leadership: An Overview
Educational institutions are different from industrial or business institutions. They are
social in nature and their main aim is to inculcate knowledge, values and skills in
students and desired changes in behaviour. So, these types of institutions demand
special type of leadership role. Lambert et al. (1995) propose that the purpose of
schooling today is to engage children and adults with in patterns of relationship in
school communities that serve as centers for sustained growth. They suggest
constructivist leadership which involves the shared processes that lead towards a
common purpose of schooling. In their opinions everyone in school community can
perform an act of leadership. Constructivist leadership links students as leaders,
teachers as leaders, parents as leaders, and administrators as leaders.
Covey (1992) favored transformational leadership for educational institutions.
He said “the goal of transformational leadership is to transform people and
organisations in a literal sense to change them in mind and heart; enlarge vision, insight
and understanding; clarify purposes; make behaviour congruent with beliefs, principles
or values and bring about change that is everlasting self-perpetuating and momentum
building”. Memon (1999) discusses about pedagogical leadership that deals with the
overall school’s improvement including children's personal and moral development. In
his opinion, the pedagogical leader is sensitive to the needs of students, teachers and
community. They are strategic people and concerned with both task and people and
create a community of leaders in school.

Apart from transactional, transformational, constructivist and pedagogical
leaderships in schools there are transmissional or bureaucratic leadership and cultural
leadership. The first likes to maintain status quo and the second one is more concerned
with shaping up of school culture. Southworth (1998) says that “cultural leadership
shapes school culture, which is very subtle. It is direct and indirect, formal and informal
and overt and covert”. Spiritual leadership is yet another leadership which is effective
in ordinary schools but more effective in inclusive schools. A spiritual leader's actions
reflect deeply held spiritual values and beliefs.
One finds something very good in every concept. The constructivist leadership
though looks slightly vague to us yet the concepts of leadership act and leadership for
all can be used for school improvement effectively. After all, why one person should
be designated as a leader in all maters? Trans missional /bureaucratic leadership looks
dormant in its approach but in these countries where school education is on decline
(especially in the public sector) is an excellent work if a school leader is able to maintain
status quo and does not allow the situation to go further down. Transactional leadership
in Pakistani context might look quite radical as consultation and negotiation will
certainly be a great step forward in majority of the schools. Spirituality centered
leadership when working with sincerity has been quite successful in Pakistani context.
The concept of pedagogical leadership and transformational leadership are now coming
into focus in selected areas (mostly elite urban schools) of Pakistan.
Theories of Leadership
One primary reason that leaders behave as they do is their philosophy or beliefs
regarding how to direct their subordinates most effectively. Leaders who believe that
their people are naturally lazy and work only for money will use a leadership style that
is different from those who believe that their people are self-starters and enjoy challenge
and increased responsibility. McGreagor (1960) labeled these two sets of philosophic
assumptions with the terms “Theory X” and “Theory Y”. Theory “X” leader believes
that people are basically lazy, do not like to work, try to avoid responsibility and that
coercion and threats of punishment must be used to get them to work while theory “Y”
leader believes that people work hard, cooperative and have positive attitudes. Under
the right conditions, they not only will work hard but also seek increased responsibility
and challenge.
With regard to leadership theories Hoy and Miskel (2008) categorized these
theories in four main groups: personality or trait theories, behavioural theories,
contingency or situational theories and transformational theories. It is important to note
that none of the four groups is mutually exclusive or totally time-bound. However, these
four formations can be seen as sharing some common qualities (Van Maurik, 2001).
Although it is true that the progression of thinking tends to follow a sequential path, it
is quite possible for elements of one generation to crop up much later in the writings of
someone who would not normally think of himself or herself as being of that school.
Therefore, it is reasonable to state that each generation has added something to the
overall debate on leadership and that the debate continues.
2.2.1 Personality or Trait Theories of Leadership
In the 1920's and 1930's, leadership research focused on trying to identify the traits that
differentiated leaders from non-leaders. These early leadership theories were content
theories, focusing on what an effective leader is, not on how to effectively lead. The
trait theory of leadership assumes that certain physical, social, and personal
characteristics are inherent in leaders. Sets of traits and characteristics were identified
to assist in selecting the right people to become leaders. This approach dominated the
study of leadership up to the 1950s. Surveys of early trait studies by Stogdill (1948)
and Mann (1959) stated that many studies identified personality characteristics that
appear to differentiate leaders from followers. However, as Wright (1996) has
commented, “others found no differences between leaders and followers with respect
to these characteristics, or even found people who possessed them were less likely to
become leaders”.
Trait theory has not been able to identify a set of traits that will constantly
distinguish leaders from followers. Researchers carried out extensive studies to explore
the traits which may distinguished leaders from non-leaders, but found no single set of
traits that were strongly related to leadership effectiveness. Jenning (1991, p.2) stated,
“fifty years of study failed to produce one personality trait or set of qualities that can
be used to discriminate between leaders and non-leaders”. Some other shortcomings of
this approach were also identified. Although this approach speculates key traits for
successful leadership yet does not make a judgment as to whether these traits are
inherent to individuals or whether they can be developed through training and
education. Furthermore, no leader possesses all of the traits. Comparing leaders in
different situations suggests that the traits of leaders depend on the situation. The other
problem is that the early researchers after traits often assumed that there was a definite
set of characteristics that made a leader - whatever the situation. They minimized the
impact of the situation (Sadler, 1997).

2.2.2 Behavioural Theories of Leadership
Behavioural studies of leadership aim to identify behaviours that differentiate leaders
from non-leaders (Robbins, 1998). Behavioural theories of leadership support that a set
of particular behaviours can be named as a style of leadership. The term style is roughly
equivalent to the manner in which the leader influences subordinates (Lunenburg &
Ornstein, 1996) and several studies were conducted to identify the leadership styles.
The Ohio State and Michigan Universities studies (Fleischman & Hunt, 1973;
Stogdill, 1981) helped shift thinking away from a single-axis paradigm of leadership to
a two-dimensional paradigm of leadership that includes two continuums: consideration
and initiating structure. Consideration (people-oriented) includes behaviour indicating
mutual trust, respect and certain warmth and rapport between the administrator and
work group. Initiating structure (task-oriented) includes behaviour in which the
supervisor organizes and defines group activities. Researchers and practitioners saw
usefulness in these studies in terms of describing leadership behaviours.
The behavioural theorists identified determinants of leadership so that people
could be trained to be leaders. They developed training programmes to change
managers' leadership behaviours and assumed that the best styles of leadership could
be learned (Bass, 1990). Different patterns of behaviour were grouped together and
labeled as styles. This became a very popular activity within management training –
perhaps the best-known being Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid (1978). Various
schemes appeared, designed to diagnose and develop people’s style of working. Despite
different names, the basic ideas were very similar.

2.2.3 Contingency or Situational Theories of Leadership
The contingency view of leadership emerged from systems theory and its impact on
organisational and administrative theory. According to this theory, specific leader
behaviours relate to group performance and satisfaction. In order to achieve this, certain
variables interact with each other such as the leader himself, the position he holds,
group members, internal and external environment of the organisation. A successful
match between the leader and the group’s performance and satisfaction is ‘‘contingent’’
upon these variables. Three situational variables intervene between the leader’s style
and effectiveness which are leader-member relations, task structure, and power
position. Groups are classified as either favorable or unfavorable based on this criterion
(Monahan & Hengst, 1982). Some main contingency theories or models of leadership
are as follow:
2.2.3.1 Fiedler’s Contingency model
Fiedler (1967) found that a leader’s effectiveness is given situation depends on the fit
between his or her style and the task, authority level and nature of the group. The
interactions between these various combinations yield different results in different
situations. A key condition is the maturity level of the followers. Immature followers
need more structure and task behaviour; as maturity increases, they need less structure
and more human-relations-oriented behaviour. In the most favorable situation, relations
between leader and followers are good, when tasks are well defined and the leader is in
a position of power.
Fiedler and Chemers (1984) suggested that leadership style is a fixed
personality-based trait that no amount of training will modify. They state that the
relationship between leadership style and effectiveness depends on several factors in
the situation. These factors are good and bad leader-member relations, structured or
unstructured tasks, and high or low position power. The combinations create a range of
situations from high control to low control. These “leader match” models became
known as contingency theories of leadership. Contingency theory suggests that both
high and low power and control positions call for task-oriented leaders. Moderate power
and control positions call for human-relationship- oriented styles (Fiedler & Garcia,
1987). These researchers expended the study of leadership to include the qualities of
the leader, the group, the task and the situation.
2.2.3.2 Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational theory
Fiedler and Chemers (1984) maintain that one cannot change his or her style,
but Hersey and Blanchard (1993) and Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson (1996) suggest
that leaders are expected to readily modify their styles to cope with changes in the
follower readiness. The situational style of leadership is influenced by the maturity and
development of the work group and the individual subordinates, and it varies from
subordinate to subordinate. The crucial aspect of situational leadership theory is that a
leader should depend more on relationship behaviour and less on task behaviour as
readiness level of the group members increases. Minimum of task and relationship
behaviour is required when a group member is very ready (Dubrin, 1995). Their four
leadership styles are telling, selling, participating and delegating.
Contingency and Situational leadership theories reject the idea that there is one
best approach to leadership. They suggest that time available, task specificity,
competence and maturity of the staff, need for involvement, authority, and dynamics of
the situation determine what style should be used. Other contextual factors include
group size, rewards, leader status, method of appointment, and technical background.
For each level of development among the workforce the leader should adopt a specific
style of leadership; thus, leaders demonstrate a strong degree of flexibility regarding
approach.
Yukl (1989) differentiated the situational approach on the basis of whether the
requirement was for a “leader” or a “manager”. In the capacity of leader, a person needs
an advanced repertoire of skills, and different skills are used in different situations.
Participation of the workforce is important to the development of knowledge, skills and
shared vision. In the capacity of a manager, that person is more directive, sending
messages, establishing channels of command and closely monitoring work. Followers
comply with the perceived legitimacy of the leader to manage the organization. Yukl
(1989) strongly argues that no single approach will suffice for all situations.
The formulas devised for matching these variables are not simple. Many argue
that the nature of leadership does no vary with each situation. Critics on the situational
model suggest that its unpredictable aspects provoke suspicion, distrust, deceit and
confusion. What contingency and situational approaches ignore is the Pygmalion
effect-on the power that expectations and treatment have on the behaviour of others.
People often become what their leader expects them to become. Berlew and Hall (1988)
found that what higher-level managers expected of lower-level managers determined
the lower-level managers’ subsequent performance and success.

