Muhabat Khan

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LEADERSHIP STYLE OF THE
PRINCIPALS IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS OF KARACHI
Dissertation
By
MUHABAT KHAN
In the Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Of
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) Education
Under the Supervision of
Dr. KAMAL HAIDER
Presented to
Hamdard Institute of Education and Social Sciences
HAMDARD UNIVERSITY
April, 2015
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my parents who forced and encouraged me to continue my

studies.
To my wife and children, I thank you all for your support, encouragement
and inspiration during the course of this study.
ABSTRACT
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LEADERSHIP STYLE OF THE PRINCIPALS
IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS OF KARACHI
Indeed, the lack of successful and effective leadership style of secondary school principals in the
province of Sindh, particularly in Karachi has resulted poor performance and low students
achievement.
Therefore, the basic purpose of the study was to examine the leadership styles of the principals in
secondary schools of Karachi. The scope of the study was limited to all the secondary schools of
Karachi. Seven hypotheses were formulated for the study. Among these, six hypotheses were
based on the demographic variables consisted on sex, status of schools, professional
qualification, experience, age and marital status. The seventh hypothesis was related to item-by-
item analysis of the questionnaire on the thirty dimensions of the leadership styles. The
population of the study was large and diverse, thus stratified random sampling was used. The
total sample size consisted of 300 teachers and 100 principals from 100 schools. Two research
instruments, a self-made questionnaire of 30 items and an interview protocol of 4 broad
questions were used.
In views of the principals, only one hypothesis out of six was rejected and five were upheld. It
was concluded, (2) that private secondary school principals were more significant in the
effectiveness of school organization than the government school principals. Though, in
hypothesis number (1), (3), (4), (5) and (6), no significant differences were found between the
leadership styles of male and female, trained and untrained, experienced and less experienced,
i
younger and older, and married and unmarried secondary school principals in the effectiveness
of school organization.
In views of the teachers, four hypotheses out of six were rejected and two were upheld. It was
concluded that in hypothesis number (1), it was found that the leadership styles of female
secondary school principals were more superior to male principals in the effectiveness of school
organization, (2) private secondary school principals were more superior to government
secondary school principals, (3) trained secondary school principals were more superior to
untrained secondary school principals and (5) younger secondary school principals were more
superior to older secondary school principals in the effectiveness of school organization. Though,
in hypothesis number (4) and (6), no significant difference was found between the leadership
styles of experienced and less experienced and married and unmarried secondary school
principals in the effectiveness of school organization.
The collected data was analyzed through the ‘t’ test and ‘chi square’. In the light of the findings,
several solid recommendations were made.

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
This is to certify that MUHABAT KHAN, bearing Enrolment No. ES-DP-13-010 has completed
his Research Study, entitled “Critical Analysis of Leadership Style of the Principals in
Secondary Schools of Karachi” in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Education, under my supervision. The Research Dissertation
meets the prescribed standard as set by the Hamdard Institute of Education and Social Sciences
(HIESS), Hamdard University Karachi, Pakistan.
DR. KAMAL HAIDER
Dated: _
Acknowledgement
First of all, I am very thankful to Almighty Allah, who enabled me to accomplish this doctoral programme.
The successful completion of this dissertation would not have been possible without the scholarly guidance
and assistance of many people. Indeed, it would be quite impossible to acknowledge all of the people who
have helped me in the completion of my dissertation.
I am deeply grateful to my research supervisor Dr. Kamal Haider, for his intellectual, moral and other forms of
support and understanding that he rendered throughout this journey.
I am also very thankful to Dr. Ahmed Saeed for his scholarly support in every step of this work.
Sincere, heart-felt thanks must go out to my wife, Ambreen and my children for their patience, devotion,
support, sacrifice and unconditional love have helped me in this labour.
Muhabat Khan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication
Abstract i
Certificate of Approval iii
Acknowledgement iv
List of Tables of Contents v
List of Tables of Appendices iv
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background 1
Purpose of the Study 7
Hypotheses 8
Justification 9
Scope 9
Definition of Key Terms 9
Basic Assumptions 10
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
Importance 11
Definition 15
Characteristics of a Leader 18
Responsibilities of a Leader (Principal) 25
Types of Leadership 44
Research Studies 67
Content Analysis 68
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Strategy 72
Population 73
Sampling 73
Research Instruments 74
Procedure 76
Data Analysis 76
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS Page
Section I: Formation of the Sample 79

Section II: Testing the Hypotheses 86
Part A: As viewed by the Principals 86
Part B: As viewed by the Teachers 90
Section III: Item-by-Item Analysis of Data 98
Section IV: Discussion Of Interviews 159
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary 161
Findings163
Conclusions 169
Recommendations 171
REFERENCES 173
APPENDICES
Appendix I Interview Protocol 196

Appendix II The Questionnaire 206
Appendix III Raw Data Yielded from the Questionnaire 209
Appendix III Calculation of Hypotheses
Appendix IV Calculation of Item-by-Item Analysis 252
Appendix V Letter of Introduction 282
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Pages
4.1.1 Classification of Secondary School Principals of Karachi by 79

Gender
4.1.2 Classification of Secondary School Teachers of Karachi by 79
Gender
Status of School
Status of School
Professional Qualification
Professional Qualification
Years of Teaching Experiences
Years of Teaching Experiences
4.1.9 Age-wise Classification of Secondary School Principals of 83
Karachi
4.1.10 Age-wise Classification of Secondary School Teachers of 83
Karachi
Academic Qualification
Academic Qualification
Marital Status
Marital Status
LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDICES
APPINDIX – III
CALCULATION OF HYPOTHESES
(As viewed by the Principals)
Tables Page
Application of ‘t’ Test for Testing the Null Hypothesis 1 215
(As viewed by the Teachers)

APPENDIX – IV
CALCULATION OF ITEM-BY-ITEM ANALYSIS
Application of chi square 𝑥 2 for testing the significance level of item 1 252
Table Page
Table Page
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The role of education is immensely important in the development of a society. Chandler
(1991) concluded that education is considered as an instrument for human resource
development, which would ultimately contribute to economic, individual and scientific
development of a nation. Therefore, every nation is well aware that education is the only
element which brings advancement in the life style of its people and evolution in the
country. Since 1947, the government of Pakistan has been making educational
conferences, five-year plans, commissions, policies and reforms to raise literacy rate
which is comparatively lower than its neighboring countries.
Karachi is one of the biggest cities of Pakistan. According to Wikipedia (2013), its
population is above 23.5 million people and its literacy rate is 78.1 percent. In this city, a
large number of government and private schools and colleges are imparting education,
but it has been investigated through various research studies that secondary schools in
Karachi, so far have not achieved the required standard as mentioned in the policies.
Hence, to know the actual deficiencies of secondary schools of Karachi, some serious
issues are pointed out below:
 Lack of leadership skills among the principals
 Political based selection of the principals
 Lack of training facilities for principals and teachers
1
 Intense pressure on the principals from the schools’ owners
 Too much workload and low paid teachers
 Teachers’ turnover due to rigid administration
 Diverse systems of education, like English-medium, Urdu-medium and Cambridge (O’
level).
 Unfair means in examinations
 Traditional and memory based system of examinations
In the aforementioned issues, the leadership style of the principals influences both on the
achievement level of students and performance of teachers. A principal is often judged
not literally by his efficiency in the school, but also by behavior outside the school and by
his relationships with other staff members. Indeed, a school system is a cooperative
enterprise, and school management is a cooperative responsibility, where every
individual has to put efforts for the grooming and development of the school under the
guidance and supervision of an effective leader. Such a leader is a principal.
Leadership always involves responsibility. It is possible that there may be good and
competent teachers in a school without a good principal. Though, in such circumstances
the school as a whole is not likely to gain a good reputation since it lacks a skilled and
competent leadership. In many researches, a principal has just been described as an
organizational leader, but a leader is one who attains a complete cooperation of his
subordinates. Therefore, a principal who orders his followers and expects them to obey
cannot be a good leader but simply a dictator.

Leadership can be defined as to influence others through knowledge, experience and
expertise. It is very necessary for an effective school system to have competent principal
who is able to plan, organize and manage the available resources. Moreover, as a leader
the position of a principal in a school is central. Sergiovanni (1987) described that the
principal’s role is similar to the position of “High Priest” who defines, strengthens and
shapes those beliefs and values which give a unique character to the school. The
contribution of principal has been a significant in creating a favorable environment for
teaching and learning process. Cribbin (1978) defined that leadership as the continuous
process influencing the people by competence to achieve the specified goals. These
processes remain continue till the end of each day, week, month and year after year. Bass
(1990) concluded that leadership can be defined as an influence relationship, in such a
manner where a person’s individual endeavors and persuasions modify the tendencies
and behaviors of others within a specified group. Sidhu (2005) described that institution
is similar to a large family, where every individual is assimilated to work efficiently for
the welfare of that family (institution). Among these members, the distribution of work
and responsibility should be assigned according to their strengths and capabilities.
Moreover, different teams and groups are formed to take care of various activities where
the authority would be decentralized to make the organization result-oriented and also set
certain norms so that to differentiate between good and poor performance (Sidhu, 2005).
Arnold (2007) strongly determined that leadership depicts a unique character,
understanding, attitude and interaction which can be linked to administrative position in
the organization. Therefore, it is very much necessary for the school principals to
understand the leadership and its various styles to achieve organizational goals. The
principals have to reshape the entire structure of the school to achieve phenomenal
results. They have to determine certain norms for the inspection and supervision to assess
their performance against the given targets (Sidhu, 2005). Furthermore, there should be
proper planning and execution at the level of the state, community and the institution. In
fact, the leaders are very good at planning but quite poor at action which results in
frustration and leads the students nowhere (Sidhu, 2005). Morphet and Reller (1982)
acknowledged that it is very essential for the school principal to understand leadership
and its application. Hence, the principal deals with both formal and informal groups who
are conflicting and creating obstacles in the attainment of goals and expected outcomes of
the institution. Leithwood et al, (2006) analyzed that leadership has been a crucial and
essential issue in the world of education.
Yunus (2007) investigated that almost every school has a principal who is the leader or
manager. Indeed, school is a complicated organization which needs the services and
leadership of a skilled and a dynamic principal who can uplift the standard of the
institution. Crum and Sherman (2008) revealed the fact that the principals provide a great
insight to the institution which is supportive for students’ achievement. Such kind of
insight is promoting leadership quality among the teachers and students.
Bennis and Nanus (1985) determined that leadership is one of the most observed and
least understood phenomena. Daft (2005) concluded that it is extremely difficult to
comprehend leadership because it is very complicated and vague problem in the present
era. Therefore, it is indispensable for the school principals to comprehend its nature. Daft
(2005) explored that whenever the time is tough and crucial; people often look to a bold
and heroic kind of a leader to ease fear and uncertainty. People have high expectations of
support and assistance from their leader. Similarly, in educational institutions the staff
members love and appreciate the boldness and confidence of their principal who
encourages them in tough times.
Rost (2000) described that leadership could be a pressure upon leaders, administrators
and subordinates as they deliberately intend to bring change and positive modification in
the system which can also be set as their common purpose. To summarize the main
elements of the given definition, leadership involves influence which happens in the form
of behavior of people, where they enthusiastically desire for a good change, thus the
craving of these changes definitely reflect as common goals which are shared by leaders
and followers. Such kind of influence is a relationship among people that cannot be
passive but everyone performs his duty (Rost, (2000). Hence, leadership is mutual. The
people who involve in such a relationship want significant changes and also wish that
their leader will involve in creating change rather than maintaining the status quo.
Moreover, these organizational changes should not be dictated by leaders, but reflect
common purposes that both leader and followers share. Furthermore, a very essential
aspect of leadership is influencing people to be united around a common vision.
Consequently, leadership involves gathering the people to bring a desirable future change
(Daft 2005).
A research study revealed that leadership is a people activity which is different from
administrative planning activity. Leadership happens among people; it is not the thing,
which is done to people. Therefore, leadership consists people and there must be
followers because an individual performer, who excels can be a writer, poet, musician
and woodcarver but if there are no followers there will be no leader (Daft, 2005). Hence,
followers are essential part of leadership because all leaders are sometimes, followers too.
Efficient leaders understand how to follow, and they also set examples for others.
Similarly, the leader and followers are actively involved to bring desired future change
(Daft, 2005).
Adair (1983) described certain major characteristics of leadership including; (a) giving
direction: like finding ways to generate a clear sense of movement, determine new goals,
services and structure; (b) offering inspiration: to set ideas and diverting thoughts which
can be strong motivator for people; (c) building teamwork: teams are the most effective
kind of management in which the leaders encourage collaborative efforts; (d) setting the
example: showing not only what leaders do which affects others in the institution, but
how they do it. According to Adair, real leadership is that which is accepted,
acknowledged and effectively ‘granted’ by other people in the organization.
Lewin, Lippit and White (1939) classified leadership styles into three categories, namely
autocratic or authoritarian style, laissez-faire or delegative style and democratic or
participative style (p. 272). Lewin and his team struggled to find out how groups of
students, who were given one of the three teams with an autocratic, democratic and
laissez-faire leader, whom would respond to the various styles of leadership. The students
were then given arts and crafts project to observe their behavior in response to these
leadership styles. Consequently, it was found that democratic leadership style was the
most effective one among the three styles (Lewin et al, 1939). Moreover, modern
educators, like Goleman (2000) admitted that Liwen’s study was perfect about the best
leadership style in educational institutions.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
General Purpose
The study was to be a critical analysis of leadership style of the principals in secondary
schools of Karachi and make recommendations to develop leadership styles of principals
in the context of findings.
Specific Purpose
The study was intended to answer the following:
 To identify the leadership style among male and female principals.
 To evaluate the differences in leadership style of male and female principals with
respect to leadership.
 To investigate the influence of leadership style of principals on teaching learning
process and administrative competencies.
 To identify the leadership role of the principal in the achievement of students.
 To determine the leadership style of the principals in instructional leadership.
 To identify the main factors affecting on the leadership style of the principals.
 To differentiate the leadership style of highly qualified principals with respect to
professional growth of teachers.
 To specify the selection criteria for the principals in government and private
secondary schools of Karachi.
HYPOTHESES
1. There is no significant difference between the leadership style of male and female
secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of school organization.
2. There is no significant difference between the leadership style of government and
private secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of school
organization.
3. There is no significant difference between the leadership style of trained and untrained
4. There is no significant difference between the leadership style of more experienced
and less experienced secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of
school organization.
5. There is no significant difference between the leadership style of younger and older
6. There is no significant difference between the leadership style of married and
unmarried secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of school
organization.
JUSTIFICATION
The study was to yield the following benefits:
 It will be fruitful for the school organization.
 It will help the principals to know their own responsibilities.
 To know the leadership styles will be beneficial for the improvement of schools.
 This study will be helpful for the concerned authorities in the selection of secondary
school principals.
 This study will also be fruitful to the secondary school teachers in promoting positive
relationship with their principals.
 This study will be effective for the secondary school principals in applying various
styles of leadership.
 This study will present a guideline for the training institutions to conduct training
programs for the secondary school principals.
 This study will also be useful for career growth of the secondary school teachers.
 It will help other researchers in the field.
SCOPE
The scope of the study was limited to the leadership style of secondary school principals
of Karachi.
DEFINITION OF THE KEY TERMS
Leadership: Leadership is the ability of action influences on a group of people or an
institution by establishing a clear vision through leader’s knowledge and expertise.

Leader: A leader is one who leads the team or an organization with intimate knowledge,
experience, vision, inspiration, adoption and character.
Style: Style is the procedure, manner, technique and behavior of doing something.
Principal: A principal is the most senior and important person having executive authority
in the institution.
Secondary School: In Pakistan, secondary school consists of five classes from grade VI
to X, aged group from 11 to 16 years.
BASIC ASSUMPTION
 School principals work as administrative leaders.
 There are thousands of secondary schools exist in Karachi.
 Leadership style of the principals lays the foundation of development for the school
organizations.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
The problem of the study was stated in the previous chapter. In this chapter, a review of
the related literature would be made.
An effort will be made to shed light on the notion of leadership of secondary school
principals in terms of its importance, definitions, characteristics, responsibilities, types
and research studies.
IMPORTANCE
The phenomenology of leadership is the most important topic of every organization
around the world. Marzano (2003) argued that leadership role in a successful school is
the most important factor of a principal which may be very essential step for useful
amendments related to the teachers and students at school level. Heck (1992) stated that
an effective leadership style of the principal can improve student achievement, in spite a
number of problems such as “diverse” students’ background and insufficient parental
involvement in their education. Moreover, in the similar perspective, Millett (1998)
noted, “The quality of leadership makes the difference between the success and failure of
a school”. Burns (1978) concluded that the principal’s main job is to attain the purpose of
the institution. His prime responsibility is to set the vision for the institution and design
the strategy to achieve the mission in the form of students’ output.

