EFFECT OF HEAD TEACHER’S LEADERSHIP

STYLE ON TEACHER’S PERFORMANCE AT

SCHOOL LEVEL

By

ASRAR UL HAQ

Roll No. Bp621750

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

Asrar UL Haq
 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 School level” Proposed and submitted by

ASRAR UL HAQ Roll No. BP621750 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

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

Supervisor: (Signature)
Sayyad Anwar Hussain Shah

Evaluator: (Signature)
(Evaluator Name)

Dated:
(Day-Month-Year)

iii
 DECLARATION

I ASRAR UL HAQ son of SARFRAZ AHMAD Roll No. Bp621750 Registration

No. 17 PSP-06231, 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

School 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)

ASRAR UL HAQ

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 Sayyad Anwar Hussain Shah 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 Lahore Region, workshop coordinator Amjad Sharif

Gill, 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 his father and mother.

v
 EFFECT OF HEAD TEACHER’S LEADERSHIP
STYLE ON TEACHER’S PERFORMANCE AT
SCHOOL 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, School level

Areas, Sheikhupura
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

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

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 School 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?

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

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

Ho3 There is no significant difference between mean scores of head teachers’

beliefs 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 Sheikhupura;

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
Effect of head teacher’s leadership style on teacher’s performance at secondary level |7

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).

 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

Sheikhupura district constituted the population of this study.

Sample and Sampling Procedure

Effect of head teacher’s leadership style on teacher’s performance at secondary level | 50

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 Sheikhupura 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 2.80 9.20 19.00 51.40 17.60 3.71 Strong
to 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
Effect of head teacher’s leadership style on teacher’s performance at secondary level | 54

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 school 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
Statements % of Responses
Democratic

Interpretation
Leadership Style

Often
Never
MRVs

Always
Rarely

Occasional
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 school 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
Statements % of Responses

tion
Laisses-fair style

al
MRVs

Occasion
Rarely

Interpreta
Always
Often
Never

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 to
own strategies member does in
improve lly belief
students’ results

My subordinates appraise
their own work 2.81 Occasiona
14.0 30.7 25.7 20.0 9.7
All members of the lly belief
staff know how to use
creativity and ingenuity 3.04 Occasiona
12.0 23.7 24.7 28.0 11.7
to solve the problems
of students in school
lly belief

My staff member can

lead themselves in a
way as I do 3.22 Occasiona
10.7 22.4 17.7 32.1 17.1
lly belief
 Table 4.3 reveals the analysis of head teacher’s leadership style in government

schools at school 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

Ho2 There is no significant difference between mean scores of head teachers’

beliefs about leadership style working in rural and urban secondary schools

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

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
* Significant at 0.05 level

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

Ho3 There is no significant difference between mean scores of head teachers’

beliefs about Leadership Style on the Basis of Academic Qualification

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

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
* Significant at 0.05 level

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.
Effect of head teacher’s leadership style on teacher’s performance at secondary level | 63

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.