2.2.3.3 House’s Path-Goal theory
Path-Goal theory (House, 1971; House & Boetz, 1990) is one of the original
contingency theories. This theory suggests that by increasing the numbers and kinds of
subordinates’ payoffs for the attainment of goals and by establishing paths to these
payoffs (by clarifying the paths, reducing roadblocks and pitfalls, and increasing the
opportunities for personal satisfaction along the way), the group will be able to achieve
its goals. Employees work towards goals if they can see a source of satisfaction, and
effective leaders make these sources contingent upon subordinates’ efforts. This can be
achieved through one of four distinct leadership behaviours: directive, supportive,
participative or achievement orientation. Each is appropriate under certain conditions
but not in others.
Directive leadership is providing guidance to employees about the task to be
accomplished and ways to do it. Supportive leadership is being friendly, approachable
and concerned for the well-being and needs of the employees. Participative leadership
is collaborating with the employees and taking their ideas into consideration during the
decision-making process. Achievement- oriented leadership is setting high standards
and challenging goals for the employees by encouraging them to perform at their
highest level (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995). Subordinates characteristics include ability,
locus of control and needs and motives. The environmental conditions include tasks,
work group characteristics, and authority systems. Leader behaviours moderated by
subordinate characteristics and environmental conditions results in effective
performance and job satisfaction.

2.2.3.4 Leader participation model
Leader Participation Model is based on five modes of decision-making, which
ranged from highly autocratic to fully consultative. The effectiveness of a mode
depended upon several contingent factors which can be summed up as information
sufficiency, structure of the problem, and subordinate attitudes and relationship with
the leader. This theory is normative in nature as it prescribes a set of rules to determine
the form and amount of participative decision making in different situations. The model
was composed of a complex decision-making tree involving seven contingencies whose
relevance can be assessed by answering ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No’’ questions and five alternative
leadership styles. The model was revised by expanding the contingency variables to
twelve, ten of which are answered along a five-point scale. This model indicates that
leadership studies should be geared towards the situation not the leader. It is probably
more sensible to talk about participative and autocratic situations than leaders who
possess these characteristics as leader behaviour modifications depending on the
situation and a leader can adjust his or her style to different situations (Robbins, 1998).
2.2.4 Transformational Theories of Leadership
Transformational leadership theory is epistemologically based on
positivist/empiricist foundation on which traditional conceptualizations of leadership
have been formulated (Allix, 2000). Burns (1996) states, “leadership cannot be
separated from followers’ needs and goals. Its essence lies in the interaction between
the follower and the leader. This interaction takes fundamentally two different forms:
transactional and transformational leadership”. “Transactional” leadership based on
defining needs, assigning clear tasks, rewarding congruent behaviour and having a
command-and-control mentality. Followers are willing to trust the leader because they
need to have problems solved and they believe the leader can solve them.
“Transformational” leaders develop followers, help map new directions, mobilize
resources, facilitate and support employees and re-spend to organizational challenges.
They see changes as necessary and strive to cause it. Eyal and Roth (2011, p. 257) state
that “transformational leaders’ impact on their followers was ascribed to their ability to
nurture followers’ needs, empower them, and give them a sense of mission toward
ethical and broad objectives that exceed their own goals”.
Carlson (1996) points out that Burns felt that leadership theories developed up
to the mid-seventies were lacking ethical and moral dimensions so he elaborated on his
exchange theory which maintains that followers play a crucial role in the definition of
leadership. This theory is made up of power relations and entails bargaining, trading
and compromise among leaders and followers. Transactional leaders encourage
subordinates by appealing to their self-interest and offering rewards in exchange of
work effort which are contingent reward and management by exception.
Transformational leaders create the incentives for people to continuously improve their
practices and, thus, those of the organization. They want their followers to regard
challenges as opportunities and they cooperate with them to elevate expectations, needs,
abilities, and moral character (Bass & Avolio, 1997). They encourage their staff to be
innovative, hardworking and professional and they also search for these qualities when
they recruit staff (Leithwood, 1994).

Approaches of School Leadership
2.3.1 Managerial Leadership Approaches
Managerial leadership focuses on functions, tasks and behaviours. It also
assumes that the behaviour of organisational members is largely rational and that
influence is exerted through positional authority within the organisational hierarchy. It
is similar to the formal model of management.
Dressler’s (2001, pp. 175-176) review of leadership in Charter schools in the
United States provides another perspective on this issue, suggesting that “leadership is
a ‘management plus’ approach”. Traditionally, the principal’s role has been clearly
focused on management responsibilities. Global and societal influences have increased
the span of responsibility. The additional responsibilities are said to include
interpersonal leadership, such as motivating others, sensitivity and communication
skills, and contextual factors, including philosophical and cultural values, and policy
and political influences. Myers and Murphy (1995, p.14) identify six specifically
managerial functions. Four of these are described as hierarchical:
• Supervision
• input controls (e.g. teacher transfers)
• behaviour controls (e.g. job descriptions)
• output controls (e.g. student testing)
The remaining two are non-hierarchical:
• selection/socialization
• environmental controls (e.g. community responsiveness).

2.3.2 Participative Leadership Approaches
Participative leadership assumes that the decision-making processes of the
group ought to be the central focus of the group. This is a normative model which is
based on three criteria:
• participation will increase school effectiveness
• participation is justified by democratic principles
• in the context of site-based management, leadership is potentially available to
any legitimate stakeholder (Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinbach, 1999, p.12).
Collegiality is one normatively preferred type of participative leadership. Bush
(1995, pp.64–65) asserts that “the principal is expected to adopt strategies which
acknowledge that issues may arise from different parts of the organisation and be
resolved in a complex interactive process. Participative leadership may also be
conceptualised as ‘distributed’. Neuman and Simmons (2000, p. 10) argue that “there
should be a move away from ‘single person’ leadership to an approach which stresses
collaborative decision-making”. Distributed leadership calls on everyone associated
with schools to take responsibility for student achievement and to assume leadership
roles in areas in which they are competent and skilled. Participative leadership may also
be conceptualized as “shared leadership”. This type of leadership is comprised of a
range of different behaviors or strategies for involving others in decision-making.
Recent conceptualizations of distributed leadership highlight this facet of shared
leadership (Crowther et al., 2008; Gronn, 2009).
Participative leadership is concerned primarily with the process of decision-
making. The approach supports the notion of shared or distributed leadership and is
linked to democratic values and empowerment. Participative leadership is thought to

lead to improved outcomes through greater commitment to the implementation of
agreed decisions.
Participatory leadership looks from a relationship as basic players in running of
that relationship, without whose consideration in an affiliation association may hamper
its capable and intense working. In bolster, all impact occasions should see decisions
made through a joint try as representation of what unfurled. For speculation to be
invited by students, people and teachers, they should feel that they connected some
effect on the outcome. Stewart (1984) recommends that power evening out expansions
correspondence among the partners including region sheets, head teachers, teachers,
folks and students, if this was done, teachers will be more positive towards head
teachers, and more dedicated to class objectives and goals.
People and group of peoples will be more grounded to schools in light of the
way that they have more effect over options and students will be more animated to lock
in. In a school setting, people have inside and out various limits in affiliation
association. There is a prominent refinement in formal power position between for
event an understudy and a head educator. Additionally, there are differences in the
power of school people in light of dominance and access to vital information. However
much as could be relied upon impact events should be allowed to work only within their
spaces. Co-operation is a basic segment in participatory organization. The upsides of
backing can't be recognized without the will to organize by both the chiefs and the
impact occasion. Backing is thusly powerful when it is planned (Hallam, 1996).
Head teachers ought not to encourage support strictly when succumbing to
weight from teachers and students. Neither ought to an overseer only for some childish
additions power teachers and students into support. The motivation behind cooperation
is to open up the choice making procedure without permanently isolating from it

obligation regarding verifying that instructive goals are made. Head teachers ought to
hold their capacity of endorsing choices and strategies.
Students or teachers should rehearse ready as to consider venture. Students or
teachers advised don't have last control over decisions to be requested (Powers, 1994).
The four results are extended adequacy being utilized of benefits and personnel,
extended cleaned aptitude of educators, execution of instructive projects change and
extended gathering engagement. Shared activity is perhaps more convincing than head
educators acting alone. Staff is related: every part has a guarantee to make as
organization endeavors can be fulfilled just with and through different people. Fulfilling
expansive obligation regarding decision is in this way principal. In these conditions
they can finish a perfect level of agreeable vitality, which might be described as get-
together people joining their individual energies to the best of their ability in order to
achieve shared destinations (Ndegwa, 2008).
2.3.3 Transactional and Transformational Leadership Approaches
Stewart (2006) states that the transformational leadership model emerged in
education literature around the 1980s in response to the demands on the school system
to increase standards and improve students’ learning outcomes. It emerges to take
vision as a given in terms of being a factor of leadership that motivates individuals to
higher levels of endeavor and performance in institutions in general (Ylimaki, 2006)
and in schools particularly (Harris, 2005; Stewart, 2006). This leadership style of
transformational leaders predicted school organizational vision and school
organizational learning processes. In other words, school vision, as shaped by the
principal and the staff, is a powerful motivator of the process of organizational learning
in school (Kurland, Peretz & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2010). Gunter (2001, p.69) says “that
transformational leadership is about building a unified common interest between head
teachers and subordinates”. Allix (2000) attribute this concept to Burns (1978).
Transformational leadership is a procedure of affecting in which leaders change
their partners' consciousness of what is imperative, and move them to see themselves
and the open doors and difficulties of their surroundings in another way.
Transformational leaders are proactive: they try to enhance individual, bunch and
hierarchical improvement and advancement, not simply accomplish execution "at
desires." They persuade their partners to take a stab at more elevated amounts of
potential and in addition more elevated amounts of good and moral measures.
Transformational approaches are often contrasted with transactional leadership.
Miller and Miller (2001, p. 182) explain these twin phenomena:
Transactional leadership is a leadership in which relationships with teachers are
based upon an exchange for some valued resource. To the teacher, interaction
between administrators and teachers is usually episodic, short-lived and limited
to the exchange transaction. Transformational leadership is more potent and
complex and occurs when one or more teachers engage with others in such a
way that administrators and teachers raise one another to higher levels of
commitment and dedication, motivation and morality.
Leithwood (1994) conceptualises transformational leadership along eight dimensions:
• building school vision
• establishing school goals
• providing intellectual stimulation
• offering individualized support
• modelling best practices and important organizational values