Leadership always involves responsibility, and the principal’s position is no exception to
the ruler. But his/her leadership becomes all the more difficult because often he/she has
under his/her persons who are equal to him in qualification. The fact is, the principal has
to lead persons who are both intelligent and well qualified. In common with other leaders,
however, he/she takes the praise as well as the blame for the reputation of his/her school
and for everything which happens within its premises. Hence it is sometimes said, “As is
the principal so is the school.” It is possible that there may be good teachers in a school
without a good principal, but in such conditions the school as a whole is not likely to gain
a good reputation since it lacks skilled and competent leadership. A principal could be
described as a leader. Though, a leader is one who secures the willing cooperation of his
subordinates (Mohiyuddin, 1952).
Bennis (1999) analyzed that leaders could be the dreamers because they have the ability
to set the vision for the organization and in addition, they possess the ability to mobilize
the people to work for the accomplishment of the set targets or visions in a practical way.
According to Levitt (1991), leaders produce consent, people seek consensus. Those
people who believe in themselves have the ability to generate believers. In fact, it is about
their inner strength and obviously articulates views that are totally based on sound
experience and solid judgments. Arrogance and conceit sometimes work but in the long
run things fall apart (p.30).
Sheikh (2001) concluded that a school principal is the focal point of all the educational
activities, as he plays the role of a philosopher, organizer, governor, leader, business

director, planner, teacher, guide and friend. The leadership style of principal is very
crucial in the academic achievement of learners. Mkhize (2005) argued that the principal
determines the standard of students’ performance. Moreover, the principal has to adopt a
style of leadership that can ensure a high standard of performance where the leadership of
the principal is measured by the academic achievement of the students and vice versa.
Potter and Powell (1992) agreed with the aforementioned opinion and stated: “Measures
of outcome are, clearly, the most clear-cut indicators of a student performance” (p.10).
In fact, the principal is one who controls the overall situations happening in the school
environment and he/she has the capacity to adopt the style that will better suit the
occasion. When the learners are not cooperative and depict immaturity, the principal has
to adopt directive and autocratic style of leadership but where the learners show maturity
and cooperation, the principal has to adopt a supportive and democratic style (Mkhize,
2005). Chawla and Renesch (1995) stated that leadership holds the key to provide
stimulating climate for quick learning, and the leaders keep their people ready for any
challenge so that to achieve their vision and goals.
Alvesson (2002) investigated that leaders are very essential agents who bring effective
changes in the organizations. These leaders form a share vision and acknowledge the
spirit of responsibilities among themselves as well as other stake holders (Peterson,
2002). Golden (1998) stated, “Leadership style is determined by deep seated values and
beliefs about how people learn” (p. 21). Marzano (2003) stated, “Leadership is a
necessary condition for effective reform relative to the school-level, the teacher level, and
the student level factors” (p. 172).
Faith and Kenneth (2012) stated that the principals of secondary schools demonstrate
autocratic leadership style rather than democratic style because they want to be the center
of all the activities of schools. Though, the teachers agree upon the fact that they feel job
satisfaction only in democratic leadership style of the principals. However, both male and
female teachers feel insecure and unsatisfied with the autocratic leadership style of the
school principals.
Hallinger (2005) found that a leader in the school organization emphasizes on the clear
goals mainly on students-learning, continuous improvement of the school, bringing
innovative and constructive modification in every aspect of teaching as well as in the
implementation process of the curriculum, staff development and “Sharing the reward
structure” to achieve the designed mission of the school. Similarly, Hallinger (2003)
affirmed that the leadership style of a principal has a vital effect on the academic success
of students, on the morale of teachers and on the school environment.
Mintzberg (2004) defined that effective leadership motivates and energizes the
employees to make a visible improvement in their organization. According to the study of
Leithwood (2006), leadership has been chiefly connected to the improvement, perception
and progress of an organization. Moreover, the principal’s leadership in the institution is

all about to form a clear understanding and positive direction for the school organization
and making efforts to support the people in their work.
Cheng (1994) divided the school leadership into five branches, such as structural, human,
potential, cultural and educational leadership. Indeed, these dimensions manifest the role
and functions of school leadership. Therefore, Leithwood (2006) emphasized on four
basis of a successful leadership. For example, setting the direction, improving the life
style of people, restructuring or redesigning the organization and managing the
instructional or teaching programs.
DEFINITIONS
Bass (2008) stated, “Leadership is an interaction between two or more members of a
group that often involves a structuring or restructuring of the situation and of the
perceptions and expectations of the members”.
Adeyemi and Brlarinwa (2013) defined leadership as “the art or process of influencing
people so that they will strive willingly towards the achievement of objects” (p.187).
Northouse (2004) established an idea that a leader is one who has the ability to instill
his/her effects on the mind of people in the team to achieve the common goals in the
specific time.
Bogardus (1929) stated, “As a social process, leadership is that social inter-stimulation
which causes a number of people to set out toward an old goal with a new zest or a new
goal with hopeful courage – with different person keeping different places”.
According to Pigors (1935), “Leadership is a process of mutual stimulation which, by the
successful interplay of individual difference, controls human energy in the pursuit of a
common cause.”
According to Adair (1986), real leadership is that which is accepted, acknowledged and
effectively ‘granted’ by other people in the organization.
Kelly (1981) stated that it can be a group to attain certain goals through untiring efforts
under the supervision of a dynamic leader who guides them in every act of performance
(p.34).
Conger (1992) further set the notion that a leader establishes the direction for the entire
working group. Moreover, these leaders show a great for the outcomes of their teams
(p.18).
Cohen (1990) suggested that leadership is an art of influencing which enables the
followers to accomplish any objective through maximum performance and endeavor.

Sammons, Taggart, Sylva, Melhuish and Siraj (2011) stated that leadership of the
principal effects directly and indirectly on the success of school and classroom process.
Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach (1990) stated that it has been revealed in the academic
literature that leadership is a concept and the set of practices which are deliberately made
for the improvement of school organization (p.5).
Moore (1927) defined that it is leadership which can impress the will of the leader and
makes him cooperative, respectful, obedient and loyal to the institution (p.124-128).
Tead (1935) had similar opinion about the function of leadership in the school system
which is the activity to engage the people towards the shared goals.
Smirch and Morgan (1982) explored that leadership could be realized in the process
where one succeeds in attempting to frame and explain other reality (p. 258).
Drath and Palus, (1994) stated that leadership can be the process of making sense of what
people have been doing together to understand the real job in the institution (p. 4).
Faeth (2004) defined leadership as “the essential part of the attainment of social and
organizational goals”. Greenleaf (1977) analyzed that great and effective leaders serve
and lead the groups by maintaining an environment which is supportive for the
maximizing potential of the workers.

“Leaders are individuals who establish direction for a working group of individuals and
who gain commitment from this group of members to establish direction and who then
motivate members to achieve the direction’s outcomes” (Conger, 1992, p18).
According to Yukl (2002), “Leadership is a process of influencing others to understand
and agree about what needs to be done and how it can be done effectively, and the
process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared
objectives” (p.7).
Newstrom (2007) described that leadership is a process which can inspire the people to
work enthusiastically for the attainment of objectives. In addition, it can drive the impels
of people to get the specified target (p.59).
Richards and Engle (1986) stated, “Leadership is about articulating visions, embodying
values, and creating the environment within which things can be accomplished”(p. 206).
Jacobs and Jaques (1990) defined that leadership is a process which shows a purposeful
direction and encourage collective efforts for the achievement of common aims and
objectives (p. 281).
CHARACTERISTICS OF A LEADER
Teaching profession demands outstanding character and morality. Thus, if the ethical
standards of a principal are not fairly high, his position and reputation among the teachers
and students will certainly remain low. The principal must possess all those ethical
qualities which constitute exemplary character. The first character of a principal is the
training of his will, in order to be self-controlled and self-disciplined, while the second
character is the cultivation of good habits. Moreover, a principal should possess a social
philosophy and must equip himself/herself to make the best contribution to the society.
Such kind of principal would endeavor to win the love, respect and confidence of his
teachers and students and will establish his prestige on hard work, sincerity and a
sympathetic handling of their problems (Sidhu, 2005).
According to many researches, it has been revealed that leaders are born with some
leadership skills but those skills could be developed through training and education. Jolly
(2007) argued that if those leadership skills could not be developed then leaders would
not be made. Similarly, the school principals are to be trained to know their
responsibilities. Bennis (1989) stated that it is the prime responsibility of all leaders to
create a compelling vision for the institutions and moreover, they should have the ability
to transform their visions into reality (p. 46). The government of Pakistan in general and
Sindh province in particular, should focus on school principals’ training.
Leader’s Knowledge
The principal should possess sufficiently higher qualification as compared to the level of
the teachers. From the point of view of teachers, the principal should be sufficiently
qualified to give proper guidance to teachers and students. The parents also want the
principal to solve all the educational difficulties related to their children. In addition, the
principal should possess a deep intrinsic taste for knowledge and curiosity to know and
cultivate a thirst for knowledge. Reading and writing should be his main hobby, and
regular study should be his chief occupation. He should have an open mind for learning
anything from any person, from any book, or from any experience (Sidhu, 2005).
Various researches have declared that knowledge and expertise of leaders make them
problem-solver. Stein and Spillane (2005) uncovered the facts that for any educational
reform a solid knowledge of the leader, related to school domains is desperately required.
These domains contained on student and teacher related knowledge and the other one is
about the content of new curriculum. Stein and Nelson (2003) noted, “Knowledge of
academic subjects that is used by administrators when they function as instructional
leaders” (p. 423). Prestine and Nelson (2005) argued that content knowledge of a
successful leadership should include knowledge of “first principles” or “theory-based”
notions about whatever might be the instructional strategy and innovation.
Leader’s Intelligence
It is mandatory for a leader to take the decision wisely and intelligently which brings
harmony and peace in the institution. Lord et al. (1986) analyzed that intelligence of a
leader can be the key factor in every aspect of his leadership (p. 407). Similarly, a school
principal has to be intelligent and must have more knowledge and experiences to
facilitate both teachers and students. In this context, review of the literature has also
reinforced that intelligent leadership is the main trait of an effective leader (House and
Aditya, 1997). Fielder (1967) concluded that intellectual ability of a leader facilitates the
followers in a crucial time. Easy solutions can be sought out for all difficult tasks (p. 92).
Rubin et al. (2002) stated that individuals always seem to share a mutual understanding
related to the traits which leaders possess and such kind of traits are used to set standard
for the emerging leadership (p. 106). Therefore, intelligence is the key element for a
principal to run the school system effectively. Geier (1967) mentioned, “There is a great
deal of difference between a person being intelligent and appearing intelligent” (p. 317).
Hence, in the light of these studies, intelligence of the school principal is indispensable
for the effectiveness of organization.
The Leader is an Architect
Reeves (2002) concluded that leaders are the social architects of improved individuals
and organizational performance but there are certain implications, as the architect designs
but does not do the work of building. Indeed, he needs the help of welder, carpenter,
mason, electrician, plumber, bricklayer, engineer and labor. Architect is simply a dreamer
who makes the drawing. In the similar view, we understand not only what the leaders do
but what the leaders do not do. The leader of an educational institution cannot be expert
in all domains and aspects, such as writing, drawing, school finance, history,
mathematics, physics, personal management, parent engagement, classroom
management, child development, student motivation and plenty of other expectations that
people in the surrounding routinely expect from the educational leader (Reeves, 2002).
Moreover, the successful educational leader is always dissatisfied with the status quo.
Therefore, the leader’s main emphasis is on progress on the individual, group and
organizational levels, the sentiment that “everything is just fine, so please leave us done”
is supporter to this leader. The principal is ought to be in search of change which
improves the standard and performance of both teachers and students in the form of high
test scores and conducive institutional climate. Hence, the role of leaders would be
nevertheless than social architect to elevate the life of students (Reeves, 2002). As an
architect, the educational leader is continuously trying to identify and understand the
antecedents of excellence. An efficient school principal knows that if students’
attendance improves, their achievement will also improve and if their nutrition improves,
their attention in the class will improve (Reeves, 2002).
Now the question is how to improve the students’ attendance? How to get their attention
in the classroom?
When the effective leader makes the school environment supportive, tension free, ban
over corporal punishment, facilitate the students; arrange a balance timetable,
participative style of leadership, physical infrastructure and the arrangement of co-
curricular activities improve the attendance of students. Moreover, to get their attention in
the classroom, the role of teacher is vital. The way he explains, and the uses of materials
(teaching aids) can make the lecture and information more interesting which capture the
attention of students. Consequently, the school attendance and results improve.
The Agent of Change
Stoll (1999) investigated that for any external change the principal should understand the
culture in the surrounding of the school. A great attention should be given to how the
current situation encourages students’ progress. Furthermore, in the process of change,

providing vision, reconstruction of values, modifying the problem-solving capacity and
establishing supportive environment in the institution are the prime responsibilities of the
principal (p.44).
Hargreaves (1999) supported change within school through effective leadership,
providing a number of strategies which back up Stoll’s notion about change. The
principal of an institution keeps emphasizing on behavioral change, by persuading people
to adopt new ways of working. The principal devising supportive, physical, social and
organizational structures in the institution which are beneficial at all levels. They ensure a
conducive environment of collaboration, experimentation, legitimizing programs for
teaching and learning process. Moreover, Hargreavers (1999) concluded by investigating
that success depends on three major capacities which lie at center of the organization,
consisting on monitoring competency, scanning and evaluating the school internal and
external climate, connecting internal self-assessment to external potentialities; looking
forward positively and facing a challenge with courage and confidence; the capability of
using the available resources including human financial resources and directing them
towards the goal achievement.
Team Work
According to Katzebach and Smith (1993), “A team is a small number of people with
complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and
approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.”

Woodcock (1979) defined that if the team did not exist in any organization, no
opportunities would be provided to make things happen. To him, teams provide unique
opportunities like help and support, coordinating the activities of individuals, generating
commitment, creating opportunities for training and development needs, learning
opportunities, better communication and providing an enjoyable working environment in
the institution.
Francis and Young (1979) determined the main characteristics of teamwork which
influence on both “the individual and team concerned”. They defined five “benefits of
team building” including managing complexity, obtaining high motivation, giving a
quick response, making good decision and developing organizational strength. In the
similar context, Adair’s (1986) examined the advantages of group function which can
make these benefits possible by introducing three indispensible needs which are to be
managed skillfully. These needs are: a) Task; means to accomplish something. b) Team;
the basic need to maintain and develop strongly working relationship and c) Individual;
means the personal needs of individuals.
According to the study of Johnson and Pickersgill (1992), team building within a school
may be inhibited by the principals who understand themselves as responsible for school
successes and failures. In fact, team building can change the institutional cultures.
Therefore, responsibilities become shared.

Mirgatroyed and Gray (1984) showed in their research that team development plays a
significant role in the school system where effective leadership forms a strong
relationship between people and share common aims which they keep trying to achieve
by different objectives. Lawand (2000) stated that the more effective teams with
education system carry with them the “shared values of the organization, whether these
values may be explicit or implicit but indeed, is a driving forces for individuals, teams
and the entire school”. Furthermore, teamwork is much beneficial for the school as it
provides clear benefits for students, staff, groups and individuals. Therefore, it is an
outstanding characteristic of democratic leadership to form a team within the
organization and share the power to build its foundation strong.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF A LEADER (PRINCIPAL)
School Cultural
Farooq (1994) defined, “The traditional goal of education is transmission of culture, the
preservation of the past and present, and development of the intellect” (p.106). Peterson
(2002) revealed the fact that the culture of an institution influences on the feeling, action
and thinking of people. Barth (2002) stated that cultural variations are affected on the
performance level of both teachers and students in either ways; it may be in positive or
negative dimension. For the school culture, the principal is held responsible to form a
conducive culture in the school (Snowden and Gorton, 1998). In addition, Barth (2002)
agreed that the culture of a school is greatly influenced on the developmental process of
students as compared to the country’s politics, educational department, teachers, principal
and parents.
Teacher Empowerment
Bennis (1989) strongly supported that leadership is indeed the intelligent and wise use of
power to solve the problems but conversely Reitzug (1991) stated that traditionally, the
demonstration of power was not used wisely by the principal leadership. Teachers were
always told to act as directed. They had little voice to raise for their rights and argue on
certain issues, such as choice in teaching materials, the arrangement of classes and types
of test to evaluate the classroom instruction. Teachers had less opportunity to exert new
teaching strategy in their workplace. These sanctions and lack of autonomy affect
teachers’ productivity, commitment and leadership capabilities (Reitzug, 1991). Muijs
and Harris (2006) stated that those principals, who think of empowerment, must be ready
to share power with teachers in their schools. Terry (1999) concluded that empowerment
enables the teachers to be the integral part in the process of decision making, such as
school policies, curriculum development and other related issues.
The sharing of responsibilities by the principal with the teaching staff entails far-reaching
results; because it develops self-respect among the teachers, and everyone feels that he or
she too is a responsible person who formulates the policies of the school and devises the
means of carrying them out. In such type of atmosphere, integrated and coordinated
action becomes easily possible, and it results in contributions of the highest quality.
Moreover, group mind is more fertile than any individual mind. And so group action is
more fruitful than any individual action taken by a principal. However, it is often good
policy to ask teachers who differ from the principal to explain and justify their views. In
this way, better understanding is frequently secured (Mohiyuddin, 1952).