• demonstrating high performance expectations
• creating a productive school culture
• developing structures to foster participation in school decisions
Transformational leadership practices, considered as a composite construct, had
significant direct and indirect effects on progress with school-restructuring initiatives
and teacher-perceived student outcomes. The transformational model is comprehensive
in that it provides a normative approach to school leadership which focuses primarily
on the process by which leaders seek to influence school outcomes rather than on the
nature or direction of those outcomes. It may also be criticized as being a vehicle for
control over teachers and more likely to be accepted by the leader than the led
(Chirichello, 1999).
Successful leaders expend extraordinary efforts to achieve goals through vision,
communication, trust and development. Transformational leaders ensure the existence
of collaborating goal setting, shared powers and responsibilities, continued professional
growth, resolved discrepancies, teamwork, engagement in new activities, a broad range
of perspectives, monitored progress, validated assumptions, periodic reflection and
intervention when progress stands. School personnel are inspired to raise above self-
interest goals, make commitments to continuously improved student learning and take
responsibilities for instructional innovation.
2.3.4 Instructional Leadership Approaches
Instructional leadership is an approach of leadership that places an emphasis
upon the development of the school through the development of teaching and learning.
Sergiovanni (2001) describes ‘instructional or pedagogical leadership’ as a form of

leadership which invests in capacity building by developing social and academic capital
for students and intellectual and professional capital for teachers. He argues that this
model differs from other bureaucratic, visionary and entrepreneurial leadership theories
that dominate the literature because it is concerned with adding value by developing
various forms of human capital. Instructional leaders aim to build ‘learning enriched’
schools for staff as well as pupils through leadership which is fuelled by a vision of
possibilities (Starratt, 2001, p. 57).
Instructional leadership is focused on curriculum and instructional
development; staff development; instructional supervision; programme, teacher and
student evaluation; research and experimentation; provision of resources; and the
continuous improvement of teaching and learning (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2006).
Instructional leadership approaches typically assume that “school leaders have both the
expert knowledge and the formal authority to use influence on teachers” (Leithwood,
Jantzi & Steinbach 1999, p.8). Hallinger and Murphy (1985) state that instructional
leadership comprises three broad categories:
• defining the school mission
• managing the instructional programme
• promoting school climate
Instructional leaders express their commitment to improve student performance
through words, focus and actions. They will be visible throughout the school expressing
interest in instruction and learning- their presence felt and seen by everyone. They are
involved in planning for instruction and know what is to be taught and make sure it is
being taught. They often meet with teachers, chair persons, lead teachers, specialists
and others collaboratively discussing various aspects of the curriculum, observed
instruction, assessment, student progress, what’s going well and what is not, ultimately
shaping the vision for an improved school (Pollard-Durodola, 2003). Blase and Blase’s
(1998) research with 800 principals in American elementary, middle and high schools
suggests that effective instructional leadership behaviour comprises three aspects:
• talking with teachers (conferencing)
• promoting teachers’ professional growth
• fostering teacher reflection
Southworth’s (2002) qualitative research with primary heads of small schools
in England and Wales shows that three strategies were particularly effective in
improving teaching and learning:
• modeling
• monitoring
• professional dialogue and discussion
2.3.5 Teacher Leadership Approach
It is clear from the universal writing that there are covering and contending meanings
of the term. Fairly unavoidably, accordingly, there exists some calculated perplexity
over the definite significance of teacher leadership. For instance, Welgemoed (1995)
characterizes teacher leadership as the capacity to urge partners to change to do things
they would not commonly consider without the Leader's impact.
Additionally, Katz (2001), characterize teacher leaders as teachers who are
leaders lead inside and past the classroom, relate to and add to a group of educator
learners and leaders, and impact others towards enhanced instructive practice. Boles
and Troen (1994), differentiate it to customary ideas of leadership by portraying teacher
leadership as a type of aggregate leadership in which teachers create aptitude by
working cooperatively. Various diverse parts have been recommended for teacher
leaders that give a clearer definition and comprehension of the term. Katz (2001) sees
teacher leadership as having three fundamental features:
a) Leadership of students or different educators: facilitator, mentor, guide, coach,
educational modules pro, making new methodologies, driving study bunches.
b) Leadership of operational undertakings: keeping the school sorted out and
moving towards its objectives, through parts, for example, leader of the school,
activity specialist, and individual from the teams.
c) Leadership through choice making or organization: instigator of associations
with business, advanced education foundations, and guardian teacher affiliations.
2.3.5.1 Dimensions of teacher leadership
Dalin (1994), suggest that there are four perceptible and distinct dimensions of
the teacher leadership role.
a) The main measurement concerns the interpretation of standards of school
change into the acts of individual classrooms. This facilitating part remains a
focal obligation regarding the educator as a Leader. It guarantees that
connections inside of schools are secure and that open doors for significant
advancement among teachers are expanded.
b) The primary measurement concerns the interpretation of standards of school
change into the acts of individual classrooms. This facilitating role second
measurement of the teacher Leader part centers upon participative leadership
where all teachers feel a change's piece or improvement and have a feeling of
possession. Teacher Leaders may help different teachers to adhere around a
specific advancement and have a feeling of proprietorship. Teacher associates
to shape school change endeavors and take some lead in managing teachers
toward an aggregate objective. e remains a focal obligation regarding the
teacher as a Leader. It guarantees that connections inside of schools are secure
and that open doors for significant advancement among teachers are amplified.
c) A third measurement of teacher leadership in school change is the interceding
part Teacher Leaders are critical wellsprings of ability and data. They find
themselves able to draw discriminatingly upon extra assets and aptitude if
obliged and to look for outside help.
d) At last, a fourth and perhaps the most vital measurement of the teacher
leadership part were manufacturing cozy association with individual teachers
through which common learning happens. Different scholars have recognized
further measurements of the teacher leadership part, for example, undertaking
activity exploration (Ash, 2000) affecting companion classroom perception or
adding to the foundation of a shared society in the school. (Mwalala, 2007)
Leadership Styles
In order to understand leadership styles, it is important to go back to have a close look
at various leadership theories those have direct implications for what styles the leader
uses in managing human resources. The term style is roughly equivalent to the manner
in which the leader influences subordinates (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1996). Let us
consider the three more important theories of leadership.
Fiedler's Contingency Theory (1967) classifies the concepts of leadership style
and leadership behaviours. To Fiedler, leadership style is an innate, relatively enduring
attribute of our personality, which provides our motivation and determiners our general
orientation when exercising leadership. Leadership behaviour, on the other hand, refers
to particular acts, which we can perform or not perform if we have the knowledge and
skills and if we judge them appropriate at the time. Fiedler found that task-motivated
leaders tend to be best suited to situations, which are highly favorable while
relationship-motivated leaders are more suitable for moderately favorable situations.
Fielder theory has implications for matching leaders the situations and for encouraging
leaders to modify their situations where possible to ensure consistency with style.
Heresy and Blanchard (1982) proposed in their Situational Theory that
leadership behaviour should be varied according to the maturity of subordinates or
followers. The situation in this theory is thus refined maturity, professional maturity
and psychological maturity. With increasing maturity, a leader should move through
styles of telling, selling, participating, and delegating. Heresy and Blanchard’s theory
appears to have made a worthwhile addition to the repertoire of the school leader.
Evans and House (1971) came up with Path- Goal Theory of leadership which
attempted to explain the impact of leadership behaviour on subordinate motivation,
satisfaction, effort and performance as moderated by the situational factors of the
subordinates and work environment. The theory highlighted directive, supportive,
participative and achievement-oriented styles of leadership depending on various work
situations. After a study of three important theories of leadership, a common factor that
can be traced is that the focus is on production centered with ruthless efficiency while
other emphasize better motivation and work conditions for followers/subordinates to
become more efficient.
There are certain other approaches that directly deal with leadership styles.
Tannenbaum and Schmilt (1973) discuss about a leadership- style continuum. On one
end of the continuum there is boss-centered leadership and on the other end it is
subordinate-centered leadership. The authors identify five typical pattern of leadership

behaviour from their model. They are telling, selling, testing, consulting and joining.
There is a gradual shift from boss-centered leadership to subordinate -centered
leadership. This model can be used to identify various alternative leadership behaviours
available to a school leader and the general classes of factors that are relevant in
selecting an appropriate leadership style to fit a given situation.
Blake and Mouton's (1982) Leadership Grid define two dimensions of
leadership concern for task and concern for people. The grid portrays five key
leadership styles. They are authority -obedience (use of power, authority and control),
country club management (promoting good feelings among colleagues), impoverished
management (doing minimum to stay in the job), organisation man management
(conforming to status quo) and team management (goal- centered approach with broad
involvement of members). This grid can be used to help people analyze the different
possibilities and likely results to be achieved by each of the Grid Styles and select the
one they believe most effective.
Reddin (1970) developed Three-Dimensional Leadership Styles. He has
attempted to integrate the concepts of leadership style with situational demands of a
specific environment. In his opinion effective styles are developer (maximum concern
to relationship and minimum concerns to tasks), executive (equal concern to
relationships and tasks), bureaucrat (mainly interested in rules) and benevolent autocrat
(maximum concern to task and minimum concern to relationship).
Blasé and Anderson (1995) discuss about open and closed leadership styles.
Open styles describe a leadership style characterized by willingness to share power.
Open leaders are also characterized as honest, communicative, participatory and
collegial. Closed style describes a leadership style characterized by an unwillingness to
share power. Closed leaders are also characterized as less accessible, less supportive,
more defensive, more egocentric and more insecure that open leaders. They develop a
number of leadership styles by taking up leadership approaches such as transactional
and transformational and power relations such as power over, power through and power
with. They have developed a micro-political leadership matrix and come up with
following leadership styles:
• Authoritarian Leadership - closed transactional approach in which transaction
is formalized; negotiation is minimal and achieved covertly.
• Adversarial leadership - closed transformative approach in which a leader
though authoritarian looks to be more proactive with a greater appearance of
openness.
• Facilitative Leadership - open transactional approach in which the leader
engages in bureaucratic manipulation towards pre-established goals.
• Democratic /Empowering Leadership - open transformative approach in which
the leader takes democratic decisions and teachers are empowered through
collaboration.
Hargreaves (1994) emphasizes that collegiality, however, needs to be genuine -
spontaneous, voluntary, unpredictable, informal and geared to development. Contrived
collegiality which is administratively regulated, compulsory geared to implement the
mandates of policy maker, fixed in time and place, and designed to have predictable
outcomes cannot be the style of true collegial leaders. Herman and Herman (1994)
describe the school leadership styles in the perspective of change and improvement in
the following manner:
• Autocratic Leadership - good for short-term change but cannot cause long-
term.
• Lassies- Faire Leadership - if change comes from other stakeholders, this
leadership will not resist or obstruct.
• Democratic Leadership - the leader involves others in decisions and is good for
long- term change.
• Positional Leadership - it brings authority and accountability for the leader.
The change depends on attitude of the leader.
• Referent Leadership - the leader gains leadership because of power persons he
/she can utilize. The change depends on clever and subtle use of referent power.
• Informational Leadership - power because of access to high-level information.
Help in making intelligent choices for change.
• Personal Leadership - power gained by person’s charisma or some great
quality. Change is short lived as system is not strengthened.
Peterson (1986) identified four leadership styles, which he labeled
Entrepreneur, Problem selector, Caretaker and Firefighter.
• Entrepreneur is an energetic principal with a strong vision for the direction and
goals of the schools, which is a relatively smooth- running school with low
problem density. He or she is a proactive, supportive and facilitative leader.
• Problem Selector also is a principal with vision but finds him or herself in a
relatively dense problem environment. This type of principal appears proactive
and effective.
• Caretaker is a principal with unclear vision in a school with relatively few
problems, because everything seems to run smoothly. In realty, with litter or on
attention paid to innovation, program improvement, or staff development, the
school is stagnant and declining.