Covey (1989) further explored that leadership profession has been flooded in the past 50
years, as written instruction and advices have been outward. Leadership advice contains
techniques concerning on the balance growth of personality, interactive communication,
positive thinking, constructive ideas and execution of the designed plans. In fact, these
people rely on others that lead them to disparaging relationships. The clashes result
because of people personal experiences which are developed over time. Understandings
influence the way one reacts and how one interprets. Unluckily, one is likely to believe
that empowering of teachers is to authorize them to equally participate in the school
related polices. People observe the same thing differently according to their own
objective and point of view (Covey, 1989). ). Attitudes and behavior grow out of these
assumptions. Others see the same thing differently from their own point of view. "Where
we stand depends on where we sit" (Covey, 1989, p. 22). Clearly, Covey’s analysis
summarizes the underlying causes for ineffective leadership as it exists in education.
Bolin (1989) concluded that empowerment of teachers is to participate in the
determination of school policies and goals as well as to exercise new methodologies of
teaching. Lee (1991) stated that the principals who want to make their teachers
independent and professional; they must empower their teachers whenever they are
assigned any responsibility. Indeed, the most successful principals are those who
empower their teachers and share their views in setting the mission of the school. Owens
(2001) distinguished five types of powers which come from the principal to the teachers,
these are: reward, expert, coercive, legitimate and reference. All these legitimate powers
transfer from the authority to the principal who releases it to his teachers for the entire
school activities (Owens, 2001). Indeed, it is not the transfer of power but the release of it
which counts, where every individual feels empowered in the organization. The basic aim
of the empowerment in school leadership is the participation of teachers which depicts
the form of democratization (Gonzales and Behar-Horenstein, 2004).
Job Satisfaction
Johnson (2007) argued that teachers need the support of a principal to increase their
satisfaction and motivation which is possible through an effective leadership style. In
addition, Winter and Sweeny (1994) stated that the climate of an institution influences on
their job satisfaction. They have identified areas on which the principals could focus for
the improvement of climate by recognizing, supporting teachers, encouragement,
achievement, caring and carefully enforcing school rules.
Anderman et al, (1991) investigated both school culture and leadership style of a
principal and its effects on job satisfaction. They analyzed that accomplishment;
recognition and affiliation were closely linked to job satisfaction. It showed that
principal’s leadership style fostered numerous perfections of teachers on school culture as
well as in teachers’ commitment and satisfaction. Similarly, Lawler (1973) concluded
that job satisfaction is a measurement of the standard and quality life in the organization.
It is very much important for the school principal to understand the basic components of
the quality of work and they ought to know how to treat with co-workers (teachers).
Lurnden (1998) found that job satisfaction among teachers, is due to administrative
support, leadership, student behavior, a conducive and positive school atmosphere,

participation in decision making process and teacher autonomy. These factors are
strongly associated with higher job satisfaction. He said that parental support and work
place conditions are also related to job satisfaction in school system. According to the
study of Agho and Price (1992), job satisfaction means, “The extent to which employees
like their work” (p.185). Moreover, when the employees are not satisfied in Pakistani
schools, the turnover rate increases which can devalue the prestige of the school. Few
indicators showed that private schools in Karachi would lose many dedicated and
qualified teachers if the leaders (principals) do not change their policies such as low
salaries, no increment, rewards, certificates and job insecurity (khan, 2013).
Mosadeghard and Yarmokammadian (2008) investigated that it was very much critical
for the educational institutions to retain and attract well-qualified principals & teachers
and also ensure their job satisfaction.
Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006) revealed the fact that an appropriate leadership style
has positive effect on employees’ satisfaction. Similarly, the productivity and
organizational commitment of employee absolutely increases where they feel
comfortable and tension free. Hunter Boykin & Evans (1995) stated that teachers’
perception of principals’ leadership behavior is positively related to teachers’ moral.
Furthermore, Johnson (2007) argued that teachers need the support of principal to
increase their satisfaction and motivation which is possible through effective leadership
style.
Elmore (2004) stressed that teaching faculty ought to be involved in the decision-making
process related to classroom instruction and curriculum development, as they have the
real knowledge about the needs and requirements of students in their school. The
knowledge and expertise of the teaching faculty should not be ignored in certain
decisions related to course content, designing the methods of teaching, the content,
expectation of students as well as assessment and evaluation process. According to the
study of Sergiovanni (1993), principals ought to know that empowering manner is not
only "considered the right thing to do, it is the effective thing to do when teachers are
empowered they work harder and better, with improved student learning as a result" (p.
104).
Mahmut and Qsman (2014) found that the teachers’ perception connected to leadership
behavior of the school principals is to take part in the construction dimensions at the
highest level. He further argued that it is accepted, the school principals who obtain high
scores in the constructive aspects are successful in planning, managing, communicating
and putting forward the new ideas.
Lumley (2010) investigated that organizational commitment above all has fascinated
considerable interest as efforts have been made to come to a better perception of the
intensity and stability of the employee’s dedication to the organization.

Disciplinary Issues
One of the major responsibilities of a school principal is to maintain discipline through
effective leadership in the classroom. The establishment and maintenance of order in the
classroom and particularly in the school has been long considered to be of primary
importance for effective teaching and learning. An effective leader makes laws and rules
for a favorable climate when every student and staff members are expected to do well.
The purpose of discipline is therefore, not to secure order by forceful and authoritative
method aimed at obtaining prompt and unquestioned obedience to requirements laid by
the teacher, whether these requirements are related to moral training and learning of
lessons. Conversely, the discipline has to be maintained through psychological
techniques, which can be constructive and have ever lasting effects upon the students
(Mohiyuddin, 1952).
Siyez (2009) classified the most frequent forms of student misconduct into five
categories: 1) inappropriate behaviors and attitudes towards teachers, 2) misconduct with
regards to the academic tasks, 3) no respect for school policy, 4) indecent personal
behavior, and 5) offensive behavior towards other students. The most frequently observed
misconduct with regard to rude behavior towards teachers are yelling, shouting and
laughing in the classroom and most of the teachers are experiencing this kind of attitude
in secondary schools of Karachi. However, misconduct towards academic task means, not
doing homework and bringing books and other stationery to the classroom. In addition,
no respect for policy means, coming late to the classroom, do not wear proper school
uniform, and cheating in the examination, while misbehavior to other students means
bulling, verbal abuse, swearing, fighting and annoying.
In this regard, the modern educationists highlighting that an effective leadership style of
the school principal can maintain proper discipline inside and outside the classroom by
applying various techniques, such as forming monitorial board, friendly behavior and
strong teacher-student relationship. Hence, it is the prime responsibility of every school
principal to ensure a safe and conducive environment for teaching and learning.
Bazemore (1997) analyzed that safe and caring school environment totally depends on
students, teachers and parents who are showing mutual respect. Every student wants a
learning environment which is free from bulling and intimidation. They love to have a
safe and happy atmosphere at their school. It is their basic right to be loved and treated
fairly everywhere in school system (Terry, 2001). Moreover, every department has
certain rules which are followed by its members, “Therefore, a school has to make
reasonable rules for a standard environment and the discipline of students. Schools have
the right and power to enforce the specified rules by using punishment if necessary.
According to the study of Rowne (2005), “the school priorities are designed to ensure
that all students are provided with a harmonious environment where they can learn and
thrive. Therefore, good discipline in a school is required for providing quality
education”.
Rosen (1997) defined ten kinds of disciplinary problems which deviate the learner from
the track. These problems are: disobedience of school authority, truancy, class disruption,
quarreling or fighting, the uses of swearing words, damaging the school property, dress
coat violations, stealing and leaving school (campus) without permission.
Staff Development
Nhleko (1999) found that since a new system of education has introduced, teachers have
not been well prepared in teaching and learning. These lapses put the principal in trouble
to cope up with the advanced system. Therefore, it can be the burning question for the
government to establish vocational institutions where the teachers and principals are
being trained. Furthermore, these educators would be encouraged through increments in
their salaries when they successfully complete the training programs. The professional
development has been defined by Guskey (2000) in the following words: “Those
processes and activities designed to enhance the professional knowledge, skills and
attitudes of educators so that they might, in turn improve the learning of students” (p.16).
Walker (2008) analyzed the professional development that it was very necessary in every
profession to increase efficiency and productivity to compete the counterpart. McLeskey
and Waldron (2002a) also recommended that to ensure any effective strategy for the
improvement of school system, professional development of teachers ease in the
completion. Hord (1997) stated that as an organizational arrangement, the professional
learning community is seen as a powerful staff development approach and a potent
strategy for school change and improvement. Bradshaw and Mundia (2006) disagreed
that many teachers have positive attitudes to teach in diversified manner in the classroom
but they have low efficiency for the inclusion. As low efficiency indicates that the teacher
does not have the ability to teach positively and effectively in the given situations.
Researchers have concluded that teachers training and their past experiences enable them
to display a higher level of confidence and efficiency in teaching (Bradshaw and Mundia
2006; Subban and Shannen 2006). Joyce and Showers (2002) concluded that reform in
teaching learning process would certainly fail unless the teachers are properly trained to
comply the designed strategy for change."Staff development that improves the learning
of all students requires skillful school and district leaders who guide continuous
instructional improvement" (Learning Forward, 2001). Blasé and Blasé (2004) stated that
successful principals provide teachers with information about and encourage them to
attend workshops, seminars, and conferences related to instruction. According to their
studies, mostly teachers reported that their participation in workshops, seminars, and
conferences positively affected their self-esteem and sense of being supported, their
motivation, classroom reflection, and reflectively informed behavior were affected most
dramatically (Blasé and Blasé, 2004).
Moreover, the school leadership can recognize professional development at all levels like
in-service short term training courses for teachers to ensure quality teaching. In Pakistan,
professional training of teachers is emphasized in every educational policy and reform.
The National Education Policy (1998-2010), has recommended that making the teaching
profession attractive to the young talented graduates by institutionalizing a package of
incentives (p.47).
Newmann and Wehlage (1996) described, “How can schools become professional
communities? Success depends largely upon human resources and leadership. The
effectiveness of a school staff depends much on the quality of leadership. Roy (2010)
stated that school principals need the capacity to improve the school environment that
sustain and support teachers who can use new methods and practices. Principal support
and encouragement of teachers by creating a system conducive to professional learning,
developing professional growth, training and learning of teachers have contributed to
teachers’ achievement and success (Blasé and Blasé, 2001; Drago-Severson, 2007).
Schleicher (2011) described that the strength and effectiveness of a school system is
based on the effective training and professional growth of teachers. Though, traditional
approaches to the teachers’ training and development have confirmed ineffectiveness to
meet the required needs of their general education. In this regard, an effective school
leadership constantly strives to arrange training programs, seminars and workshops for
the professional development of teachers.
Donaldson (2010) recommended a thorough teacher appraisal system, which can provide
an accurate feedback that is linked to professional growth and development of teachers to
increase effective educational performance. Darling-Hammond and Berry (2006)
concluded that the most useful professional development emphasizes active teaching,
assessment, observation, and reflection rather than abstract discussions.
Bandura (1997) concluded that the provision as well as the participation in training
programs increases a teacher’s ability and self-efficacy. Moreover, he stated that the
greatest source of efficiency is vivid experiences of observation where a person has a

chance to observe another in practical action. Teachers’ self-efficiency in view to
motivation and encouragement of learning influences their formation of learning
environment. Therefore, students’ success and achievement are affected by “created
learning environments” (Bandura, 1993).
It is not enough for a teacher to know only the subject matter. He must also know how to
impart knowledge of the subject matter to his students. To know is one thing; to teach it
to others is quite a different thing. It would thus appear that the knowledge of the teacher
must be accompanied by some training especially in the method of teaching. Once it was
said in the past that a good teacher is born, not made; that no amount of training can
make a bad learner good. By this argument the importance of teacher was sought to be
minimized, but it must not be overlooked that professional preparation can make a good
teacher a better one and that no teacher is any worse for his/her training. In modern days,
therefore educational opinion is entirely in favor of teacher training, and there is no
system of education in the world which does not require trained teachers for its school.
Indeed, training institutions give the prospective teacher insight into the nature of the
child and into the manner of imparting instruction. Some of the major training courses in
psychology, school organization and management, techniques of teaching and the general
principles of education, all enlighten the teacher upon many points with which he is
concerned in his daily work. Therefore, it’s the wise strategy of modern school principal
to facilitate his/her teachers by arranging certain professional courses for them to impart
knowledge to the students in a better way (Mohiyuddin, 1952).

Student Achievement
Coleman et al. (1979) and Shimada (2010) concluded that family background of students
is an important factor which influences on students achievement. Though, Goodlad
(1984) emphasized that an effective school improves students’ academic, intellectual,
moral, vocational, social and cultural aspects. Therefore, effective school increases the
achievement level of students. Reeves (2002) emphasized that leadership time is
inextricably linked to student achievement. Every element of achievement: from
professional development to organization, to assessment and to collaboration, requires an
enormous investment of time. Moreover, he argued that if an educational leader
(principal) fails to use time intelligently, in a way that is persistently focused on the
academic standards and on improved learner achievement, then his time is utilized in a
thousand other tasks. On the part of a leader the time management creates a clear
difference between the practice of standard-based leadership in the organization and the
theory of standards (Reeves, 2002).
Waters and Marzano, (2003) stated that the good governance of a school principal
positively impact on students’ achievement. Dufour (2002) noted that the leader should
know, “To what extent are the students learning the intended outcomes of each course?”
Moreover, the school principal should be inquiring himself, “What steps can I take to
give both my students and teachers the additional time and support they need to improve
learning?” (p. 13).

Lezotte and Levine (1990), Corcoran and Wilson (1989) described some key
characteristics of effective schools. They stressed that the school must have the
leadership of a competent principal and dedicated teachers with strong determination to
focus on the development of students’ skills. In this context, effective school expects
quality education standards for every student in caring and positive atmosphere supported
by principal and teachers. Bollen (1996) also supported the idea of Lezotte and Levine
stated that an effective school can sustain the positive climate in which high standard
teaching and learning process will grow. Robinson (2006) investigated that the quality of
principal leadership influences the quality of students’ achievement. Furthermore, the
professional development of teachers has a remarkable impact on students’ outcome.
Tomlinson (2001) investigated that learning occurs best whenever a learning experience
drives the learner a bit away from his independence level. Furthermore, Vygotsky (1962)
concluded that learner should be encouraged through a series of goals which increase in
difficulty. A learner who is not challenged in the similar way often fails to get the
maximum stages of thinking or may reach with great difficulty.
Merril (2002) stated that the most interesting and effective learning starts with a
purposeful problem which focuses on four instructional phases: the activation of current
knowledge, expression of new knowledge, application of new knowledge and
combination of new knowledge into the students’ world.
Wolfe (2001) wrote, “Consider students in a classroom confront with information that
doesn’t match anything they’ve previously stored. Their brains look for an appropriate
network to help them make sense or meaning of this information. If nothing can be
found, the information is discarded as meaningless” (p. 86). Koeze (2007) found that the
ever greatest influence on students’ achievement is choice, learning style, interest,
motivation, formal and informal pre-assessment. Keeping in dire need teachers often
conduct informal assessment to keep the students moving ahead. Moreover, when the
teachers prepare the lesson more carefully and adopt appropriate method of teaching that
will certainly obtain the desired results. According to Tomlinson (2001), “Differentiation
calls on a teacher to realize that classrooms must be places where teachers pursue our
best understandings of teaching and learning every day, and also to recall daily that no
practice is truly best practice unless it works for the individual learner” (p. 17).
Callahan (1999) identified that teachers should pay equal attention on the process of
learning and its application in the practical sense. In the proportion of process and
product, the learner interests, learning style, intelligence level and cultural differences
will be addressed for developing the range of instructional planning and curricular
approaches. In this regard, the achievement level of the students is easily assessed.
Reeves (2002) described that accountability system is very essential for improving
students’ achievement but only relying on the test score is insufficient. “An effective
accountability system should be integrated with the principles of leadership and learning
competences” (Reeves, 2002). Moreover, his research strongly suggested three separate
tiers for data analysis in the accountability system. The first one is system-wide
indicators, consisting on test scores, attendance, safety, dropout ratio and other necessary
matters that can be applied to every school through the system. The second one is six to
ten school based indicators, frequently measure teaching-learning process, curriculum
and the variable of leadership which can address the horizontal axis of the leadership and
learning. Though, the third tier of the system is to explore the link between the first two
tiers which create a useful opportunity for the school principal to explain in rich
descriptive language information related to school which is not subject to quantitative
analysis (Reeves, 2000b). Therefore, the leader or principal use the aforementioned
accountability system to improve the strategy of teaching, learning and leadership.
Koeze (2007) stated that classrooms are mostly full with students who have great
differences in their interests, social or cultural background, previous knowledge and
learning attitude. In such kind of environment of the class, the teachers who cannot
differentiate among the diverse nature of students would hardly be able to teach a friction
in spite of diligent and whole heartedly efforts are made by them. It has been admitted by
all that teachers intend to teach but unless without having proper teaching tools and
proper leader guidance, the teaching learning process become futile which results low
academic achievement (Koeze, 2007).
Hall (2004) stated, “To differentiate instruction is to recognize students’ varying
background knowledge, readiness, language, preference in learning, interests, and to react
responsively” (p. 1). Jensen (1998) noted, “Our brain is highly effective and adaptive.
What ensures our survival is adapting and creating options. A typical classroom narrows
our thinking strategies and answer options. Educators who insist on singular approaches
and the ‘right answer’ are ignoring what’s kept our species around for centuries” (p. 16).
Louis, Leithwood, Stephen and Anderson (2010) defined the leadership role of a school
principal as it has never been seen that in the absence of competent leadership the
students scored higher in any examination or assessment. Tomlinson (2000) described
that learners can be challenged by providing sufficient materials and responsibilities on
the standard at varying measures of scaffolding, through the use of multiple instructions
in groups, and with time variations. Moreover, differentiation suggests that teachers can
adopt certain methods to craft lessons in ways which tap into numerous student interests
to encourage and promote finely tuned learner’s interest in the standard. Kaplan and
Owings (2004) analyzed that the quality of teaching as well as the teacher are the most
powerful indicators of student’s success. If the students stay for a longer period with
effective teachers, literally their achievement level will go higher and higher.
Co-Curricular Activities
The achievement level of students can be improved through co-curricular activities.
Many studies show a great relationship between students’ participation in co-curricular
activities and their academic achievement. But there is still a great battle among
educators related to the need for co-curricular activities, as few of them consider these as
extra-curricular activities which is totally leisure and not the part of any academic
purpose of schools. These educators believe that time spent away from the classroom
minimizes the students’ achievement (O’Dean, 1994). Conversely, other educators
consider that the co-curricular activities are the integral part of education which keeps the
students fit to avail chances for success in all aspects. Holland and Andrews (1987)
documented that co-curricular activities are necessary to the total development of
students’ personalities in today’s schools. O’Dean, (1994) analyzed that co-curricular
activities allow the students to develop the skills of leadership, moral values,
sportsmanship, self-confidence, tolerance and the ability to tackle competitive situations.
Though, such skills will not be developed in the classroom.
New educational concepts lay special emphases on the crucial need of co-curricular
activities. Curricular work alone cannot fulfill all the necessities of children for
successful living. In the absences of co-curricular activities, the child’s education suffers
from many handicaps and gaps. These activities help the students in various from of
development, such as ‘4 Hs’ which means head, heart, hand and health. A great number
of children’s potentialities remain hidden in the absence of co-curricular activities.
Moreover, these activities create a clear interest for students to be regular and leads to
pleasure, especially in the school work (Sidhu, 2003). An effective leader (principal)
considers the importance of these activities which promote several faculties like, the
spirit of teamwork, aesthetic, social and mechanical outcomes. A child learns a lot from
the playground like leadership, patience, respect, spirit of win and the acceptance of
defeat.
Sidhu (2003) divided co-curricular activities into thirteen categories, namely:
1) Academic development activities: this category includes subject club, survey club,
Mathematics and geographical club; 2) Aesthetic development Activities: These are

including drawing, painting, music, exhibitions, making charts and models; 3)
Citizenship Training Activities: These are including forming students council and visit to
various places of social importance.; 4) Cultural Development of Social Importance:
These activities consist of the celebration of religious and other national festivals and
visits of historical places; 5) Emotional and National Integration Activities: These are the
activities in which national and international days, organization of camps, field or
educational trips to different places of the country; 6) Activities for Leisure: These
activities contain photography, stamp collection and other interesting things; 7) Literacy
Activities: Such as debates and declamations, public speeches, library work and
magazines; 8) Moral Development Activities: These are including morning assembly and
other social service activities; 9) Productive Activities: These activities consist of
gardening, toys making, embroidery, clay modeling and cardboard work; 10) Physical
Development Activities: Such as athletics, wrestling, indoor and outdoor games; 11)
Scientific Activities: These activities consisting of science fairs, science quiz and visits
to scientific establishment; 12) Social Welfare Activities: Such as scouting, girl guiding,
social service society and first aid; 13) Multipurpose Activities: These activities
consisting of beautification of school, cultural work celebration, get together, project of
development.
Teacher Appraisal
Indeed, the main purpose of teacher appraisals is to augment competency level and
professional growth. Cousins (1995) stated that teachers, appraisal makes them
responsible for their own learning and professional development. In fact, in Pakistan
mostly principals are focusing on teaching and classroom results of the teachers. Maharaj
(2014) investigated that mostly administrators accept the fact that classroom observations
would produce more accurate information for teacher appraisal. Moreover, a single class
observation would be insufficient to evaluate a teacher’s performance but more visits in
the classroom will show the complete picture of a teacher. Middlewood and Cardno
(2001) analyzed that the principals conduct teacher appraisal system in instructive
manner on the basis of comparative performance of teachers.
Martin (2009) stated that the most important duty of the principal is to ensure the best
quality teaching in all classes. But this is only possible when good and qualified teachers
are appointed and where the dropout rate of teachers is very low.
TYPES OF LEADERSHIP
Transformational Leadership
Transformational Leadership style is mainly concerned with the vision of the leader. The
idea of transformational leadership was presented by Burns for the first time in 1978.
According to the study of Jung (2000-2001) transformational behaviors “motivate their
followers by raising their followers’ level of awareness about the importance and value of
designated outcomes, and by transforming followers’ personal values to support the
collective goals/vision for their organization” (p. 949).
Burns (1978) distinguished between transactional and transformational leadership styles.
Moreover, he defined that transactional leadership means getting things done, while
transformational leadership’s main focus is on vision and inspiration. Though, Mitchell
and Tucker (1992) investigated that transformational leadership happens when leaders are
eagerly concerned to gain over all cooperation and healthy participation of the entire
team members. Furthermore, it is an approach which transforms the followers’ feelings,
beliefs and attitudes. In people-oriented approach, they build relationships and assist
followers to develop goals and identify strategies, rather than to emphasis on task and
performance. Adair (1986) agreed upon the fact that transactional and transformational
leadership fit well with organized management based on task and maintenance or action-
centered leadership.
Ling, Simsek, Lubatkin and Veiga (2008) stated that transformational leaders focus at
transforming individuals, team and rigid to exceed beyond the status quo with purpose
that can improve the ability of innovation and adaption. According to the studies of
Yukul and Fleet (1992) transformational leadership is mainly the process of influencing
major changes in the attitudes and assumptions of organizational member and building
commitment for major changes in the organization’s objectives and strategies.
Bass (1999) and Avolio et al (1999) defined that transformational leadership consists of
four dimensions:
a) Charisma : which is creating and presenting striking vision of the future;
b) Inspirational motivation: which is energizing the followers to go ahead of self-
interest;
c) Individual consideration: in this category the leader focuses on followers’
development by providing coaching, support and encouragement;
d) Intellectual stimulation: in this style, the leader encourages the followers to sort out
the solution of any problem in modern ways (Bass and Avolio, 1999).
Hater and Bass (1998) established that transformational leaders are responsible for
motivating the employees to go beyond the ordinary expectation. Moreover,
transformational leader keeps motivating their subordinates. Deal and Peterson (1999)
recommended that a transformational leader must "realize that what is appreciated,
recognized, honored and signals the key values of what is admirable and achievable" (p.
207).
Sergioranni (2007) investigated that transformational leadership is the elaborative efforts
and shared discussion by the stake holders towards a common goal. It leads more
effectively to positive change in schools to support students’ output. He argued that
transformational leaders empower members of the organization to focus on the vision and
willingly take ownership of the change. Such type of principal encourages teachers and
others to spotlight on the organizational goal because the transformational leader is more
concerned with the results rather than the process. These kinds of leaders give
opportunity to find the best way to reach the desired goals of the organization. They
believe in the collaborative team efforts on a shared vision and build a strong school
culture in which the faculty and other staff members are fully committed (Sergioranni,
2007). Jung (2000-2001) described that transformational leadership mainly depends on
the leaders’ behavior that motivates their subordinates by educating them about the value
of its outcomes. Moreover, these leaders support in the achievement of collective
goals/visions for their institution.
Lezotte and McKee (2006) revealed that the strong commitment of the members in the
organization is vital factor to ensure a positive change. They emphasized that effective
leaders are committed to implementing a collaborative process and also encourage their
subordinates to participate in leadership role based on their knowledge and expertise for
effective change to take place.
Martin (2009) revealed in his study that transformational leaders ensure learning
partnership and students’ success. In addition, Martin found that there was a great
correlation between the factors of school culture and transformational leadership. To him
the collaborative leadership means that the principal can form a supportive environment
for the staff members where their opinions are considered in the decision making process.
Bass and Avolis (2000) stated that a “shared vision” creates trust, support,
encouragement and respect for the staff in the decision making process.
Surraya (2012) investigated that mostly teachers have positive perspective towards the
principal leadership style, who improves teaching-learning process and ensure academic
excellence. Moreover, teachers expect the highest degree of transformational leadership
style from their principals who pay individual attention to every teacher in the institution.
They found that the strong leadership style of principals can be a very important factor
for the disciplined environment, academic success, teachers’ co-operation and dedication,
team spirit and constructive teacher-student relationship.
Transactional Leadership
Robbins, Judge and Sanghi 2007) defined transactional leadership in his study as “leaders
who lead primarily by using social exchanges for transaction”. In this kind of leadership,
the rewards which the employees get, is totally connected to their performance. The
leader gives the task to his followers and when they accomplish that target, a contingent
reward is offered to them. Moreover, in this type of leadership, the leader supports the
followers and keeps monitoring them to do their best, so that to achieve the top place in
the organization.
Transactional leadership is the focal point which happens between leaders and
subordinates (Bass 1985 and Burns, 1978). Certain changes permit leaders to achieve
their performance aims, by motivating their followers through contract agreement,
directing their subordinates’ behavior toward the accomplishment of established goals,
emphasizing on extrinsic rewards, avoiding needless risks and focusing on the
organizational effectiveness. Similarly, transactional leadership permits subordinates to
minimize workplace nervousness, fulfill their own interest and contemplate on apparent
organizational objectives like improved quality and increased production (Sadeghi and
Pihie, 2012). Moreover, according to Leithwood and Mascall’s (2008), transactional
leadership style has a positive impact on students’ academic gain. Marks and Printy
(2003) stated that the transactional leadership style of the principal was strongly
correlated with the achievement of students. The quantitative study of Leithwood and
Mascall’s (2008) found that collective or transactional leadership style has vivid impact
on student learning outcomes.
Leithwood (1992) stated that transactional leadership increases the school capacity; it
never carries out a serious drive of transformational leadership to build excessive school
improvements. According to the recent research studies, transactional leadership created
collaboration between teachers and students. This style of leadership created more helpful
learning environment within a school for the students and increased level of achievement
(Leithwood and Mascall, 2008).
Moreover, transactional leadership style supported the exchange process in which the
leader offers rewards and sanctions. The leader and follower agree upon a commitment
that the desired follower attitudes shall be rewarded, while undesirable behaviors will
drag out punishment (Awamleh, Evans and Mahate, 2005). These rewards contain an
increment in salary, job promotion and other benefits. On the other hand, penalties may
contain pay cuts, job demotions and dismissal. Indeed, such kind of leadership is not
fruitful in all situations (Bryman, 1992). Kellerman (2003) investigated that transactional
leadership is a good example of exchanging the views between the leader and employees.
In this kind of leadership, different types of rewards increase emotional feelings of the
employees towards the organization. Moreover, effective leader shows both
transformational and transactional traits which results a strong positive correlation in the
organization.
Autocratic Leadership Style
In the autocratic style of leadership, the role of a leader is central and tries to oblige his
subordinates to follow his orders without delay. Iqbal (2010) believed that they always,
make their followers dependent and keep them away from decision making process and
other innovative works. An autocratic leader compels the subordinates to obey his
instructions completely. This kind of leadership can be better for those followers who
have no experiences in the field. The leader keeps himself/herself active and wants to be
highly competent to make the right decision. Hence, autocratic leadership style is having
several deficiencies such as low morale and job dissatisfaction which causes teachers’
potential declination to exhibit their abilities and skills (Khanka, 2007).
Nsubuga (2008) stated that autocratic leadership produces poor academic results because
authoritative leadership style causes harshness in the system. They keep everything under
their thumbs, and terrifying their subordinates.
In autocratic style of leadership, the position of the principal is not less than the absolute
monarch of the school world. Moreover, the authoritarian method of discipline is,
undoubted, an easy and even a comfortable one, so far as the principal or teacher is
concerned. Indeed, only to locate the disorder, identify its nature, and administer the pill
of punishment. Furthermore, success in class or school management is judged, in such
case by the degree of fear the teacher is able to inspire in the pupils, so that they may not
do what is not approved of by school authorities.

Choi (2007) found that autocratic leadership style impose a high degree of control over
the subordinates, having no freedom to participate in decision making process. In
addition, an autocratic leader dictates work task to his each number and determines all
polices, techniques and activities by himself. Such types of leaders are giving orders and
always depend on their power to persuade other (Bass, 1990).
Yousuf (2012) stated that the autocratic leadership style of the principal negatively effect
on students’ achievement level because both teachers and students incorporate rigid
leadership style. The more the principal use the autocratic leadership style, the less
academic achievement they get. According to Charlton (2000), the principals who
maintain discipline using strict rules mostly face the resistance of teachers and students
which causes indiscipline in the institution. Moreover, teachers and students keep
protesting against the dictatorship of the principal (Yousuf, 2012).
Deft (2005) stated that the best leader is always deeply interested in the welfare of others.
Moreover, he argued that the most important characteristics of a leader are to use human
talent to grow performance, integrity and trust in the organization. Another distinguishing
characteristic of a leader is to be honest (Deft, 2005). Kouzes and Posner (2007) revealed
that a leader cannot inspire others to act if he is not seen as being honest and trustworthy.
Hence, honesty can be considered the most vital characteristic between the leader and
employees. Furthermore, they emphasized that if a leader is found to be dishonest,
certainly he would lose respect among the employees which results de-motivation and
over time the employee loses self-respect as well.