• Firefighter also has unclear (and seemingly uncorrectable) vision in a school
with a high problem density. This principal's strategy is to tackle and instantly
solve each problem as it arises. While the firefighter seems effective - coping
quickly and successfully with many school problems- the result of this style
often is chaos. The firefighter wins the short-term battles but with no regard to
long-range efforts.
After reviewing the available literature related to leadership styles, it has been
seemed that there are two broad educational leadership styles. They are authoritarian
and democratic. Within authoritarian and democratic leadership styles there are
variations. In authoritarian style there are self-centered authoritarians and there are
missionary authoritarians. There are authoritarians who are overt and there are
authoritarian who are covert. One thing is common among authoritarians- they always
want to be in the center- stage and they love to wield power over
followers/subordinates. Their demonstration of power micro-politics may be
pronounced or subtle but they like to keep control in their hands. They generally like to
tell and direct but if necessary, can manipulate the potential of followers to their
advantage. Their vision too is dictated by their own personal experience and reflections.
Self-centered authoritarians like to maintain a distance from followers/
subordinates and wield power by virtue of their office. They, in fact, hide their
professional weaknesses through this distance. They are always in checking and
inspection mode. They love to find faults and weaknesses in their followers and use
them to achieve their personal ends. They create tension and division amongst followers
and thrive on that. Missionary authoritarians don’t believe in dishonesty for their
personal material gains but they are narrow-minded in the sense that they consider
themselves best in intentions, thoughts and work. They tend to become unrealistic
because of a narrow-personalized vision. They like to make their followers dependents
in terms of ideas, functions and future progress.
Overt authoritarians like to be known' as controlling authority. They
demonstrate it through explanations, warning and dismissals. They are cool and
calculated to the extent of cruelty. They express their like and dislike openly. They like
to follow rules and regulations as per book. Humanism is a missing word in their
dictionaries. But they are certainly better than the covert authoritarians. They present
themselves openly and they are what they are. Covert authoritarians are more
dangerous. They pose friendly, understanding and concerned. They encourage
discussion and consultation by manipulates it to their own advantage. They like to mix
up to a certain extent and demonstrate an open-door policy yet their ideas and motives
are fixed and rigid and highly personalized. They are very good at micro-politics and
keep their followers guessing. They are excellent manipulators and excel in the art of
communication.
The other style is democratic and there are also variations in this style. Some
democratic leaders believe in consultation and negotiation but like to keep the final
decision with them. They provide an open forum for discussion, listen patiently, take
notes and make changes in their opinions where necessary but it is more of an
appearance exercise. The main areas of an issue are not allowed much change through
discussion, manipulation and group micro-politics. Some democratic leaders believe in
sharing and participatory approach. They see themselves as team leaders and are ready
to let others lead in certain areas. They follow an open-door policy in the real sense.
They believe in shared vision and shared decision-making. They generally display team
management and empower followers to do their roles in their domains. They don’t
believe in inspection and checking but in support and mentoring.

However, it will be wrong to assume that leaders are strictly divided in black
and white. In fact, they are mostly in gray areas. Situational leadership is generally the
norm in most of the situation. A leader can be authoritarian, democratic, participatory
and manipulative in different situation. Educational leadership is different from
corporate leadership. As the climate and culture is different from corporate, leadership
style is also different. Not only that, even within educational contexts different styles
might be more effective or otherwise. For example, a missionary authoritarian
(benevolent autocrat) is likely to be more successful in a new educational set up where
most of the subordinates need to be trained. Democratic/ empowering may be more
effective comparatively in older and well-organized educational set up where it is a
faculty of almost equals. Transactional leadership (closed democratic or open
authoritarian) may be more suitable for an educational organisation where maintaining
status quo is the main concern.
Leadership of Head teacher and School Performance
Effective leadership is widely accepted as being a key constituent in achieving school
improvement. The evidence from the international literature demonstrates that effective
leaders exercise an indirect but powerful influence on the effectiveness of the school
and on the achievement of students (Leithwood, Jantzi & Mascall, 1999). The quality
of teaching strongly influences levels of pupil’s motivation and achievement. It has
been consistently argued that the quality of leadership matters in determining the
motivation of teachers and the quality of teaching in the classroom (Fullan, 2001;
Segiovanni, 2001). Before seeing the impact of school leadership on school
effectiveness and school improvement, it is necessary to find out that what is the
effective and successful leadership?

2.5.1 Effective and Successful School Leadership
Research on school leaders in Denmark, Scotland, England and Australia by MacBeath
(1998, p. 63) identified a number of characteristics of effective leaders including “good
leaders are in the thick of things, working alongside their colleagues, respecting
teachers’ autonomy, protecting them from extraneous demands and look ahead,
anticipate change and prepare people for it so that it does not surprise or disempowered
them”.
Davis (1998) found two important elements of effective school leadership that
include: establishing a school vision and fostering positive interpersonal relationships.
He also acknowledges that developing a school vision takes time and the principal
should have the ability to determine the status of the school, identify important aspects
of improvement and have a contingency plan to solve problems. In addition to this, they
should be knowledgeable about theory and especially those focusing on organisational
behaviour and leadership. They should possess technical skills needed for managerial
responsibilities and the ability to reflect upon their practices in which they skillfully
integrate knowledge and skills with experience (Kowalski, 1995).
Murphy et al. (2007) asserts that the effective school leaders are particularly
attentive to ensure that there are different mechanisms for teachers to communicate and
work collectively. Awan, Zaidi and Bigger (2008) assert that successful leaders
motivate their subordinate in such a way that they give a hundred percent to achieve
the desired goals of the organization. According to Cruz (1995), effective principals
should communicate with parents, teachers and students and be team builders by
building coalitions between these stakeholders. Furthermore, effective principals are
well aware that there is a disorderly environment and they should address the needs of
the outside groups that are too numerous. They should also encourage a risk-taking
environment by urging their employees to assume responsibility for a task. Besides,
effective principals should possess certain skills in conflict management, active
listening, problem solving and consensus building.
Kowal and Ableidinger (2011, p. 9) identified factors necessary for success for
successful school turnarounds based on research in other sectors as well as successful
turnaround schools. The identified factors include the skills, habits, and behaviors of
turnaround leaders critical to their ability to turn the school around; the series of actions
that education leaders should be able to observe in the school if the turnaround is truly
on track; and the support and flexibility that the school leader receives from the external
environment, including the district and/or the state. Kowal and Hassel (2011) found that
successful leaders in the turnaround setting possess competencies different from
successful leaders in already high-performing organizations. The turnaround leaders
mostly have strong desire to achieve outstanding results and they made task-oriented
actions for success. They motivate others and influence their thinking and behavior to
obtain results. Turnaround leaders cannot accomplish change alone, but instead must
rely on the work of others. They analyze data to inform decisions, make clear, logical
plans that people can follow, and ensure a strong connection between school learning
goals and classroom activity.
A study conducted by Teddlie and Stringfield (1993) in United State describes
effective principals as offering stable and appropriate leadership, using formal and
informal structures, sharing their power, and being willing to respond to external to the
school change. The ineffective principals, by contrast, exhibit unstable, changeable
over- time leadership, using formal structures more than informal, with a lack of staff
involvement and a reluctance to relate either to parents and the community or to the
external educational reform agenda.
Lawlor and Sills (1999) conducted a research to understand successful school
leadership by getting evidence from highly effective head teachers. The salient findings
were as under:
• The ability to work simultaneously on a variety of issues and problems
• Having clear, shared values and vision
• Be prepared to take risks
• Be able to handle feeling lonely, inadequate and threatened
• High levels of knowledge, understanding and confidence
• Appropriate use of structures and systems
• Efficient use of time
• Political awareness and skills
• Having a whole- school perspective and approach
• Commitment to continuing professional development
• The passion and commitment to help pupils make progress
• Effective communication encompassing openness, consulting and listening
• Highly developed personal qualities
Looking closely at the characteristics given above one tends to reach a
conclusion that a school leadership should be a good blend of leadership, management
and administration.
2.5.2 Effect of Leadership on Teachers’ Performance
Researchers from the international fields of school effectiveness and school
improvement have consistently highlighted the importance of leadership in generating

better schools (Hargreaves, Lieberman, Fullan, & Hopkins., 1998; Hopkins, 2001;
Sammons, 1999). Research has also demonstrated the contribution of leadership at
other levels within the school organisation, particularly those in middle leadership
positions (Busher, Harris & Wise, 2000; Harris, 2002). There is a plethora of evidence
to suggest that the quality of leadership positively enhances teaching and learning.
Leadership has been shown to make a difference to the school’s ability to improve by
influencing the motivation of teachers and the quality of teaching which takes place in
the classroom (Fullan, 2001; Sergiovanni, 2001). Hallinger (2011, p. 133) states that,
“the leadership can be an important catalyst and supporting factor for school
improvement”. Leithwood and Riel (2003, p. 3) note, “large scale studies of schooling
conclude that the effects of leadership on student learning are small but educationally
significant’. So school leadership matters; however, the degree to which it matters
remains a contentious issue.
The researchers have made important development in understanding that how
leadership impacts students’ learning (Leithwood et al., 2006, 2010; Robinson et al.,
2008). During the last two decades researchers from different countries took up the
challenge of studying not only instructional leadership (Hallinger, 2010), but also
competing models such as transformational leadership (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000),
distributed leadership (Spillane, 2006), and shared leadership (Hallinger & Heck, 2010;
Heck & Hallinger, 2009). These researchers have tried to define these constructs as well
as examined how leadership contributes to students’ learning (Day et al., 2010;
Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Heck & Hallinger, 2009; Leithwood et al., 2010; Leithwood
et al., 2006; Mulford & Silins, 2009; Robinson et al., 2008).
Leadership for learning explains strategies that school principals employ to
achieve important school outcomes, with a particular emphasis on students’ learning

(Day et al., 2010; Leithwood et al., 2006, 2010; MacBeath & Cheng, 2008; Robinson
et al., 2008). Hallinger and Heck (2010) and Heck and Hallinger (2009, 2010) suggests
more insight into the issue of leadership focus. They tested a variety of different means
by which school leadership could potentially impact students’ learning.
It remains a deep concern that relatively few studies of school leadership have
established any direct causal links between leadership and improved student
performance (Hallinger & Heck, 1996). A systematic review of the literature by Bell,
Bolam & Cabrillo (2003) confirmed that effective leadership was an important factor
in a school’s success but that its effect upon student learning outcomes was largely
indirect. Research on the characteristics of effective schools has consistently stressed
the importance of the quality of the school leadership. Outstanding leadership has been
clearly identified as a key characteristic of outstanding schools (Beare, Caldwell &
Millikan, 1993). A study carried out by Mortimore, Sammons, Stoll, Lewis, & Ecob
(1988) identified the ‘purposeful leadership of the staff by the head teacher as one of
the12 key factors that they believe contributes to effective schooling. Other studies on
school improvement stress the necessity for clear and sensitive leadership by the head
teacher. A report from the National Commission on Education (1995) draws attention
to the importance of the head teacher as a professional leader, supporting the work of
others who suggest that included in the factors associated with effective schools must
be the notion of professional leadership. OFSTED (1995) places the responsibility for
maintaining school effectiveness firmly on the heads stating that it is head teachers
“who are responsible for the quality of teaching in their schools and that heads ought to
see their roles as one of monitoring and raising standards”.