In Secondary Schools of Pakistan, the principals are promoted on the basis of experience
and longevity not on the ground of characteristics and expertise they have to lead the
institution. In this context, Lussier and Achua (2004) elaborated that leadership style is
the accumulation of various trails, skills and behavior which the leaders use as they
interact with teachers. Steer et al, (1996) classified the traits of a leader, including
physical, intellectual, interpersonal and social skills. Conversely, in Pakistan, the
nomination of the principals, especially in government secondary school is done on
political bases which results poor performances and low academics output.
Democratic Leadership Style
In a democratic style of leadership, every individual has to be regarded as an important
element of the society. Sidhu (2005) defined that each individual personality should be
developed, respected and to be considered as more valuable than everything else. In
school organization, all individuals have their rights to participate in affairs related to
them. Everyone has the freedom of expression and has the right to criticize the illogical
elements. Moreover, freedom and equality is the essence of democracy. In democratic
leadership style all distinctions of caste, creed and color are eradicated from the
institution (Sidhu, 2005).
Yusuf (2012) investigated that democratic leadership style of the principal positively and
effectively influences on students’ academic achievement. Similarly, Mumbe (2005)
revealed that democratic leadership style of the principal influences on students’
academic achievement and it also increases the performance level of the teachers, which
results the attainments of the school objectives. Democratic leadership style motivates the
employees (teachers) and increases their job satisfaction level in the organization
(Yousuf, 2012). Ediger (1988) emphasized that principal “getting along well with others”
in continuous teaching and learning conditions. Moreover, he admitted that a democratic
leader accepts each person as an important individual, praises and rewards each person
who does well, guides each one to obtain as much as possible, provides enough
opportunities for professional and personal grooming and help the individual to think
positively about the institution.
Griffith (2005) observed that democratic leadership style of the principal related to
teachers’ job satisfaction, which reduces their isolation, anxiety and fear. Democratic
leadership style brings the sense of responsibility among the staff members and
empowers them to actively play their role in setting the school standards or norm and
beliefs. Rug (2005) stated that the keystone of democratic leader is quite similar as
servant-leader who always shares power, care subordinate, mainly focuses on growth and
welfare of team members as well as puts the needs of other people first and helps them
develop and performs as good as possible. According to the study of Goldberg et al.
(2008), a significant relationship could be found between democratic leadership style and
teacher job satisfaction in high performing schools around the globe.
Sidhu (2005) described that it is the beauty of democratic leadership where responsibility,
power and authority are shared. In such kind of leadership, responsibility and power is
not placed in the hands of a principal, but can be shared with the teachers. Moreover, in a
democratic leadership, good human relations are very essential which enhances group
morale and produces better results in the organization. A democratic leader secures the
unity of purpose through consensus and team loyalty. In this type of leadership the
members of a team participate in the formulation of aims, polices and other programs
(Sidhu, 2005). They also own such activities with open hearts because a cooperative
spirit is reflected in every aspect in a democratic style of leadership. Furthermore, the
structure of a democratic or participative organization is designed to give maximum
freedom to the individual member of a group. Indeed, people struggle hard when they
have freedom to use their power and talents. In school system, the teacher also enjoys
freedom to criticize, differ in opinion, and ask question because in a democratic
leadership, nobody is ignored as every person is important in the organization (Sidhu,
2005).
Gastil (1994) stated that democratic leadership has three major aspects namely,
distributing responsibility among the team members, empowering them and permitting
them to take part in the decision making process. The basic function of a school is to
intimate the young into the social process of life in a democratic style where each student
should be brought to understand and realize his responsibility as a member of a school
community. In addition, the students should be made to feel that they have a public duty
to the school, and they must also cooperate with others in the promotion of common
interest of their school (Mohiyuddin, 1952).

Sidhu (2005) stated that the democratic administration creates an environment which is
pressure-free and maximum production is obtained. Such kind of climate avoids external
pressure which is destructive for human personality. Similarly, when an individual meets
his needs and he/she internally motivated and produces greater production. Moreover, he
stated that a democratic style of leadership is totally based on the principle of justice and
never shows undue favor to anybody. The principal maintains justice in the institution by
treating them equally. Every individual internally feels secure and satisfied when the
administration recognizes the importance of justice (Sidhu, 2005). Woods (2004) stated
that democratic leadership style is the key component in education which shows the
ideals and theories of democratic leadership that can be easily translated into practice and
explains some of the challenges which democratic leadership creates in the context of
modern education. Moreover, it is emphasized that democratic leadership is necessary in
understanding how the concerned authority will understand and how to improve the
school system (Woods, 2004).
White and Lippitt (1969) defined democratic leadership, as the leader has to be a regular
group member, emphasizing on group participation, regular discussion and group
decisions. Northouse (1997) argued that democratic leadership is directive, supportive,
productive and achievement oriented for the entire team members in the organization.
Anderson (1991) concluded that a democratic leader is one who shares decision making
with other team members. According to Sidhu (2005) in democratic style of leadership,
“Responsibility, power and authority have to be shared. Since all the responsibilities and
powers are not placed in the hands of the executive at the top and he should neither
receive all the credit nor all the blames”.
Hackman and Johnson (1996) defined that democratic leadership style of the principal is
closely associated with increased teachers, productivity, job satisfaction, involvement in
related activities and an immense commitment with the institution. Moore (2000)
revealed that democratic leadership style creates democratic values in the organization.
Waldo (2001) supported Moore’s explanation of the relationship between democratic
leadership and organizational as well as fundamental value of democracy which is
striving toward freedom, Justice and equality among the members.
According to the study of Iqbal (2010), only 18 percent secondary school principals adopt
autocratic leadership style, while 82 percent principals prefer democratic leadership style.
Furthermore, it was revealed that teachers are more satisfied in schools where there is
participative or democratic leadership style being adopted by the principals.
Democratic Leadership Supervision
The concept of supervision in the democratic style of leadership is based on positive
human relationship. Sharma (2006) stated that supervision in democratic leadership
emphasizes on the improvement of teachers rather than to improve the learning programs.
Moreover, Sharma stated, “Supervision was therefore focused on the teacher and its
immediate purpose was to teach him how to teach better. The principal of a school should
have enough knowledge to guide his/her teachers for better learning programs” (p.178).
Sharma (2006) noted, “Today’s teachers are less in need of training in service, more in
need of able leadership to foster their growth as teachers and to coordinate their efforts to
operate a good school”. In fact, an able leadership of the principal inspires the teachers a
lot by incorporating numerous traits from his personality. Wiles and Bondi (2000)
defined supervision as, “We see supervision in schools as a general leadership function
that coordinates and manages these activities concerned with learning.”
Laissez-Faire Style of Leadership
Robbins (2007) defined the leadership style as, “Abdicated responsibilities avoid making
decisions”. Laissez-faire leader is mostly uninvolved in the work of the organization.
Yusuf (2012) explored that laissez-faire leadership style of the principal does not
positively influence on the students’ academic achievement. Moreover, principals using
this style of leadership frequently fail to achieve the desired objectives of the school, and
gradually the performance of teachers and students declines. It shows that laissez-faire
leadership style is unproductive in school organizations. When the principals avoid
motivating and supervising their subordinates, consequently, the performance level of the
school goes down day by day and certain problems are created in the system (Yousuf,
2012).
Bartol and Martin (1994) concluded that in laissez-faire style of leadership, the leaders
give complete freedom to their subordinates, even they provide them necessary materials,
but the fact is, they participate only to answer their questions and avoid giving feedback.
Mondy and Premeaux (1995) stated that in laissez-faire style of leadership “leaders let
group members make all decisions”. In this type of leadership, it will be quite difficult to
depend unless the subordinates are experts and self-motivated. Bass (1985) concluded
that laissez-faire leaders avoid intervening in situation even when needed because they
have no confidence in their leadership abilities to overcome the problems and support
their employees. It was found in certain schools of Karachi where the principals do not
interfere in teaching learning process as well as in other school related activities. In these
schools, the senior teachers direct and assign duties to novice teachers which results in
the increase of teachers’ dropout. Furthermore, these principals empower the teachers but
there is no system of monitoring which results low academic achievement. Moreover,
laissez-faire leaders neither focus on performance nor on people.
Katz, Maccoby, Gurin, and Floor (1951) concluded in their studies that the groups will be
unproductive, if their leaders avoid practicing the leadership role and gave up it to
followers of the work group. These leaders also did not know their own role from the role
of group members. They keep engaging themselves in production work like their
subordinates, and ignored the supervisory functions (Katz et al, (1951). Pelz (1956)
investigated that the laissez-faire style of leadership was negatively connected to
productivity in an organization because this style of the leader is inactive rather than
proactive. Barnett, Marsh and Craven (2005) concluded that teachers have a great desire
to be led by their principal because laissez-faire leadership style of the leader has
inevitably negative effect on the perception of teachers about global satisfaction of
leadership.
Situational Leadership
According to the study of Hersey (1969), “The situation approach maintains that
leadership is determined not so much by characters of individuals as by the requirement
of social situation”.
Situational leadership style of the school principal demonstrates that an effective
leadership requires logical understanding of the situation and an accurate response, rather
than an efficient leader with a huge group of enthusiastic followers (Graeff, 1997; Grint,
2011). Situational leadership style concern with both task-oriented and people-oriented
leadership range (Bass, 2008; Conger, 2010; Graeff, 1997; Lorsch, 2010). The continuum
showed the degree that the leader focuses on the needed task or on the relations with the
followers.
Task-Oriented
Task-oriented leaders clearly state the roles and responsibilities for followers through
definite instructions, making organizational pattern and creating formal communication
directions (Bass, 2008; Hersey and1969). In this type of leadership, the leader guides his
team about what to do, when to do and how to do it with a great efficacy.
Relation-Oriented
Relation-oriented leaders practice for seeking harmonious relations, reducing emotional
conflicts, and regulating equal participation of the concerned people (Bass, 2008; Hersey,
1969; Shin, 2011). In this type of leadership, the role of a leader is of a facilitator,
listener, supporter and counselor.
According to the behavioral theory of Bass (2008) and contingency theory of Yukl
(2011), leaders’ behaviors both as task or people focused, contain some validity which
portrays an effective leadership as dependent on followers maturity. The height of both
psychological and job maturity of the followers establishes an appropriate style of
leadership which relates to previous training and education intervention (Bass, 2008;
Hersey and Blanchard, 1969).
Situational Leadership
Directing Coaching Supporting Delegating
In the low efficiency level of the follower the leader shows the direction towards the
destination. Furthermore, when the subordinates are unwilling and afraid to take any
initiative, then an effective leader plays the role of a director. Hence, in school
environment the principal as a coach defines role and task to the teachers and support
them when they want to do but lack of commitment hurdles in their way. The principal
should trust on delegating the duties with constructive supervision as the execution of a
task is in the hands of teachers.
Instructional Leadership
Duke (1987) depicted that instructional leaders are those who could be effective in the
given domains: teacher professional development, teacher supervision and appraisal,

resource management, instructional management and moral support, instructional quality
control program, coordination, and critical situation. It was generally circulated in 1980’s
that school principals exercised instructional leadership style which has been effective for
the school organization (Barth, 1986; Cuban, 1984, Hallinger, 1992). Leithwood (2005)
declared, “At least a half dozen…leadership models appear repeatedly in educational
leadership literature…Nevertheless, two models currently vie for most of the attention
among practicing educators—instructional and transformational models” (p. 6).
Blasé and Blasé (1999) concluded that instructional leadership has strong “enhancing
effects” on teachers’ emotion, cognition and behavior. The principals never force the
teachers to teach in limited ways but give them free hand to adopt any appropriate
method, suited to the occasion in which the students easily perceive the instruction.
Moreover, the principals avoid using restrictive and threatening approaches for teachers
but striving for a holistic approach to promote their professional competences. They
arrange conferences with teachers contained such behaviors like making suggestions,
modeling, using inquiry, giving feedback and “soliciting advice and opinion from
teachers” (Blasé and Blasé, 2004).
Hallinger (2005) stated that the effective school moment of 1970 and 1980 put a great
emphasis on instructional leadership. Therefore, it has been renewed from time to time in
which the school leaders are held responsible for student performance. Robinson, J.V.
(2006) argued that school principals need some opportunities to extend and update their
pedagogical knowledge of curriculum. Moreover, school leaders need an appropriate

professional program for the development of staff members to support them in their
work. Indeed, instructional leaders are goal oriented who define a clear direction for their
schools by motivating others to participate in its achievement because in instructionally
effective schools, the main focus is on the improvement of students’ academic outcome
(Bamburg and Andrews, 1990; Glasman, 1984; Goldring and Pasternak, 1994; Hallinger
and Murphy, 1986; Heck et al., 1990; Leithwood, Cousins, 1990; O’Day, 1983).
Glickman (1991) noted that the principal of any school is not only the instructional leader
but the coordinator of teachers and students as instructional leaders. Leithwood et al.
(2004) concluded that an instructional leader adopts certain principles for the academic
achievement, containing the following goals:
Build and sustain a competitive school, provide instructional leadership and guidance,
empower the teachers to take part in important decisions and implement strategic
improvement plans for the school.
Jenkins (2009) suggested that instructional leaders had changed their traditional role and
responsibility of being school managers and administrators, placed large focus on
developing knowledge as well as the implementation of curriculum, training, instruction,
and assessment. Datnow and Castellano (2001) affirmed that the principal’s role in the
decision making process has been vital in reforming the school and teaching-learning
programs. Bush (2003) described instructional leadership as, “Focusing influence in the
direction of learning by learners as a result of teachers’ professional organization of
learned material” (p.16).

Charismatic Leadership Style
Klein and House (1995) defined charisma as, “A fire that ignites followers’ energy and
commitment, producing results above and beyond the call of duty”. Charismatic leaders
emotionally instigate the people, despite hurdles and personal sacrifices to perform more
than as they normally perform. They put themselves in the front line for the sake of a
reason and face boldly against any obstacle (Daft, 2010).
Bell (2013) concluded that in charismatic leadership style both leaders and followers
traits and responsibilities are described. Charismatic traits are consisting of
communication, trust, vision and delegation of authority which the leaders demonstrate in
critical situations. Moreover, effective communication is one of the major traits of a
charismatic leader, which includes the use of symbolic, dramatic and metaphoric
language (Conger and Kanungo, 1987). House (1995) concluded that charismatic leaders,
“Receive higher performance ratings, have more satisfied and more highly motivated
followers, and are viewed as more effective leaders by their superiors and followers than
others in positions of leadership” (p.8). Bass (1985) stated that charisma is in the eye of
the beholder and, therefore is relative to the beholder. Nevertheless, the charismatic
leader actively shapes and enlarges his or her audience through energy, self-confidence,
assertiveness, ambition, and opportunities seized.
Communication
These leaders communicate with passion, inspiration, emotion, and motivation which
incorporate a great charisma among the followers. Furthermore, a charismatic leader is

confident and communicates self-confidence in his rhetorical efforts. Charismatic leaders
not only communicate face to face to their followers but they do communicate through
media such as internet, television or radio (Yukl, 2010). Hence, a charismatic leader is
known for his stimulating public speeches. Therefore, charismatic leaders are prominent
in the society due to their public speeches.
Trust
Yukl (2010) stated that creating a trust relationship between charismatic leaders and
followers is very crucial. Howell and Shamir (2005) declared that such trust must be a
“high level of trust between leaders and followers” (p. 98). Therefore, Yukl (2010) has
concluded that for the establishment of trust relationship, integrity would be a key factor
which demonstrates honesty, and consistency between personal action and values. The
principal should create school environment, based on honesty, respect, truth and trust. A
healthy relationship between principal and teachers improves the level of the institution.
Vision
To establish a vision for the organization is the most important trait of a successful
leader. In this regard, charismatic leaders create solution-oriented vision which is very
different from the ‘status quo’ (Yukl, 2010). The main quality of a charismatic leader is
the source of influence that comes from his personal characteristics rather than from his
formal power of authority. In addition, the people respect, admire and identify their
leader and try to copy him/her (Daft, 2010).

Visionary Leadership
Colton (1985) stated that a visionary leader is one who creates and establishes goals and
objectives for individual and group action. The major quality of a visionary leader is to
empower, challenge, guide and inspire his followers by his effective leadership, so that to
create a strong link between dream and action (Brown and Anfara, 2002). Bennis and
Nanus (1985) stated that a forceful vision is input to a successful leadership in school
organization. Clark and Clark (1990) concluded that the key to effective implementation
“lies within the principal and his/her ability to provide visionary leadership” (p. 19).
Starratt (1995) noted that vision is key: “Vision is a dynamic source of leadership that
imbues other aspects of leadership with a special energy and significance” (p. 13).
Furthermore, Fullan (2002) declared, “Effective school leaders are solutions to large-
scale, sustainable education reform” (p. 16). Murphy (1990) presented various
approaches related to visionary leadership. He added that effective principals have
positive direction for the improvement of their schools.
Yukl (1998) stated that the main function of a visionary leader is to facilitate his follower
in the decision-making process and other initiatives. Moreover, Vision-based leaders
realize that without the entire team efforts, it’s not possible for them to ‘turn their visions
into reality’ (Kantabutra and Avery, 2002).
Visionary leaders make others to sacrifice their valuable things and even their lives for
the sake of achieving. The followers, who are inspired by their competent leader, are
normally excited to rejoice over any achievement and they relate such kind of success
with their leader (Kevin, 2006). Valenzuela (2007) revealed that visionary leaders
demonstrate several components of behavioral aspects which make them extra ordinary,
such as honesty, empathy, trust, and integrity. Hence, they are trusted and respected for
these traits. Conger (1999) stated that a number of leadership skills are knotted with the
needs of subordinates, with their existing environment, with permitting expression of
their personal concerns, with their identification, threats and listening to member
complaints, limitations and opportunities always keep the followers confident about their
leader. Moreover, Conger added that visionary leaders must be flexible to adopt and
create positive changes which are meaningful and relevant to society. Therefore, a school
principal, who has visionary leadership style, adopting changes in curriculum, teaching-
learning programs and other related activities in the school organization.
Nsubuga (2008) revealed that principals and head teachers are comparatively trained but
they could be academic leaders rather than school managers. The study suggested that
school leaders (principals) can improve the performance of the school when they are well
prepared with certain knowledge “social and psychological skills”. Moreover, for the
school effectiveness “visionary leadership” is required to set the vision and mission of the
institute and lead from the front to mold the direction of the staff for its accomplishment.
Otherwise, in the absence of well-articulated “vision and mission will be no more than
simply wastage of time and energy” (Nsubuga, 2008).

RESEARCH STUDIES
According to the findings of Fook (2009), the principal’s position in a school is of a
“sense maker” who creates a sustainable climate in the school and enhances the
productivity of teacher and student. For the betterment of the school environment,
sometimes the principals adopt autocratic style of leadership in the early stages to
increase the school performance. Moreover, these principals adopt certain leadership
approaches which are more directive and suitable to the particular stage at critical times.
They also choose a style of leadership to move the school forward by empowering others
by distributing the leadership activities. Therefore, certain issues and problems are
collectively solved (Fook, 2009).
Clark (2007) stated that effective and competent leaders persuade their followers and
advising them not to think of their own benefits and interests, but they are prepared to
work for the organization through a shared vision. Leadership shows its effects when
followers are influenced and motivated to do what is benefited for the organization.
Indeed, to take advantage of followers for personal benefit is not the part of leadership.
William (2007) revealed that leaders need to show the direction towards the desired
goals. Dimmock and Walker (2005) mentioned that in pragmatic approach, the
organization is client centered. In the educational perspective, some schools are trying to
meet the individual student needs, while some traditional schools are fewer students
centered and expecting them to fit into the system determined for them by the school
management. Leadership is exercised when the leaders having relation with followers in
the context of given situation in an organization (Dimmock and Walker, 2005).

Moreover, to understand leadership, it is very essential to know its connections to other
activities and certain key process which take place within schools as well as in their
environment. Inside school activities, teaching and learning programs are included; where
outside the school, “They involve parenting, socialization and home-school relationship”
(Dimmock and Walker 2005).
According to Casavant and Cherkowaski (2001), effective school leadership is based on
the effective leadership development. They revealed that traditional strategies of
leadership did not meet the requirement of modern school administration. Moreover, they
argued in their studies that mostly leaders did not have the essential knowledge, skills and
attitude which were indispensable for the organizational development. Maher (1987)
criticized that mostly training programs were designed for administrators and principals
did not fulfill their job requirements.
CONTENT ANALYSIS
The goal of this study was to identify the leadership style (LS) of secondary school
principals. Leadership (L) is the influencing process of leaders and followers to achieve
organizational objectives through change. Through the combination of traits, skills and
behaviors, leaders use a specific style of (L) as they interact with their followers
(University of Lowa Research, 1930). Therefore, it is very essential for the school
principal (SP) to understand the nature and functions of (L) because whenever the time is
crucial, the subordinates have high expectations for getting support and assistance from
their leader hence they look toward their leader to ease the prevailing fear and uncertainty
(Daft, 2005). Leaders exert influence on workers who intellectually desire significant
changes, and consequently the changes reflect objectives shared by leaders and followers.
An important aspect of the principal in a school is to influence teachers who share a
common vision. Leadership occurs among people; it is not something done to people
(QUOTE). Several studies have revealed that effective leaders share power and find ways
to increase an organization’s brainpower by getting everyone in the organization involved
and committed. Therefore, the (SP) is encouraged to share the power and authority with
the teachers because success depends on the intellectual capacity of all members (Daft,
2005).
The most commonly used styles of (L) are autocratic leadership (AL), democratic
leadership (DL) and lessaiz-faire leadership (LL). An autocratic leader tends to centralize
authority and drive power from position and exercises control of reward and coercion.
These types of leaders keep everything under their thumbs. Principals following (AL)
style do not empower the teachers to take part in the decision making process.
Conversely, a (DL) passes on authority to others, encourages participation, relies on
subordinates’ (S) knowledge for completion of tasks, and extends respect to the
subordinates for influence. Mumbe (2005) stated that (DL) style influences students’
academic achievement and increases the performance level of teachers. Grifth (2005)
concluded that (DL) style of the principal is related to teachers’ jobs satisfaction which
mitigates their isolation, anxiety and fear. Sidhu (2005) described that it is the beauty of
(DL) where responsibility, power and authority are shared. Researchers analyzed that
(LL) style of the principal does not positively influence on the students’ academic
achievement and teachers performance. It means giving complete freedom to employees.
In this type of (L), a leader once determines the policies, programs, plans and limitation
for action and thereafter the entire process is controlled by the (S) (Chandramohan,
2007).
Transformational leadership (TL) is another style of a leader which Burns (1978) focuses
on the leader’s vision rather than on followers’ attribution. Transformational leaders
understand the importance of trust building as a means to creating a strong commitment
to mission driven outcomes. These leaders struggle for the empowerment and team
effectiveness and seek to transform the basic values, beliefs and attitudes of followers.
Lussier (2010) noted the following points that describe (TL):
 Present themselves as change agents
 Are visionaries who have a high level of trust for their intuition
 Are risk-takers, but not reckless
 Believe in people and show sensitivity to their needs
 Possess exceptional cognitive skills and believe in careful deliberation before
taking action.
 Are flexible and open to learning from experience
Transactional leadership is also a style of leaders; its process involves an exchange of
value benefits, based on present values and motivation of both leaders and followers. In
this kind of (L), the leader rewards the (S) for specific performance that meets with the
leader’s expectations while (TL) style of the school principals inspire teachers to go
beyond self-interest and act for the good of the institution. Some scholars have proposed
that transactional leadership consists of three dimensions; i) contingent reward, ii)
management by exception, and iii) passive (L) (Lussier, 2010).
The qualities of charismatic leadership (CL) were listed by Bromely 2007):
 Vision setter
 Superb communication skills
 Self-confident and moral convection
 Ability to inspire trust
 High risk orientation minimum internal conflict
 Ability to empower others
 Self promoting personality
The situational leadership (SL) style gives the (S) an understanding of what (SL) is. It is
up to the leaders to know how to apply it to the situation at hand in a working
environment when leading followers, towards the organization vision. It is significant to
remember effectiveness is maximized by matching the level of (L) style with follower
readiness (Blanchard, 2004). A leader can use one leadership style when dealing with one
follower and use different style when leading a team or another follower (Esther, 2011).
 Blanchard K. (May 2008) Leadership Excellence: 25, 5; 19.
 Esther, M. (2011). Creating Effective Leaders through Situational Leadership Approach.
Applied Sciences, JAMK University.

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
The previous chapters introduced the statement of the problem and review of the related
literature. This chapter will describe the methodology of the study.
STRATEGY
The overall strategy of the study was mixed method research. Mixed methods research
has been defined as a philosophically underpinned model of inquiry combining
qualitative and quantitative models of research so that evidence may be mixed and
knowledge is increased in a more meaningful manner than either model could achieve
alone (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research,
2001). The thoughtful rationale that compels mixing of qualitative and quantitative
method of research into a single study is pragmatism. Simply, put pragmatism is the
belief in doing what works best to achieve the desired result. As an underlying
philosophy for inquiry, pragmatism supports researchers in choosing between different
models of inquiry as research hypotheses being addressed intrinsically determine which
methods are best suited (Morgan, 2007). That is, certain research hypotheses are best
addressed using qualitative analysis while others using quantitative methods.

POPULATION
The population of the study was all the government and private secondary school
principals and teachers of Karachi, affiliated with the board of secondary education,
Karachi.
SAMPLING
The population was large, diverse and divided into different strata. Multistage sampling
techniques were used. In first step, 100 schools were selected through stratified random
sampling. 100 principals and 300 teachers from the sample schools were selected through
cluster sampling technique.
According to the study of Webster (1985), a sample in research is a predetermined part of
a statistical population which gains information about the whole, in which the selected
people from a large population for the purpose of a survey can be defined as a set of
respondents.
The sample should be “representative in the sense that each sampled unit will represent
the characteristics of a known number of units in the population” (Lohr, 1999).
Sample
As stratified random sampling designed was adopted for drawing a sample. The
principles of categorization associated to control, sex and district-wise location of the
schools were followed. In the last stage, 3 teachers and 1 principal were selected from
each school through cluster sampling. The overall sample size was 100 principals and
300 teachers from 100 secondary schools of six districts of Karachi.
District-Wise Distribution of Government and Private Secondary School Principals
District-wise Government School Principals Private School Principals Total

Male Female Male female
District East 3 5 5 7 20
District West 3 3 4 5 15
District Central 3 5 4 6 18
District Malir 4 3 3 6 16
District South 3 5 3 6 17
District Korangi 4 4 4 2 14
Total 20 25 23 32 100
District-wise Distribution of Government and Private Secondary School Teachers
District-wise Government School Teachers Private School Teachers Total

Male Female Male female
District East 9 15 15 21 60
District West 9 9 12 15 45
District Central 9 15 12 18 54
District Malir 12 9 9 18 48
District South 9 15 9 18 51
District Korangi 12 12 12 6 42
Total 60 75 69 96 300
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
Questionnaire
The researcher found that among other ways of collecting the primary data, questionnaire
was the most appropriate tool for this study. In addition, it can provide an efficient way to
collect responses from a large sample. Therefore, 30 questions related to demographic
information of the participants and a questionnaire with five possible responses

containing of 30 items was developed to cover various areas of leadership styles. The
items of questionnaire were mainly drawn from review of the related literature and by the
consultation and discussion with the experts of this field for ensuring the content validity
of the questionnaire.
A pilot study was conducted on a small sample (N = 8) of the secondary school principals
and (N = 15) of the secondary school teachers who were included in the designed sample.
To refine each item of the questionnaire, a draft questionnaire was tried out on the sample
to modify its language, clarity in the direction and meaningfulness. Hence, the reliability
of the questionnaire was ensured. In the aforementioned process, few items of the
questionnaire were refined and some of them were dropped.
As Maxwell (2005) stated, “Your research questions formulate what you want to
understand, your interview questions are what you ask people in order to gain that
understanding" (p.92). Thus, the data obtained from the questionnaire was found
satisfactory in respect of validity and reliability.
Interview Protocol
Therefore, an interview plan was also prepared containing of 4 main questions related to
the leadership style of secondary school principals. In the process of interview,
supplementary questions were asked after the major questions to suit the dynamics of the
interview. The researcher personally conducted face to face interviews. Therefore, a semi
structured interview guide was prepared. Questions were designed to help elucidate
leadership styles of the secondary school principals and to determine the nature of
leadership as applied to achieve the goals of the study. In the interviews, open ended
questions were asked from the secondary school principals to express their opinions about
leadership and its influences on the effectiveness of school organization. Pilot testing of the
interview guide was performed with 5 secondary school principals and 10 teachers.
Modifications were made to the interview guides based on interviewer experience and
feedback from pilot testing.
PROCEDURE
Both the questionnaires were personally administered to the principals and teachers. The
measuring scale of questionnaire was a five point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree
(5) to strongly disagree (1). Indeed, this procedure was time consuming, but it yielded a high
rate of return and provided opportunity to answer any query of the respondents related to the
questionnaire.
In the similar way, face to face interviews were taken. The targeted respondents were
requested earlier for the appointment. The answers of the respondents were recorded through
a cell phone and subsequently the recorded answers were noted down on the paper.
DATA ANALYSIS
Creswell (2007) stated that all the process including of data collection, data analysis, and
report writing are interrelated procedures which are presented simultaneously in a
research project.
In the study, two types of analytical techniques were used for analysis of the collected
data. First type was qualitative analysis of the interview protocols which was presented in
the narrative form, while the second type of analysis was statistical techniques contained
both descriptive and inferential. In descriptive procedure, tables with frequencies and
percentages were used for the description of data. Thus, t-test and chi-square were used
for the statistical inferences.

CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
In the previous chapters the problem of the study was defined, the review of the related
literature was presented and the design of the study was delineated. In the current chapter,
the findings of the study will be explained.
The findings of the study are presented in four sections:
Section I: Formation of the sample
Section II: Testing the hypotheses
Part A: As viewed by the Principals
Part B: As viewed by the Teachers
Section III: Item by item analyses of the data
Part A: As viewed by the Principals
Part B: As viewed by the Teachers
Section IV: Discussion of Interviews

SECTION I: FORMATION OF THE SAMPLE
Table 4.1.1 demonstrates the classification of secondary school principals of Karachi by
gender.
Table 4.1.1
Classification of Secondary School Principals of Karachi by Gender
Sex Frequency Percentage (%)
Male 43 43
Female 57 57
Total 100 100
The above table describes that out of 100 principals 43% were male and 57% were
female.
Table 4.1.2 demonstrates the classification of secondary school teachers of Karachi by
gender.
Table 4.1.2
Classification of Secondary School Teachers of Karachi by Gender
Sex Frequency Percentage (%)
Male 129 43
Female 171 57
Total 300 100
The above table shows that 43% out of 300 teachers were male and 57% were female.
status of school.
Table 4.1.3
Classification of Secondary School Principals of Karachi by Status of School
Status of school Frequency Percentage (%)
Government 45 45
Private 55 55
Total 100 100
The above table describes that out of 100 principals 45% were from government schools
and 55% were from private schools.
status of school.
Table 4.1.4
Classification of Secondary School Teachers of Karachi by Status of School
Status of school Frequency Percentage (%)
Government 135 45
Private 165 55
Total 300 100
The above table describes that out of 300 teachers 45% were from government schools
and 55% were from private schools.
professional qualification.
Table 4.1.5
Classification of Secondary School Principals of Karachi by Professional
Qualification
Professional Qualification Frequency Percentage (%)
Trained (Professionally Qualified) 69 69

Untrained (Professionally Non-qualified) 31 31
Total 100 100
The above table shows that out of 100 secondary school principals 69% were
professionally trained and 31% were professionally untrained.
professional qualification.
Table 4.1.6
Classification of Secondary School Teachers of Karachi by Professional
Qualification
Professional Qualification Frequency Percentage (%)
Trained (Professionally Qualified) 194 65

Untrained (Professionally Non-qualified) 106 35
Total 300 100
The above table shows that out of 300 secondary school teachers 65% were
professionally trained and 35% were professionally untrained.

years of teaching experiences.
Table 4.1.7
Classification of Secondary School Principals of Karachi by Years of Teaching
Experiences
Teaching Experience Frequency Percentage (%)
Less than 10 years’ experience 40 40

10 years and above 60 60
Total 100 100
The above table shows that out of 100 principals 40% were having less than 10 years of
teaching experience and 60% were having 10 years and above teaching experience.
years of teaching experiences.
Table 4.1.8
Classification of Secondary School Teachers of Karachi by Years of Teaching
Experiences
Teaching Experience Frequency Percentage (%)
Less than 10 years’ experience 184 61

10 years and above 116 39
Total 300 100
The above table shows that out of 300 teachers 61% were having less than 10 years of
teaching experience and 39% were having 10 years and above teaching experience.
Table 4.1.9 demonstrates the age-wise classification of secondary school principals of
Karachi.
Table 4.1.9
Age-wise Classification of Secondary School Principals of Karachi
Age Frequency Percentage (%)
Below 40 years 41 41
Above 40 years 59 59
Total 100 100
The above table shows that out of 100 principals 41% were below 40 years and 59% were
40 years and above.
Table 4.1.10 demonstrates the age-wise classification of secondary school teachers of
Karachi.
Table 4.1.10
Age-wise Classification of Secondary School Teachers of Karachi
Age Frequency Percentage (%)
Below 40 years 228 76

Above 40 years 72 24
Total 300 100
The above table shows that out of 300 teachers 76 % were below 40 years and 24% were
40 years and above.