2.5.2.1 Effect of leadership on student outcomes
In the last three decades, researchers have given much importance to school leadership
and its impact on student outcomes. They have tried to identify relationships between
school leadership and students’ achievement (Kythreotis, Pashiardis & Kyriakides,
2010). Studies have shown that school leadership impacts student outcomes indirectly,
by creating the conditions that support teachers’ capability to teach and students’
learning (Leithwood et al., 2007; Porter et al., 2010) rather than directly (Robinson et
al., 2008). These conditions include high standards for student learning, quality
instruction, a culture of learning and professional behavior, connections to external
communities, and performance accountability (Porter et al., 2010). Teachers’
commitment and motivation have been studied mostly as a mediating factor between
school leadership and students’ learning outcomes (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006;
Leithwood & Mascall, 2008; Robinson et al., 2008).
Leithwood et al. (2010) and Robinson et al (2008) also affirmed that leadership
does not directly affect student learning; rather, its affect is mediated by school level
processes and conditions. Moreover, school leadership both influences and is
influenced by these school level conditions (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Mulford & Silins,
2009). Hallinger and Heck (1996) as well as OECD report (2001, p. 3), concluded that,
“the relationship between strong leadership and good student results is not a direct one.
Good leadership helps foster the kind of school climate in which learning flourishes,
rather than directly inspiring students to achieve”. Organisational learning, or a
collective teacher efficacy, is the important intervening variable between leadership and
teacher work and then student outcomes. That is, leadership contributes to
organizational learning, which in turn influences what happens in the core business of
the school - the teaching and learning. It influences the way students perceive teachers
organise and conduct their instruction, and their educational interactions with, and
expectations for their students. Pupils’ positive perceptions of teachers’ work directly
promote participation in school, academic self-concept and engagement with school.
Reviews of research suggest that successful school leaders influence student
achievement in several important ways, through their influence on other people and on
their organisations. Evidence suggests that school leadership strongly affects student
learning (Leithwood, Seashore- Louis, Anderson and Wahlstrom, 2004). Principals’
abilities are central to the task of building schools that promote powerful teaching and
learning for all students (Orr, 2003). Research provides useful direction on effective
leadership practices that are most critical for school improvement work, and the priority
areas of such work and organisational change. The first has been to establish
appropriate student outcomes, the most common being student achievement and student
engagement (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). When considering the impact of leadership,
however, much of the research stresses that leadership effects on these outcomes is
largely mediated through effective work of teachers and the school as a whole
(Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004; Leithwood & Reihl, 2005). These
mediating effects, according to Leithwood and Jantzi’s (2005) synthesis of existing
research, include teacher job satisfaction, organisational commitment to purpose and
change, improved teaching practices, distributed leadership, a school learning culture,
quality content and instruction and organisational learning practices and environment.
According to Leithwood and Jantzi (2005), various studies found a positive
relationship among these factors and student outcomes, and that these factors are
influenced by effective leadership practices. Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) showed
further in their analysis that the most critical leadership practices are setting direction
(through vision, goals and expectations), helping individual teachers (through support
and modeling), redesigning the organisation (to foster collaboration and engage
families and community), and organisational management (providing organisational
resources and support).
2.5.2.2 Effect of Leadership on school effectiveness
Leadership has been found to be important in creating positive, innovative learning
cultures and the facilitation of quality teaching and learning (Review of Teaching and
Teacher Education, 2003, p. 24). It has been recognised that a positive school culture
can take years to develop, with there being powerful, yet hard to discern deeply rooted
causes and manifestations of school culture. Leadership is highly influential in the
development of such cultures (Schein, 1985). However, leadership succession is also a
key issue. Hargreaves and Fink (2004) note how highly successful and dynamic schools
can quickly decline with the departure of an effective leader. They also note that deeper,
more lasting change is preferable to brief, temporary “flurries of change” (Hargreaves
& Fink, 2004, p. 8) in building the foundation for more lasting improvement.
Research in a number of countries has demonstrated that leadership is also a key
factor influencing teachers’ occupational satisfaction (Dinham & Scott, 2000); in turn
a powerful determinant of teachers’ professional growth and the quality of teaching and
learning in a school.
2.5.3 Leadership Styles and Teachers’ Performance
After reviewing literature on school leadership, school effectiveness and school
improvement, it is important to see as to how school leadership impact or is impacted
by school effectiveness and school improvement. Fullan (1991) says, “the school is an
organisation and organisation change more effectively when their heads play active
roles in helping to lead improvement”.
As far as the different styles of leadership are concerned, research findings
demonstrate that principals with very different personalities and styles can be equally
effective. Wilson and Corcoran's (1988) study of a large number of effective secondary
schools is a case in point and they say that when most striking about this collection of
schools is their diversity of leadership styles. No one leadership style appears to be
dominant. What seems to matter more is the fit between the style of the principal and
the various subcultures in the school community. In some cases, there are an
orchestrating everything. In other cases, the principals are collegial and low-key relying
on persuasion, delegation, and their ability to select and develop strong faculty
members.
Smith and Andres' (1989) portrayal of seven effective instructional leaders
provides similar insights. Some were strong, aggressive and fearless; other quiet,
nurturing, supportive. All, however, paid attention to the four main task areas examined
by Smith and Andres (resource provider, instructional resource, communicator, visible
presence) but they did it with different methods and styles depending on their
personality and setting.
2.5.3.1 Democratic leadership and teachers’ performance
A study funded by the National College for School Leadership was conducted by Harris
and Chapman (2002) in England that explored successful leadership practices and
school improvement strategies in a group of secondary schools in challenging
circumstances (SFCC). The findings of the study have shown that the principals had
chosen a form of leadership to move the school forward that empowered others to lead.
They modeled teacher leadership through empowering and encouraging others and
communicated their vision through relationships with staff and students. The vision and
practices of these principals were organized around personal values such as modeling
and promotion of respect for individual; fairness and equality; caring for well-being
and whole development of students and staff; integrity and honesty. They used a
number of strategies for bringing out the best in staff e.g. the power of praise; involving
others in decision making and giving professional autonomy. Their emphasis was on
the continuing development of their staff and placed a particular emphasis upon
generating positive relationships with parents and community. These findings revealed
that these principles exercised a form of leadership that is democratic and centrally
concerned with giving others the responsibility to lead.
Harris (2002, p.11) argues that democratic leadership styles are inevitable in the
complex and rapidly changing world inhabited by schools in the 21st century, despite
the current emphasis on individual leaders. She states:
It is easier, far easier, to point the finger of accountability in the direction of one
person than to acknowledge that leadership is collective, shared and distributed
throughout the organisation. To cope with the unprecedented rate of change in
education requires... establishing new models of leadership that locate power with the
many rather than the few.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter deals with methodology and procedure engaged in the current research
study. This includes research design, population, sample and sampling procedure,
instrument development and pilot testing of the instrument.
Nature of the Study
This research is descriptive in nature as it describes the present situation of the
phenomenon.
Research Design
Survey research design was employed to carry out this research. Data were collected
by using quantitative research approach to measure effect of heads’ leadership style on
teachers’ performance in government secondary schools.
Population of the Study
This study was conducted to identify the effect of heads’ leadership style on teachers’
performance in government secondary schools. All the secondary schools of the Kasur
district constituted the population of this study.
Sample and Sampling Procedure

Sample was drawn in two stages; first schools were selected using stratified random
sampling technique. In this regard, the variables of gender and school location
(rural/urban) were given due representation (25% each). Overall, 100 secondary
schools were selected from the list of the government secondary schools which was
obtained from the office of District Education Officers (SE) of Kasur districts. After
that the head teachers of these selected schools included in the sample of the study.
Instrumentation
After the review of literature and discussion with supervisor, the researcher developed
a questionnaire to collect the data from head teachers having two parts: Biographical
Information and Leadership Styles Identification Scale. Biographical information
included their name, gender, locality (rural/urban); academic and professional
qualifications; teaching and administrative experience of the head teachers. The second
part contained the items related to the different behaviours of head teachers that they
practiced while managing their schools. They were asked to respond that how
frequently they practiced their different behaviors as a head teacher. They were asked
to respond at 5- point Likert scale ranging from ‘1’ indicating never to ‘5’ indicating
always in terms of how frequently they practiced each behavior.
Validation of the Instrument
Validity of the instruments (questionnaire) was ensured through experts’ opinions and
pilot testing. After development of instruments, these were presented to four relevant
professionals for their expert opinions. They pointed out some ambiguities in the
format, sequence and language of the items. These were discussed with supervisor and
improved all the instruments accordingly.

After improving these instruments, pilot study was carried out to determine the
reliability of the instruments in three schools. The head teachers of selected schools
were given these instruments. The convenient sampling technique was used for the
selection of schools. These head teachers were not included in the actual/large scale
study. After getting the responses of the respondents, the item analysis was run using
the SPSS. To estimate the reliability coefficient of the instruments Cronbach Alpha
method was determined. The computed value of alpha was = 0.923, which was
acceptable according to the criteria as given by Gay (2002).
Data Collection
The researcher personally collected data from the respondents. The researcher visited
the schools personally and distributed the questionnaires among the participants. The
questionnaires were collected after one week on the second visit. Approximately 94%
questionnaires were received back from the participants, which was quite encouraging.
All moral concern was reserved in notice while gathering the data; members were
guaranteed of privacy and secrecy. They were educated about the determination of
research and were requested to participate voluntarily with free will.
Data Analysis
Quantitative data were analyzed with the help of SPSS (statistical package for social
sciences). Mean response values, t test and Linear Regression Analysis were employed
to know about the head teachers’ leadership styles. Leadership styles were measured
with mean response values. T test was used to measure the difference between gender
and academic qualifications. To examine causal relationship between Heads’

Leadership Style leadership and teachers’ Performance Linear Regression Analysis test
was applied and following null hypothesis was tested.