academic qualification.
Table 4.1.11
Classification of Secondary School Principals of Karachi by Academic Qualification
Academic Qualification Frequency Percentage (%)
Graduate 100 100

under graduation 00 00
Total 100 100
The above table shows that100% secondary school principals were highly qualified
(Above Graduates).
academic qualification.
Table 4.1.12
Classification of Secondary School Teachers of Karachi by Academic Qualification
Academic Qualification Frequency Percentage (%)
Graduate 300 100

under graduation 00 00
Total 300 100
The above table shows that 100% secondary school teachers were highly qualified
(Above Graduates).
Marital Status.
Table 4.1.13
Classification of Secondary School Principals of Karachi by Marital Status
Marital Status Frequency Percentage (%)
Married 80 80
Unmarried 20 20
Total 100 100
The above table shows that out of 100 principals 80% were married and 20% were
unmarried.
Marital Status.
Table 4.1.14
Classification of Secondary School Teachers of Karachi by Marital Status
Marital Status Frequency Percentage (%)
Married 171 57
Unmarried 129 43
Total 300 100
The above table shows that out of 300 secondary school teachers 57% were married and
43% were unmarried.
Section II: TESTING THE MAIN HYPOTHESES
(As viewed by the secondary school principals)
Null hypothesis 1
There is no significant difference between the leadership style of male and female
secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of school organization as
viewed by the principals.
Analysis of the Problem
1. HO : µ1 =µ2
2. H1 : µ1 ≠ µ2
3.α : 0.05
4. Test Statistics: t – test
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2
t= 𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯
1 2
5. Result: The null hypothesis is rejected if the computed t ≥ 1.98.
6. Conclusion
According to table t, it is found that the tabulated value of t = 1.98 with df = 98 at
α = 0.05 is greater than the computed value of t = 1.18. Hence, the null hypothesis is
accepted and it is stated that there is no significant difference between the leadership style
of male and female secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of school
organization as viewed by the principals.
After the citation of the table, it is found that both male and female principals have equal
leadership styles.
Table 4.2.1 describes the application of t – test for testing the null hypothesis 1 (See
Appendix No. III)
Null hypothesis 2
There is no significant difference between the leadership style of government and private
1. HO : µ1 =µ2
2. H1 : µ1 ≠ µ2
3.α : 0.05
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2
t= 𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯
1 2
6. Conclusion
α = 0.05 is less than the computed value of t = 4.39. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected
and it is stated that there is a significant difference between the leadership style of
government and private secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of
school organization as viewed by the principals.
After the citation of the table, it is found that private school principals have more
effective leadership styles as compared to government school principals.
Appendix No. III).
.
Null hypothesis 3
There is no significant difference between the leadership style of trained and untrained
1. HO : µ1 =µ2
2. H1 : µ1 ≠ µ2
3.α : 0.05
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2
t= 𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯
1 2
6. Conclusion
of trained and untrained secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of
After the citation of the table, it is found that both trained and untrained school principals
have equal leadership styles.
Appendix No. III)
Null hypothesis 4
There is no significant difference between the leadership style of more experienced and
less experienced secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of school
1. HO : µ1 =µ2
2. H1 : µ1 ≠ µ2
3.α : 0.05
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2
t= 𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯
1 2
6. Conclusion
of more experienced and less experienced secondary school principals of Karachi in the
effectiveness of school organization as viewed by the principals.
After the citation of the table, it is found that both experienced and less experienced
school principals have equal leadership styles.
Appendix No. III)
Null hypothesis 5
There is no significant difference between the leadership style of younger and older
1. HO : µ1 =µ2
2. H1 : µ1 ≠ µ2
3.α : 0.05
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2
t= 𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯
1 2
6. Conclusion
of older and younger secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of
After the citation of the table, it is found that both older and younger school principals
Appendix No. III)
Null hypothesis 6
There is no significant difference between the leadership style of married and unmarried
1. HO : µ1 =µ2
2. H1 : µ1 ≠ µ2
3.α : 0.05
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2
t= 𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯
1 2
6. Conclusion
of married and unmarried secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of
school organization as observed by principals.
After the citation of the table, it is found that both married and unmarried school
principals have equal leadership styles.
Appendix No. III)
Section II: TESTING THE MAIN HYPOTHESES
(As viewed by the secondary school teachers)
Null hypothesis 1
There is no significant difference between the leadership style of male and female
viewed by the teachers.
1. HO : µ1 = µ2
2. H1 : µ1 ≠ µ2
3. α : 0.05
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2
t= 𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯
1 2
6. Conclusion
and it is stated that there is a significant difference between the leadership style of male
and female secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of school
organization as viewed by the teachers.
After the citation of the table, it is found that female principals have more leadership
styles as compared to male principals.
Appendix No. III)
Null hypothesis 2
There is no significant difference between the leadership style of government and private
1. HO : µ1 = µ2
2. H1 : µ1 ≠ µ2
3. α : 0.05
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2
t= 𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯
1 2
6. Conclusion
and it is stated that there is a significant difference between the leadership styles of
government and private secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of
school organization viewed by the teachers.
leadership styles as compared to government principals.
Appendix No. III)

Null hypothesis 3
There is no significant difference between the leadership style of trained and untrained
1. HO : µ1 = µ2
2. H1 : µ1 ≠ µ2
3. α : 0.05
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2
t= 𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯
1 2
6. Conclusion
trained and untrained secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of
school organization viewed by the teachers.
After the citation of the table, it is found that trained school principals have more
leadership styles as compared to untrained principals.
Appendix No. III)

Null hypothesis 4
There is no significant difference between the leadership style of experienced and less
experienced secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of school
1. HO : µ1 = µ2
2. H1 : µ1 ≠ µ2
3. α : 0.05
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2
t= 𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯
1 2
6. Conclusion
accepted and it is stated that there is no significant difference between the leadership
styles of experienced and less experienced secondary school principals of Karachi in the
effectiveness of school organization as viewed by the teachers.
After the citation of the table, it is found that experienced and less experienced school
Appendix No. III)

Null hypothesis 5
There is no significant difference between the leadership style of younger and older
1. HO : µ1 = µ2
2. H1 : µ1 ≠ µ2
3. α : 0.05
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2
t= 𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯
1 2
6. Conclusion
younger and older secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of school
After the citation of the table, it is found that young school principals have more
leadership styles as compared to aged principals.
Appendix No. III)

Null hypothesis 6
There is no significant difference between the leadership style of married and unmarried
1. HO : µ1 = µ2
2. H1 : µ1 ≠ µ2
3. α : 0.05
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2
t= 𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯
1 2
6. Conclusion
styles of married and unmarried secondary school principals of Karachi in the
After the citation of the table, it is found that married and unmarried school principals
Appendix No. III)

SECTION III: ITEM BY ITEM ANALYSES
In this section, every item of the questionnaire will be analyzed through chi square (one
variable). In each case, the null hypothesis would be tested in a way that:
There is no significant difference in the views of the principals/teachers in respect of item
number.
 As viewed by Principals
 As viewed by Teaches
The following points should be remembered during reading the report.
1. Formula for chi square (𝑥2 )
( f𝑜−fe)2
𝑥 2 =∑ fe
Where ∑ = sum of
fo = Observed frequency
fe = Expected frequency
2. Level of significance (α) = 0.05
3. Degree of freedom (df) = k – 1 = 3 – 1 = 2
Where K = Number of categories
4. Critical value of 𝑥 2= 5.99 (See the 𝑥 2 table)
5. Collapsing the categories: The five categories of Likert’s scale (Strongly Agree,
Agree, Undecided, Disagree and Strongly Disagree) were collapsed into three
categories i.e. Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A) and Disagree (D). Undecided
and Strongly Agree had a few responses which were added to Disagree.
Principals’ Opinion
Item No. 1
The vision of the principal for the school is very clear.
There is no significant difference in the view of the principals in respect of item 1.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05 (f𝐨−fe) 2
=∑ fe
4. Test Statistic:
=
5. Judgment : Reject null hypothesis if computed ≥ 5.99
6. Result: See Appendix No. IV, table 4.3.1 for calculation of 𝑥 2 for item 1.
According to table 𝑥 2, it is found that the tabulated value of 𝑥 2 = 5.99 with df = 2 at α
= 0.05 is less than the computed value of 𝑥2 = 62. Therefore, the null hypothesis is
rejected and it is stated that there is a significant difference in the leadership style of
After the citation of the table, it is found that majority of the secondary school principals
strongly acknowledged that their visions for the school is very clear.
Item No. 2
Attending professional development courses are very necessary for principals.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
4. Test Statistic: 𝑥 2
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙 =∑ fe
5. Judgment : Reject null hypothesis if computed 𝑥 2 ≥ 5.99
= 0.05 is less than the computed value of 𝑥2 = 18.49. Therefore, the null hypothesis is
rejected and it is stated that there is a significant difference in the leadership styles of
After the citation of the table, it is found that majority of the secondary school principals
strongly acknowledged that attending professional development courses are very
necessary for principals.

Item No. 3
Only work experience is sufficient for principals.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
5. Judgment: Reject null hypothesis if computed 𝑥 2 ≥ 5.99
According to table 𝑥 2 it is found that the tabulated value of 𝑥 2 = 5.99 with df = 2 at α =
0.05 is less than the computed value of 𝑥2 = 57.26. Therefore, the null hypothesis is
After the citation of the table, it is found that majority of the secondary school principals strongly
acknowledged that only works experience is not sufficient for principals.

Item No. 4
Providing training facilities is the responsibility of principal.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that providing training facilities is the responsibility of principal.

Item No. 5
Teachers are appointed on merit basis in this school.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that teachers are appointed on merit basis in their schools.

Item No. 6
The morale of teachers is kept high in this school.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
According table 𝑥 2, it is found that the tabulated value of 𝑥 2 = 5.99 with df = 2 at α=
0.05 is less than the computed value of 𝑥2 = 20.53. Therefore, the null hypothesis is
recommended that the morale of teachers is kept high in their schools.

Item No. 7
Good relationship between principal and teacher upgrades the standard of the school.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that good relationship between principal and teacher upgrades the standard
of the school.
Item No. 8
There is designative distance between principal and teachers.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
= 0.05 is greater than the computed value of 𝑥2 = 2.23. Therefore, the null hypothesis is
accepted and it is stated that there is no significant difference in the leadership style of
recommended that there is no designative distance between principal and teachers.

Item No. 9
The school curriculum is related to the learners’ needs.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that the school curriculum is related to the learners’ needs.

Item No. 10
Strict measures are taken to ensure discipline.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that strict measures are taken to ensure discipline.

Item No. 11
Physical punishment is not allowed in the school.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that physical punishment is not allowed in the school.

Item No. 12
The lesson of self-discipline is taught in this school.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that the lesson of self-discipline is taught in their schools.

Item No. 13
The principal arranges field trips for recreational purpose and other information.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that they arrange field trips for recreational purpose and other information.
Item No. 14
The principal focuses on co-curricular activities.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that they focus on the arrangement of co-curricular activities in their
school.
Item No. 15
Teachers are motivated through verbal appreciation and certificates.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
According to table 𝑥 2, it is found that the tabulated value of 𝑥2 = 5.99 with df = 2 at α
recommended that they encourage and motivate the teachers through verbal appreciation
and certificates.
Item No. 16
Teachers are terminated on the violation of any rule of the school.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that they terminate the teachers on the violation of any rule of the school.
Item No. 17
Workload and responsibilities are equally divided among the staff.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
admitted that workload and other responsibilities are equally divided among the staff.
Item No. 18
Teamwork is the main feature of this school.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that teamwork is the main feature of their schools.

Item No. 19
Unity of teachers is dangerous for the school administration.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that unity of teachers is dangerous for the school administration.

Item No. 20
The principal values the opinions of teachers in instructional decisions.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that they value the opinions of teachers in instructional decisions making
process.
Item No. 21
Teachers support in the achievement of school’s mission.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that teachers support in the achievement of school’s mission.

Item No. 22
Teachers are always willing to help the management when there is a problem.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that teachers are always willing to help the management when there is a
problem.
Item No. 23
The principal and teachers work collaboratively for the success of the students.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that they work collaboratively with teachers for the success of the
students.
Item No. 24
The principal empowers his staff to take constructive steps for the improvement of the
institution.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that they empower their staff to take constructive steps for the
improvement of the institutions.

Item No. 25
The principal makes major decisions by himself.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that they make major decisions by themselves.

Item No. 26
Teachers’ appraisal is very necessary for academic excellence.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that teachers’ appraisal is very necessary for academic excellence.

Item No. 27
Teachers are rewarded on producing good results.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that teachers are rewarded on producing good results.

Item No. 28
The mission of the school indicates a clear direction for teachers.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that the mission of the school indicates a clear direction for teachers.
Item No. 29
Parent-teacher meetings are held frequently.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that parent-teacher meetings are held frequently.

Item No. 30
The decisions are translated into action in this school.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that the decisions are translated into action in their schools.
Teachers’ Opinion
Item No. 1
The vision of the principal for the school is very clear.
There is no significant difference in the view of the teachers in respect of item 1.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
After the citation of the table, it is found that majority of the secondary school teachers
strongly acknowledged that their principal visions for the school is very clear.
Item No. 2
Attending professional development courses are very necessary for principals.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2=∑ fe
rejected and it is stated that there is a significant difference in the leadership styles of
strongly acknowledged that attending professional development courses are very
necessary for their principals.

Item No. 3
Only work experience is sufficient for principals.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
After the citation of the table, it is found that majority of the secondary school teachers strongly
acknowledged that only works experience is not sufficient for their principals.
Item No. 4
Providing training facilities is the responsibility of principal.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2=∑ fe
strongly recommended that providing training facilities is the responsibility of their
principal.
Item No. 5
Teachers are appointed on merit basis in this school.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that they are appointed on merit basis in schools.

Item No. 6
The morale of teachers is kept high in this school.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that their morale is kept high in schools.

Item No. 7
Good relationship between principal and teacher upgrades the standard of the school.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that good relationship between principal and teacher upgrades the standard
of the school.
Item No. 8
There is designative distance between principal and teachers.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that there is no designative distance between principal and teachers.

Item No. 9
The school curriculum is related to the learners’ needs.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that the school curriculum is related to the learners’ needs.

Item No. 10
Strict measures are taken to ensure discipline.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that strict measures are taken to ensure discipline.

Item No. 11
Physical punishment is not allowed in the school.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that physical punishment is not allowed in the school.

Item No. 12
The lesson of self-discipline is taught in this school.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that the lesson of self-discipline is taught in their schools.

Item No. 13
The principal arranges field trips for recreational purpose and other information.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that their principals arrange field trips for recreational purpose and other
information.
Item No. 14
The principal focuses on co-curricular activities.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that their principals focus on the arrangement of co-curricular activities in
their school.
Item No. 15
Teachers are motivated through verbal appreciation and certificates.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that their principals encourage and motivate them through verbal
appreciation and certificates.

Item No. 16
Teachers are terminated on the violation of any rule of the school.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
recommended that principals terminate the teachers on the violation of any rule of the
school.
Item No. 17
Workload and responsibilities are equally divided among the staff.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
rejected and it is stated that there is no significant difference in the leadership style of
admitted that workload and other responsibilities are equally divided among the staff.
Item No. 18
Teamwork is the main feature of this school.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that teamwork is the main feature of their schools.

Item No. 19
Unity of teachers is dangerous for the school administration.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
viewed by the teachers..
acknowledged that unity of teachers is dangerous for the school administration.

Item No. 20
The principal values the opinions of teachers in instructional decisions.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that their principals value the opinions of teachers in instructional
decisions making process.

Item No. 21
Teachers support in the achievement of school’s mission.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that they support their principal in the achievement of school’s mission.
Item No. 22
Teachers are always willing to help the management when there is a problem.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that they are always willing to help the management when there is a
problem.
Item No. 23
The principal and teachers work collaboratively for the success of the students.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that they work collaboratively with principals for the success of the
students.
Item No. 24
The principal empowers his staff to take constructive steps for the improvement of the
institution.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that their principals empower them to take constructive steps for the
improvement of the institutions.

Item No. 25
The principal makes major decisions by himself.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that their principals make major decisions by themselves.

Item No. 26
Teachers’ appraisal is very necessary for academic excellence.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that their appraisal is very necessary for academic excellence.

Item No. 27
Teachers are rewarded on producing good results.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that they are rewarded on producing good results.

Item No. 28
The mission of the school indicates a clear direction for teachers.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that the mission of the school indicates a clear direction for them.
Item No. 29
Parent-teacher meetings are held frequently.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that parent-teacher meetings are held frequently.