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Head Teachers Autocratic Leadership Style in Government
Secondary Schools
Table 4.1: Mean Values of the Responses of Head Teachers’ Autocratic Leadership
Style
Statements % of Responses
Interpretation
Autocratic Leadership
Occasional
Style
Always
Rarely
Never
Often
MRVs
I enjoy the authority that 4.40 9.00 10.70 51.20 24.70 3.83
my leadership position Strong
holds over my all staff Beliefs
members
I consider the suggestions 3.60 6.90 11.00 62.40 16.20 3.81

of the employees while Strong
making a decision Beliefs
I tell my employees what 1.60 7.40 11.30 43.40 36.30 4.05

has to be done and how to Strong
do it. Beliefs
I delegate tasks in order to 2.80 9.20 19.00 51.40 17.60 3.71 Strong
implement a new Beliefs
procedure or process
I allow my employees to 3.60 14.80 12.80 49.70 19.00 3.66 Strong

set priorities with my Beliefs
guidance
I like to use my authority 23.10 40.30 9.70 16.30 10.60 3.95 Strong
to help subordinate to Beliefs
develop their skill
I allow my staff members 5.00 14.90 21.20 49.00 9.90 3.44

to set their priorities Occasio
related school matters nally
with my guidance belief
Table 4.1 shows the analysis of head teachers leadership style in government
schools at secondary level related to autocratic leadership by computing mean response
values as belief statements and revealed that head teachers strongly believed that they
enjoy the authority that their leadership position holds over their all staff members,
consider the suggestions of the employees while making a decision, tell their employees
what has to be done and how to do it., delegate tasks in order to implement a new
procedure or process, allow their employees to set priorities with their guidance and
they also like to use their authority to help subordinate to develop their skill
(3.5<MRV<4.5). Data revealed that head teachers are about occasionally believed that
they allow their staff members to set their priorities related school matters with their
guidance (2.5 < MRV<3.5).

Head Teachers Democratic Leadership Style in Government
Secondary Schools
Table 4.2: Mean Values of the Responses of Head Teachers’ Democratic Leadership
Style
Interpretation
Democratic
Occasional
Leadership Style
Always
Rarely
Never
Often
MRVs
I involve my Teachers in 3.80 9.10 9.60 49.70 27.70 3.88

decisions about school Strong
academic performance Beliefs
I get opinion from my 3.60 12.60 19.30 47.30 17.10 3.62

staff while facing
student/Teachers’ Strong
disciplinary issues Beliefs
I receive my 1.70 9.90 9.90 51.90 26.50 3.91

subordinate’s opinion Strong
before making academic
environmental change in Beliefs
school
I encourage the feedback 2.20 9.00 13.40 44.80 30.50 3.92 Strong
from parents for the Beliefs
betterment of the school
I have created 2.00 8.70 13.00 49.90 26.50 3.90 Strong

environment in school, Beliefs
which my staff/students
feel part of it
I call a meeting to solve 3.60 12.60 19.30 47.30 17.10 3.62

students learning
Strong
problems Beliefs
I believe in election to 16.0 35.1 11.9 25.4 11.6 2.81 Occasio

constitute of School nally
Management Committee belief
from the community
We collectively (SMC, 16.9 27.0 19.7 27.0 9.6 2.85 Occasio

Staff) make effort to nally
implement school belief
improvement plan
Table 4.2 shows the analysis of head teachers leadership style in government
schools at secondary level related to democratic leadership by computing mean
response values as belief statements and revealed that teachers strongly believed that
They involve their Teachers in decisions about school academic performance, get
opinion from their staff while facing student/Teachers disciplinary issues, receive their
subordinate’s opinion before making academic environmental change in school,
encourage the feedback from parents for the betterment of the school, have created
environment in school, which my staff/students feel part of it, and they call a meeting
to solve students learning problems (3.5<MRV<4.5). Data revealed that had teachers
occasionally believed in election to constitute of School Management Committee from
the community and also they collectively (SMC, Staff) make effort to implement school
improvement plan (2.5 < MRV<3.5).

Head Teachers Laisses-fair Leadership Style in Government
Secondary Schools
Table 4.3: Mean Values of the Responses of Head Teachers’ Laisses-fair Leadership
Style
Interpretation
Laisses-fair style
Occasional
Always
Rarely
Never
Often
MRVs
I am content to let my 1.60 8.20 9.30 49.60 31.20 4.01 Strong

staff continue working Beliefs
in school in the same
way as always
I let subordinates to 9.7 17.0 27.0 28.7 17.3 3.41 Occasiona

resolve work problems lly belief
on their own
I never bother what my 7.7 30.0 20.3 31.7 10.3 3.07 Occasiona
staff member does in lly belief
school unless it is anti-
administration
My staff member 12.0 29.0 24.0 20.3 14.3 3.06 Occasiona

knows more about their lly belief
duty than me
All my staff has the 10.7 12.7 16.3 39.3 21.0 3.47 Occasiona
right to determine their lly belief
own strategies to
improve students’
results
My subordinates 14.0 30.7 25.7 20.0 9.7 2.81 Occasiona

appraise their own lly belief
work
All members of the 12.0 23.7 24.7 28.0 11.7 3.04 Occasiona
staff know how to use lly belief
creativity and ingenuity
to solve the problems
of students in school
My staff member can 10.7 22.4 17.7 32.1 17.1 3.22 Occasiona
lead themselves in a lly belief
way as I do
Table 4.3 reveals the analysis of head teacher’s leadership style in government
schools at secondary level related to laisses-fair style of leadership by computing mean
response values as belief statements which revealed that head teachers strongly believed
that they are content to let their staff continue working in school in the same way as
always (3.5<MRV<4.5). Data revealed that head teachers occasionally believed in they
let subordinates to resolve work problems on their own, never bother what their staff
member does in school unless it is anti-administration, their staff member know more
about their duty than them, All their staff has the right to determine their own strategies
to improve students’ results, their subordinates appraise their own work, All members
of the staff know how to use creativity and ingenuity to solve the problems of students
in school and their staff member can lead themselves in a way as they do (2.5 <
MRV<3.5).
Comparison between Head teachers’ Leadership Style in
Government Secondary Schools on Gender Basis
Ho1 There is no significant difference between mean scores of male and female head
teachers’ beliefs about Leadership Style in Government Secondary Schools
Table 4.4: Comparison between Head teachers’ Leadership Style in Government

Secondary Schools on Gender Basis
Variable Group N Mean SD T Sig.

Heads
Male 48 3.47 .88728
Leadership -.447 .702
styles Female 46 3.52 .89020
* Significant at 0.05 level
It is evident from the table 4.4 p value (.702) shows that it is greater than the
level of significance 0.05. For that reason, the null hypothesis is failed to reject which
means that there is no significant difference between mean scores of male and female
head teachers’ beliefs about leadership style in government secondary schools.
Therefore, it is concluded that both male and female head teachers have similar beliefs
about leadership style in government secondary schools.
Comparison between Heads’ Leadership Style in Government
Secondary Schools on Rural and Urban Basis
about leadership style working in rural and urban secondary schools

Schools on Rural and Urban Basis
Variable Group N Mean SD T Sig.

Heads’
Urban 18 3.57 .98517
Leadership -1.277 .014
Styles Rural 76 3.71 .91558
It is evident from the table 4.5 p value (.01) shows that it is less than the level
of significance 0.05. For that reason, the null hypothesis is rejected which means that
there is a significant difference between urban and rural there is a significant difference
between mean scores of urban and rural head teachers’ beliefs about leadership style in
public secondary schools. Therefore, it is concluded that head teachers working in
urban and rural secondary schools do not have similar beliefs about leadership style.
Head teachers working in urban school have strong leadership beliefs as compared to
head teachers working in rural secondary schools.

Comparison between Heads’ Leadership Style in Government
Secondary Schools on the basis of Academic Qualification
about Leadership Style on the Basis of Academic Qualification

Schools on the Basis of Academic Qualification
Academic. N Mean SD
Qualification
t-value Sig.(2-tailed)
Total M. Sc. 55 3.2208 .89474 -5.810 0.000
96 M.A 41 3.9293 .82974
Table 4.6 shows that significant value (0.000) with df 298 was less than 0.05
significance level. So the null hypothesis has been rejected which means that there is a
significant difference between mean scores of head teachers’ leadership style on the
basis of academic qualifications of M.A and M.Sc. working in public secondary
schools. Hence it can be concluded that head teachers having academic qualifications
of M. Sc. have strong beliefs about leadership style.

Effect of Head teachers’ Leadership Style on Teachers’
Performance
To examine causal relationship between heads’ leadership style leadership and
teachers’ performance Linear Regression Analysis test was applied.
Ho4 There is no significant effect of head teachers’ leadership style on teachers’
Performance
Table 4.7: Effect of Heads’ Leadership Style on Teachers’ Performance
Teachers’ Performance
Variable R Df T sig.
Heads’ Leadership Style 0.378 299 13.460 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Heads’ Leadership Style
b. Dependent Variable: Teachers’ Performance
It is evident from the table 4.7 that the null hypothesis is rejected, because t (df 299) =
13.460, p< .001. So, it is concluded that there is a significant effect of heads’ leadership
style on teachers’ performance. From this analysis it is exposed that heads’ leadership
style is an important independent variable in relation to the teachers’ performance with
the public secondary schools. From the above table R2 value (.378) multiply by 100 like
.378 X 100 then we got 38 %, which shows that 38 % of variance in teachers’
performance is due to Heads’ Leadership Style.

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter encloses a concise summary of the study, findings, conclusion discussion
and recommendations of the study. This study was conducted to explore to effect of
heads’ leadership style on teachers’ performance in government secondary schools.
SUMMARY
The researcher carried out a study to explore the effect of heads’ leadership style on
teachers’ performance in government secondary schools. One hundred head teachers
were selected through stratified random sampling. It is a descriptive in nature so the
researcher prepared one questionnaire for the collection of data. The researcher himself
developed the survey questionnaire. This questionnaire comprised with three factors of
leadership style as autocratic leadership style, democratic leadership style and laisses-
fair leadership style. And for the performance of the teachers the result of SSC is
analyzed of each school. This survey questionnaire was pilot tested by administrating
to three head teachers. The validity of this questionnaire was recognized through expert
judgment. The reliability of this questionnaire was analyzed by Cronbach’s Alpha. The
reliability of Head teachers, leadership style Cronbach’s Alpha was .93.
Mean response values, t test and Linear Regression Analysis were employed to
know about the head teachers’ leadership styles and its effect on teacher’s performance.
Findings of the study revealed that majority of the head teachers strongly believed on
democratic and autocratic leadership style in government secondary schools. There is
no significant difference between mean scores of male and female head teachers’
beliefs about leadership style in government secondary schools. Findings also revealed
that there is a significant effect of head teachers’ leadership style on teachers’
performance.
Findings
5.2.1 Head teachers’ Leadership Styles
Secondary school head teachers’ leadership styles about autocratic leadership style,
democratic leadership style and laisses-fair leadership style were solicited on 23
statements. Responses were analyzed by computing the mean responses value (MRVs).
Finding of the responses is given below.
1. Majority of head teachers responded strongly believed on autocratic leadership
style in government secondary schools (3.5<MRV<4.5).
2. Majority of head teachers responded strongly believed on democratic leadership
style in government secondary schools (3.5<MRV<4.5).
3. Majority of head teachers responded occasionally believed on lassis-fair
leadership style in government secondary schools (2.5<MRV<3.5).
5.2.2 Findings of Comparison and Effect of Variables
1. There is no significant difference between mean scores of male and female head
teachers’ beliefs about leadership style in government secondary schools

2. There is a significant difference between mean scores of urban and rural head
teachers’ beliefs about leadership style in public secondary schools
3. There is a significant difference between mean scores of head teachers’
leadership style on the basis of academic qualifications of M.A and M.Sc.
working in public secondary schools
4. There is no significant difference in the mean scores of head teachers about
leadership style on the biases of professional qualification
5. There is a significant effect of heads’ leadership style on teachers’ performance.
Conclusions
1. There is no significant difference between mean scores of male and female head
teachers’ beliefs about leadership style in government secondary schools.
Therefore, we conclude that both male and female head teachers have similar
beliefs about leadership style in government secondary schools.
2. There is a significant difference between urban and rural head teachers’ beliefs
about leadership style in public secondary schools. Therefore, it is concluded
that head teachers working in public secondary school do not have similar
beliefs about leadership style. Head teachers’ workings in urban schools have
strong leadership beliefs.
3. There is a significant difference between mean scores of head teachers’
leadership style on the basis of academic qualifications of M.A and M.Sc.
working in public secondary schools. Hence it can be concluded that head
teachers having academic qualifications of M Sc. have strong beliefs about
leadership style.
4. There is a significant effect of heads’ leadership style on teachers’ performance.
From the analysis it is revealed that heads’ leadership style is an important
independent variable in relation to the teachers’ performance with the public
secondary schools.
Discussion
The current study is an attempt to explore the effect of heads’ leadership style on
teachers’ performance in government secondary schools. The researcher believes that
finding of this study will contribute a lot to the existing body of knowledge in the field
of education in a very helpful manner. As far as the results on gender are concerned,
the result showed that there is no significant difference between mean scores of male
and female head teachers’ beliefs about leadership style in government secondary
schools, which means both male and female head teachers have similar beliefs about
leadership style in government secondary schools.
Effective school leadership is a basic principle for the success of the school, as
a result of a school depends on the quality of leadership. As a current popular form of
leadership, leadership styles such as autocratic, democratic, lassies-fair, transactional
and transformational styles focus on the management of all team members in a school
(Salahuddin, 2011). Previous researches show that the model of the singular, heroic
leader is at last being replaced with leadership that is focused upon teams rather than
individuals and places a greater emphasis upon teacher as leaders (Harris, 2005). All
these previous researches and the results of present study make evident for the effective
results and the school improvement it is necessary that Leadership in education required
a culture of exchange of energy, commitment and contribution of all those who work
there to succeed with their leadership responsibilities (Salahuddin, 2011).

The present study explored that p value (p< .001) clearly makes apparent that
there is a significant effect of head’ leadership styles on teachers’ performance. Angelle
(2010) affirmed that leadership styles are the “effective, reliable, and appropriate ways
to attain the objectives and for the fulfillment of the task as well as educational
achievement and performance of the teachers”. Results of the current study and
previous most recent studies have put emphasis on the importance of nurturing an
environment where transformation is appreciated and needed. In the United States,
Canada and Australia, the idea of leadership "styles" is gaining fame.
Recommendations
After analysis of results of study following recommendations were drawn.
1. Leadership style must be appreciated and encouraged at all educational levels
to make a change.
2. A culture must be developed for exchange of energy, commitment and
contribution of all those who work there to succeed with their leadership
responsibilities.
3. It is recommended that the status quo view of singular leadership where it is
considered still necessary must be abolished.
More advanced research studies must be conducted in this regard that How Heads’
Leadership Works in Schools?

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allix, N.M. (2000). Transformational leadership: Democratic or despotic? Educational

Management and Administration, 28(1), 7–20.
Awan, R.N., Zaidi, N.R. & Bigger, S. (2008). Relationships between higher education
leaders and subordinates in Pakistan: a Path-Goal approach. Bulletin of
Education and Research, 30 (2), 29-44.
Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B. (1997). The full range leadership development manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden Inc.
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research and
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Beare, H., Caldwell, B. & Millikan, R. (1993). Leadership. In M. Preedy (Ed.),
Managing the effective school. London: Paul Chapman.
Bell, L., Bolam, R., & Cabrillo (2003). A systematic review of the impact of school head
teachers and principals on student outcomes. London: Institute of Education.
Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.
Berlew, T. & Hall, F. (1988). Pygmalion effect of first-time bosses. Harvard Business
Review, 62(3), 150-168.
Blake, R. & Mouton J.S. (1982). Management by grid principles or situationalism:
Which group and organization studies. Texas: Publishing Company Book
Division.
Blasé, J. & Anderson, G. (1995). The micro politics of educational leadership. London:
Cassell.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J.R. (1998). Handbook of instructional leadership: How really good
principals promote teaching and learning. London: SAGE.
Brown, S., Riddell, S. & Duffield, J. (1996). Possibilities and problems of small-scale
studies to unpack the findings of large-scale studies of school effectiveness.
In J. Burns, B. (1996). Managing change (2nd ed.). London: Pitman.
Bush, T. (1995). Theories of educational management (2nd ed.). London: Paul
Chapman
Bush, T. (1998). The national professional qualification for headship: The key to
effective school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 18(3) 321–
34.
Busher, H., Harris, A. & Wise, C. (2000). Subject leadership and school improvement.
London: Paul Chapman.
Carlson, R.V. (1996). Reframing and reform. New York: Longman.
Cheng, V.C. (1996). School effectiveness and school-based management. London: The
Flamer Press.
Chirichello, M. (1999). Building capacity for change: Transformational leadership for
school principals. Paper presented at the 12th Annual International Congress
for School Effectiveness and Improvement, San Antonio, TX.
Clark, K.E. & Clark, M.B. (1996). Choosing to lead. Greensboro, NC: Centre for
Creative Leadership.
Covey, S. R. (1992). Principal centered leadership. London: Simon and Schuster.
Crowther, F., Ferguson, M. & Hann, L. (2008). Developing teacher leaders: how
teacher leadership enhances school success. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin
Press.
Cruz, J. (1995). Effective principals: A superintendent’s perspective. Thrust for
Educational Leadership, 15(7), 15-21. Retrieved from EBSCO database form
the World Wide Web http://www.ebsco.com on March 17, 2004.
Cuban, I. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools.
Albany, NY: University of New York Press.
Cunningham, W.G. & Corderio, P.A. (2006). Educational leadership: A problem-based
approach (3rd ed.). USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Davis, S.H. (1998). The truth about visionary leadership. Thrust for Educational
Leadership, 10(2), 9-15. Retrieved from EBSCO database on the World Wide
Web: http://www.ebsco.com on September 02, 2005.
Day, C. (2000). Beyond transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 57(7),
56-59.
Day, C., Sammons, P., Leithwood, K., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Gu, Q. & Brown, E.
(2010). Ten strong claims about successful school leadership. Nottingham:
The National College for School Leadership.
Dinham, S. & Scott, C. (2000). Moving into the third, outer domain of teacher
satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 38 (4), 379-96.
Dubrin, A.J. (1995). Leadership: Research findings, practice and skills. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Dubrin, A.J. (1997). Fundamentals of organizational behavior. Ohio: Southwestern
College Publishing.
Durbin, M.K. (2001). The relationship of high school size, school achievement and pre-
pupil expenditure in South Carolina. PhD Thesis, University of South
Carolina.
Evans, M. & House, R.J. (1971). A Path-Goal theory of leadership effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-338.
Eyal, O. & Roth, G. (2011). Principals’ leadership and teachers’ motivation: self-
determination theory analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 49 (3),
256-275
Fiedler, F. & Chemers, M. (1984). Improving leadership effectiveness: The leader
match concept. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw Hill.
Fiedler, F.E. & Garcia, J.E. (1987). New approaches to effective leadership: Cognitive
resources and organizational performance. New York: John Wiley.
Fleishman, E. & Hunt, J. (1973). Current developments in the study of leadership.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational
Management and Administration, 28(3), 317-338.
Gunter, H. (2001). Leaders and leadership in education. London: Paul Chapman.
Hallinger, P. & Heck, R.H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement:
understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School
Leadership and Management, 30 (2), 95-110.
Hallinger, P. (2010). A review of three decades of doctoral studies using the principal
instructional management rating scale: a lens on methodological progress in
educational leadership and management. Paper prepared for presentation at
the Annual Meeting of the University Council of Educational Administration,
New Orleans, LA.
Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical
research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49 (2), 125-142.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R.H. (1996). The principal’s role in school effectiveness: An
assessment of methodological progress, 1980–1995. In K. Liethwood, J.
Chapman, D. Corsan, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook
of educational leadership and administration (Vol. 2). Dordrecht and London:
Kluwer.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior
of principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247.
Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2004). The seven principles of sustainable leadership.
Educational Leadership, 61 (7), 8-13.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture
in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.
Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., & Hopkins, D. (1998). The international
handbook of educational change (Vol. 4). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Harris, A. & Chapman, C. (2002). Effective leadership in schools facing challenging
circumstances. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership
(NCSL).
Harris, A. (2002). Distributed Leadership: Leading or Misleading? Keynote Address at
Annual Conference, BELMAS, Aston University.
Harris, A. (2005). Crossing boundaries and breaking barriers: Distributing leadership
in schools: Specialist Schools Trust. Retrieved from http://www.sst-inet.net
on May 11, 2007.
Heck, R.H. & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership
to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American
Educational Research Journal, 46 (3), 626-58.
Heck, R.H. & Hallinger, P. (2010). Collaborative leadership effects on school
improvement: integrating unidirectional and reciprocal-effects models. The
Elementary School Journal, 111 (2), 226-52.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. (1993). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing
human resources. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. & Johnson, D. (1996). Management of organizational
behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hopkins, D. (2001). School improvement for real. London: Falmer Press.
House, R. & Boetz, M. (1990). Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new
research directions. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
House, R. (1971). A path-goal theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 16, 321-339. 253
Johns, G. (1996). Organizational behaviour.Concordia: Harper Collins College
Publishers.
Kowal, J., & Ableidinger, J. (Public Impact). (2011). Leading indicators of school
turnarounds: How to know when dramatic change is on track. Charlottesville:
University of Virginia’s Darden/Curry Partnership for Leaders in Education.
Retrieved on 12 August 2012 from www.DardenCurry.org
Kowal, J., & Hassel, E. A. (Public Impact). (2011). Importing leaders for school
turnarounds: Lessons and opportunities. Charlottesville: University of
Virginia’s Darden/Curry Partnership for Leaders in Education. Retrieved on
12 August 2012 from: www.dardencurry.org
Kowalski, T.J. (1995). Case studies on educational administration. New York:
Longman.
Kreitner, R., & Knicki, A. (1995). Organizational behavior. (3rd ed.) Chicago: Irwin.
Kurland, H., Peretz, H. & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2010). Leadership style and
organizational learning: the mediate effect of school vision. Journal of
Educational Administration, 48 (1), 7-30.
Kythreotis, A., Pashiardis, P. & Kyriakides, L. (2010). The influence of school
leadership styles and culture on students’ achievement in Cyprus primary
schools. Journal of Educational Administration 48 (2), 218-240.
Lambert, L., Waller, D., Zimmerman, D., Copper, J., Lambert, M., Gardner, M, &
Slack, P. (1995). The constructivist leader. Columbia: Teacher College Press.
Leithwood, A., Jantzi, D. & Mascall, B. (1999). Large scale reform: What works?
Submitted as part of the external evaluation of the UK National Literacy &
Numeracy Strategy, Toronto, Ontario: Institute for Studies in Education.
Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on
organizational conditions and student engagement with the school. Journal of
Educational Administration, 38 (2), 112-29.
Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership
research 1996-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4 (3), 177-99.
Leithwood, K. & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student
achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (4), 529-61.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.
Leithwood, K., & Reil, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership.
Brief prepared for the Task Force on Developing Research in Educational
Leadership. Dividion A: American Educational Research Association,
Temple University.
eithwood, K., Anderson, S., Mascall, B. & Strauss, T. (2010). School leaders’
influences on student learning: the four paths, in T. Bush, L. Bell & D.
Middlewood (Eds.). The principles of educational leadership and
management. London: Sage Publications.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D. & Harris, A. (2006). Successful
school leadership: what it is and how it influences pupil learning. London:
Department for Education and Skills.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing
times. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N. & Yashkina, A. (2007).
Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: taking the ego out of the
system. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6 (1), 37-67.
Luenburg, F.C. & Ornstein, C.A. (1996). Educational administration: Concept and
practice. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
MacBeath, J. & Cheng, Y.C. (2008). Leadership for learning: international
perspectives. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
MacBeath, J. (Ed.). (1998). Effective school leadership: Responding to change.
London: Paul Chapman.
Miller, T.W. & Miller, J.M. (2001). Educational leadership in the new millennium: A
vision for 2020. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4 (2), 181
– 189.
onahan, W.G., & Hengst, H.R. (1982). Contemporary educational administration. New
York: MacMillan.
Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D., & Ecob, R. (1988). School matters.
Wells, England: Open Books.
Mulford, B. & Silins, H. (2009). Revised models and conceptualization of successful
school principalship in Tasmania, in B. Mulford & B. Edmunds (Eds.).
Successful school principalship in Tasmania. Launceston: Faculty of
Education, University of Tasmania.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S.N., Goldring, E. & Porter, A.C. (2007). Leadership for learning:
a research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors. School Leadership and
Management, 27(2), 179-201.
Myers, E. & Murphy, J. (1995). Suburban secondary school principals’ perceptions of
administrative control in schools. Journal of Educational Administration,
33(3), 14-37.
National Commission on Education (1995). Success against the odds. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Neuman, M. & Simmons, W. (2000). Leadership for student learning. Phi Delta
Kappan, 82, 9-12.
Northhouse, P.G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
OECD. (2001). New school management approaches. Paris: OECD.
Office for Standards in Education (1995). Teaching quality: The primary debate.
London: OFSTED.
Orr, M. T. (2003, April). Evaluating educational leadership development: Measuring
leadership, its development and its impact. Presentation at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Oxford University Press (1933). Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). London: Oxford
University Press.
Pollard-Durodola, S (2003). Wesley elementary: A beacon of hope for at-risk students.
Education and Urban Society, 36(1), 94-117.
Porter, A.C., Polikoff, M.S., Goldring, E., Murphy, J., Elliott, S.N. & May, H. (2010).
Developing a psychometrically sound assessment of school leadership: the
VAL-ED as a case study. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46 (2), 135-
73.
Reddin, W. (1970). Managerial effectiveness. New York: McGraw Hill.
Review of Teaching and Teacher Education (2003). Australia’s teachers: Australia’s
future advancing innovation, science, technology and mathematics main
report”, DEST, Canberra.
Robbins, S.P. (1998). Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies and
applications (8th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Robinson, V., Lloyd, C. & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: an analysis of the differential effects of leadership types.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (5), 635-74.
Sadler, P. (1997). Leadership. London: Kogan.
Sammons, P. (1999). School effectiveness: Coming of age in the twenty-first century.
Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
CA.
Southworth, G. (2002). Lessons from successful small school leadership. In K.
Leithwood, P. Hallinger, G. Furman-Brown, B. Mulford, P. Gronn, W. Riley
& L. Seashore-Louis (Eds). Second handbook of educational leadership and
administration. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Starratt, R.J. (2001). Democratic leadership theory in schools: Reflections and
empirical evidence. School Leadership and Management, 22(1), 73–92.
Stewart, J. (2006). Transformational leadership: an evolving concept examined through
the works of Burns, Bass, Avolio and Leithwood. Canadian Journal of
Educational Administration and Policy, 54, -------- Retrieved on 20 June 2007
from: www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/pdf_files/stewart.pdf.
Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the
literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.
Stogdill, R.M. (1981). Traits of leadership: A follow-up to 1970. In B. Bass (Ed.),
Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.
Teddlie, C. & Stringfield, S. (1993). School makes a difference: Lessons learned from
a ten-year survey of school effect. New York: Teachers College Press.
Van Maurik, J. (2001). Writers on leadership. London: Penguin. Retrieved on May 24,
2008 from http://www.infed.org/leadership/traditional_leadership.htm#intro
Weihrich, H. & Koontz H. (1993). Management: A global perspective. New York:
McGraw Hill Inc.
Wilson, B.L., & Corcoran, T. B. (1988). Successful secondary schools: Visions of
excellence in American Public Education. New York: The Falmer Press.
Ylimaki, R.M. (2006). Toward a new conceptualization of vision in the work of
educational leaders: case of visionary archetype. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 42 (4), 620-51.
Yukl, G. (1989). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Thesis Head Teacher

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis Head Teacher

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFFECT OF HEAD TEACHER’S LEADERSHIP STYLE

ON TEACHER’S PERFORMANCE AT SECONDARY

Roll No. BM 603222

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for

The Most Beneficent, the most Merciful.

Style on Teacher’s Performance at Secondary Level” Proposed and submitted by

degree of B.Ed. (1.5 year) specialized in Teacher Education is hereby accepted.

teacher’s Leadership Style on Teacher’s Performance at Secondary Level”

submitted by me in partial fulfillment of B.Ed. (1.5 year) programme, is my original

other university or institution.

I also understand that if evidence of plagiarism is found in my thesis at any

He intends to express his feelings of gratitude to the Regional Director of

workshop in selection of this topic.

teachers’ performance in government secondary schools. One hundred head teachers

were selected through stratified random sampling. It is a descriptive in nature so the

autocratic leadership style in government secondary schools. There is no significant

a significant effect of head teachers’ leadership style on teachers’ performance.

Keywords:Leadership, Styles, Effects, Teacher’ performance, Secondary level

Table Name Page No.

Table 4.4: Comparison between Head teachers’ Leadership Style in Government

Secondary Schools on Gender Basis ........................................................ 58

Table 4.5: Comparison between Heads’ Leadership Style in Government Secondary

Schools on Rural and Urban Basis ........................................................... 59

Table 4.6: Comparison between Heads’ Leadership Style in Government Secondary

Schools on the Basis of Academic Qualification ..................................... 60

Table 4.7: Effect of Heads’ Leadership Style on Teachers’ Performance .................. 61

Abbreviation Purpose for Use

etc. And so forth

e.g., For example,

C.T. Certificate of Teaching

p. for single page

pp. for multiple pages

Research project entitled “Effect of Head teacher’s Leadership Style on Teacher’s

Performance at Secondary Level” submitted by Amir Ali Roll

No.BM603222Registration No.17-PKR-02509 Programme B.Ed (1.5 year) has been

University for Evaluation.

Dr. Naseer Ahmad Salfi

Date: ______________ ____________________________

Background of The Study

decision-making power. According to Sergon (2005) a leader has ability to inspire,

through turbulent waters for any head teacher.

is essential for high performance. Due to performance of teacher’s education system

directly becomes excellent. Professional development of skills, teaching

important yet the psychological aspects cannot be ignored. As in organizational

According to Policy Document Government of Pakistan 2009, performance of

a teacher is measured on the basis of academic achievement of his students (National

administration), characteristics of the teacher and students’ behavior.

Statement of the Problem

has been to work hard in order to pass national examinations.

Passing in examination well is a prerequisite for admission into national and

importance of passing examination, every secondary school in each district in Punjab

leadership style on teachers’ performance in public and private secondary schools.

Objectives of the Study

Specifically, the research objectives for this study were:

1. To discover the effect of leadership style of head teachers by their gender on

2. To determine the effect of leadership style of head teachers by their academic

qualification on teachers’ performance

qualification on teachers’ performance.

1. What is the effect of leadership style of head teachers on teacher performance

regarding their group of gender?

2. What is the effect of leadership style of head teachers on teacher performance

regarding their group of academic qualification?

3. What is the effect of leadership style of head teachers on teacher performance

Date: ______________