Item No. 30
The decisions are translated into action in this school.
1. HO : f1 = f2 = f3
2. H1 : f1 ≠ f2 ≠ f3
3. α = 0.05
(f𝐨−fe) 2
𝒙2 = ∑ fe
acknowledged that the decisions are translated into action in their schools.
SECTION IV: DISCUSSION OF INTERVIEWS
To know the leadership style of the secondary school principals, 4 broad questions were
formed.
Interviews of both principals and teachers were conducted to generate data. Hence,
interview questions were asked to gather data related to the leadership styles of secondary
school principals, each interviewee was asked the following questions:
Question No.1. Who do you think is more responsible for planning the teaching learning
process?
Question No.2. How do you think a principal can facilitate the professional development
of teachers?
Question No.3. Which qualities are essential for a principal as head of the institution?
Question No.4. Which style of leadership, autocratic/democratic do you think is more practical
for the principal?
Answer No.1. Mostly, principals and teachers had approximately the same opinions by
describing that the principals are the heads of the institutions, therefore, they have to
design any kind of strategy with teachers’ collaboration for the effectiveness of teaching
and learning process. The principals have admitted that during the planning for teaching
learning process, the opinion of teachers are very much important because they have to
teach and implement the designed strategies.
Answer No.2. It was found that professionally trained principals had positive opinion
regarding the professional development of teachers. They concluded that in-house
training and short courses during summer and winter vacations would be more beneficial
for their professional grooming. They have declared that professional teachers are the
assets of any school because they incorporate many personal qualities and skills among
the students; therefore, it should be the prime duty of the head to provide training
opportunities for the teachers.
Answer No.3. According to the views of principals and teachers the first most important
qualities of a principal was higher qualification which enables them to govern the system
effectively because they would easily find various solutions for the occurring of
administrative and academic issues in their institutions. It was found that the second
important quality of secondary school principals would be a consistent hardworking,
therefore, they could set example for other members of the institution. In addition, such
type of quality of hardworking would be inculcated among the students. According to the
opinions of many teachers and principals, the third quality of the head of the institutions
would be should empowering the teachers to take positive steps for the development of the
institution.
Answer No.4. Majority of the principals and teachers described that principals had to be
democratic and they would firmly believe in team work. Moreover, it was concluded that
principal must play the role of a leader rather than a boss. Conversely, a very less number
of principals in both government and private secondary school were in favor of the
autocratic style of leadership. They notified that to overcome the disciplinary issues in
their schools would be tackled through style of leadership, but majority of them strongly
recommended that democratic style of leadership is the only solution for ensuring a
quality education. Moreover, they stated that the learners would also openly express their
opinions in such kind of system.

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In the preceding chapters, the problem of the study was elaborated, the review of the
related literature was presented, the methodology of the study was delineated and the
findings were analyzed. Though, in this chapter, the summary of the entire study would
be described, the findings of the study would be enlisted, conclusions from the aforesaid
will be drawn and recommendations will be developed for future improvement.
SUMMARY
The main purpose of the study was to critically analyze the leadership style of the
secondary school principals of Karachi and in the light of the findings certain
recommendations are to be made for the improvement of school organization.
The scope of the study was limited to the leadership style of secondary school principals
of Karachi.
The following null hypotheses were formulated for the study.
1. There is no significant difference between the leadership style of male and female
2. There is no significant difference between the leadership style of government and private
3. There is no significant difference between the leadership style of trained and untrained

4. There is no significant difference between the leadership style of more experienced and
less experienced secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of school
organization.
5. There is no significant difference between the leadership style of younger and older
6. There is no significant difference between the leadership style of married and unmarried
7. There is no significant change in the critical leadership styles of the secondary school
principals of Karachi in respect of every item of the questionnaire.
The overall strategy of the study was mixed method approach.
The population of the study was all the government and private secondary school
principals and teachers of Karachi, affiliated with the board of secondary education,
Karachi. The total sample size was 100 principals and 300 teachers were drawn from 100
secondary schools of Karachi through stratified random sampling.
Two research tools, a questionnaire and an interview protocol were developed for the
study. The questionnaire included 30 items related to the main areas of leadership styles
of principals, and an interview protocol contained of 4 board open ended questions.
Moreover, a pilot testing was conducted to refine the items of the questionnaire and the
interview protocol to ensure their validity and reliability. The researcher personally
administered the questionnaire and carried out face to face interviews.

FINDINGS
To know the leadership style of the secondary school principals, 6 main hypotheses and
30 item-wise hypotheses were formed.
The detail of accepted and rejected hypotheses is mentioned below:
Major Accepted Hypotheses
Principals Opinion
1. No significant difference was found in the effectiveness of school organization between
the leadership styles of male and female secondary school principals of Karachi.
the leadership styles of trained and untrained secondary school principals of Karachi.
the leadership styles of more experienced and less experienced secondary school
principals of Karachi.
the leadership styles of younger and older secondary school principals of Karachi.
the leadership styles of married and unmarried secondary school principals of Karachi.
(a) Teachers Opinion
the leadership styles of more experienced and less experienced secondary school
principals of Karachi.
6 No significant difference was found in the effectiveness of school organization between
the leadership styles of married and unmarried secondary school principals of Karachi.
Major Rejected Hypotheses
(a) Principals Opinion
2. It was found that the leadership styles of private secondary school principals were more
substantial than government secondary school principals in the effectiveness of school
organization.
(b) Teachers Opinion
1. It was found that the leadership styles of female secondary school principals were more
substantial than male secondary school principals in the effectiveness of school
organization.
2. It was found that the leadership styles of private secondary school principals were more
substantial than government secondary school principals in the effectiveness of school
organization.
3. It was found that the leadership styles of trained secondary school principals were more
substantial than untrained secondary school principals in the effectiveness of school
organization.
5. It was found that the leadership styles of younger secondary school principals were more
substantial than older secondary school principals in the effectiveness of school
organization.
Item-Wise Hypotheses
Positive tendency of opinion was found in respect of the following items of the
questionnaire:
Item No. 1.The vision of the principal for the school is very clear.
Item No. 2.Attending professional development courses are very necessary for principals.
Item No. 4. Providing training facilities is the responsibility of principal.
Item No. 6. The morale of teachers is kept high in this school.
Item No. 7. Good relationship between principal and teacher upgrades the standard of the
school.
Item No. 9. The school curriculum is related to the learners’ needs.
Item No. 13. The principal arranges field trips for recreational purpose and other
information.
Item No. 14. The principal focuses on co-curricular activities.
Item No. 19. Unity of teachers is dangerous for the school administration.
Item No. 22. Teachers are always willing to help the management when there is a
problem.
Item No. 23. The principal and teachers work collaboratively for the success of the
students.
Item No. 25. The principal makes major decisions by himself.
Item No. 30. The decisions are translated into action in this school.
Moderate tendency of opinion was found in respect of the following items of the
questionnaire:
Item No. 5. Teachers are appointed on merit basis in this school.
Item No. 8. There is designative distance between principal and teachers.
Item No. 10. Strict measures are taken to ensure discipline.
Item No. 12.The lesson of self-discipline is taught in this school.
Item No. 15.Teachers are motivated through verbal appreciation and certificates.
Item No. 16. Teachers are terminated on the violation of any rule of the school.
Item No. 17. Workload and responsibilities are equally divided among the staff.
Item No. 18.Teamwork is the main feature of this school.
Item No. 20. The principal values the opinion of teachers in instructional decisions.
Item No. 24. The principal empowers his staff to take constructive steps for the
improvement of the institution.
Item No. 26.Teachers’ appraisal is very necessary for academic excellence.
Item No. 27.Teachers are rewarded on producing good results.
Item No. 28. The mission of the school indicates a clear direction for teachers.
Item No. 29.Parent-teacher meetings are held frequently.
Mixed views were found in respect of the following items of the questionnaire:
Item No. 03.Only work experience is sufficient for principals.
Item No. 11. Physical punishment is not allowed in the school.
Item No. 21. Teachers support in the achievement of school’s mission.

(b) Teachers Opinion
Positive tendency of opinion was found in respect of the following items of the
questionnaire:
Item No. 01.The vision of the principal for the school is very clear.
Item No. 02.Attending professional development courses are very necessary for
principals.
Item No. 06.The morale of teachers is kept high in this school.
Item No. 07.Good relationship between principal and teacher upgrades the standard of
the school.
Item No. 11. Physical punishment is not allowed in the school.
Item No. 12.The lesson of self-discipline is taught in this school.
Item No. 13.The principal arranges field trips for recreational purpose and other
information.
Item No. 16.Teachers are terminated on the violation of any rule of the school.
Item No. 21.Teachers support in the achievement of school’s mission.
Item No. 22. Teachers are always willing to help the management when there is a
problem.
Item No. 25. The principal makes major decisions by himself.
Item No. 26.Teachers’ appraisal is very necessary for academic excellence.
Item No. 28.The mission of the school indicates a clear direction for teachers.
Item No. 30.The decisions are translated into action in this school.
Moderate tendency of opinion was found in respect of the following items of the
questionnaire:
Item No. 03.Only work experience is sufficient for principals.
Item No. 04.Providing training facilities are the responsibility of principal.
Item No. 05.Teachers are appointed on merit basis in this school.
Item No. 08.There is designative distance between principal and teachers.
Item No. 10.Strict measures are taken to ensure discipline.
Item No. 14.The principal focuses on co-curricular activities.
Item No. 15.Teachers are motivated through verbal appreciation and certificates.
Item No. 17.Workload and responsibilities are equally divided among the staff.
Item No. 18. Teamwork is the main feature of this school.
Item No. 20.The principal values the opinions of teachers in instructional decisions.
Item No. 24.The principal empowers his staff to take constructive steps for the
improvement of the institution.
Item No. 27.Teachers are rewarded on producing good results.
Item No. 29. Parent-teacher meetings are held frequently.
Mixed views were found in respect of the following items of the questionnaire:
Item No. 09.The school curriculum is related to the learners’ needs.
Item No. 19.Unity of teachers is dangerous for the school administration.
Item No.23. The principal and teachers work collaboratively for the success of the
students.
CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of the findings depicted a strange picture about the stance of secondary
school principals of Karachi.
Some findings literally astonishing the readers to know the ground reality about the
performance of school principals. For instance, private secondary school principals were
found more effective and significant for the school organization as compared to the
government school principals. It shows that private school principals are appointed on the
merit base system, as conversely there are too much political influences in government
sector. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected and it was found that there was a
significant difference between the leadership style of government and private secondary
school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of school organization. The fact was
revealed that mostly principals are appointed on political bases in the government schools
of Karachi, which affect on their performance level in government secondary schools of
Karachi.
The findings that no significant difference was found in the leadership style between the
male and female secondary school principals because both the genders have similar
qualification, experiences, socio economic status, job commitment and responsibilities.
Similarly, it was found that there was no significant difference in the leadership style of
trained and untrained secondary school principals which was quite surprising to
understand that generally professionally trained principals make additional efforts to run
the system more effectively but they were found in equal practice. Moreover,
experienced and less experienced, older and younger, married and unmarried secondary
school principals were found on the same page because they had similar leadership
styles.
(c) Teachers Opinion
(d) The aforementioned conclusion has been drawn from the views of secondary school
principals of Karachi. Now let us see the conclusion of findings, as viewed by the
secondary school teachers of Karachi.
The opinions of teachers about their principals were quite different from the views of
principals. For example, the female secondary school principals were found to be more
effective than male secondary school principals in their leadership styles. It showed that
female principals striving their best to enhance the school organizations through their
effective leadership styles. Likewise, the opinion of teachers about the government and
private secondary school principals was same as viewed by the principals because it was
found that private secondary school principals were significantly superior to government
school principals in their leadership style. In fact, monitoring system in the private
secondary schools of Karachi is far better than that of government secondary schools of
Karachi. Therefore, professionally trained secondary school principals were found more
superior to untrained secondary school principals in their leadership styles. It can be
inferred that mostly trained principals exercised democratic style of leadership in their
schools, especially with teachers. In addition, they take interest in the professional
development of teachers. Furthermore, the younger secondary school principals were

found to be more effective than older principals in leadership style. This can be inferred
that younger principals are more friendly and cooperative with their staff. Secondly, they
use democratic style of leadership by empowering their staff to take initiative for the
betterment of the institution.
It is quite surprising that no significant difference was found in the leadership style
between more experienced and less experienced secondary school principals of Karachi.
Indeed, they have similar academic background and physical condition of the institutions.
In addition, no significant difference was found between the leadership style of married
and unmarried secondary school principals. In fact, marital status of the school principals
does not effect on their performance and leadership style because effectiveness comes
through training and practical experiences.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Vision of the School
The principal or the administrator has to set the vision of the school and must ensure its
application with the help of staff members. Pielstick (1998) stated that transformational
leaders make the vision of the school more effective and they keep struggling to
implement the set vision through relationship and communication. Therefore, it is
recommended that every school should have clearly articulated vision, mission and
strategic plans, where the teachers and other stake holders should be involved in the
process.
Principals’ Training and Professional Development
It is recommended that the government should establish in-service training centers for the
professional development of secondary school principals of Karachi. In these centers,
basic management skills and leadership theories should be the core subjects in the
syllabus for principals training. These training sessions can be conducted every year
mostly in summer and winter vacations.
5.4.3. Political Influence should be banned in Educational Institutions
It is recommended that political interference must be stopped in government sector. All
the principals should be appointed on open merit and qualification. Indeed, when the
educational institutions are made free from politics, competent and highly qualified
people will be inducted. Thus, the government schools would be in the position to
compete the private sector schools both in imparting quality education and in enrollment.
Empowerment
It is recommended that the principals should empower the teaching faculty to take the
initiative and make the decision when it is needed, such as innovation in methodologies
of teaching and other related activities. Thus, they would hold themselves responsible and
accountable for the consequences. Moreover, the heads of the institutions should not keep
everything under their thumbs but they must share the authority and power for better
outcomes.
Appreciation and Encouragement of Others
It is recommended that the school principal should appreciate and encourage the teachers
for good performance which can be an effective tool to increase their morale and
productivity. Therefore, teachers’ would put more efforts in any task and ultimately, their
turnover and absenteeism will surely reduce.
Honesty and Integrity
It is recommended that the leaders must possess the trait of honesty and integrity in their
personalities because they alone cannot achieve the organizational objectives, therefore
they should be role models for their followers.
Commitment to the Professional Growth of Teachers
It is recommended that the principals should work whole heartedly for the professional
development of their school teachers. Short courses, seminars and workshops should be
conducted in vacations. Indeed, the principal alone cannot achieve excellence and quality
but it is the combine team efforts to make the dreams true in shape of good results.
Therefore, it’s the responsibility of the state as well as the private sector to organize
effective training sessions for the professional grooming, knowledge and skills of their
teachers.
Disciplinary Issues
It is recommended that maintaining discipline in the school is the core responsibility of a
principal. The principal should make the school climate peaceful and conducive for the
teaching learning process because the leadership style of a school principal is very much
significant in the effectiveness of school organization. Thus, serious attention should be
paid on the behavioral aspect of students, even the principal has to work with parents
when disciplinary problem arises.
Retention and Promotion Policies
It is recommended that the principal should work for the welfare of competent teachers
because they are the valuable asset of a school. In the turnover of dedicated and
experienced teachers, the school declines in every aspect, especially in academic side.
Therefore, the principal should make flexible polices to increase their remuneration and
work for their promotion. It is one of the major leadership qualities of a school principal
to retain the teaching faculty for a longer period.
Parental Involvement
It is strongly recommended that the principal should arrange parent-teacher meetings on
monthly or quarterly basis to plan effective strategies for the improvement of their kids.
The researcher was told in visiting certain schools that when parents are called for
meetings, they show reluctance to come and discuss the progress of kids due to their own
engagements. Therefore, the principals should acknowledge the importance of parental
involvement in their children education through circular and print media.

REFERENCES
Adair, J., (1986). Effective Teambuilding: How to make a winning team. 2nd ed.
London: Pan Books an imprint of Macmillan General Books.
Adeyemi, T.O., Bolarinwa, R. (2013). Principals’ Leadership Styles and Student

Academic Performance in Secondary Schools in Ekiti State, Nigeria.
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development, 2(1), (pp: 187-198).
Agho, A.O. & Price, J.L. (1992). Discriminate validity of measures of job satisfaction,
positive affectivity and negative affectivity. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 65 (4), p. 185 Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding Organizational Culture. London: Sage Publication.
Anderman, E., Belzer, S., & Smith, J. (1991). Teacher commitment and job satisfaction:
The role of school culture and principal leadership. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Anderson, M.E. (1991). Principal: How to train, recruit, select, induct and evaluate
Educational Management. Journal of Small Business Management, 22(4): 9-16.
Andrews, R., & Soder, R. (1987). Principal instructional leadership and school
achievement. Educational Leadership, 44, 9–11.
Arnold (2007). “Student Performance and Leadership Practices of Selected Elementary

School Principals: A Cohort Study” (Dissertation). Accessed from Pro-Quest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3270854).
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Reexamining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor
Leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4),
441-462.
Awamleh, R., Evans, J. and Mahate, A. (2005). A Test of Transformational and

Transactional Leadership Styles on Employees’ Satisfaction and Performance in
the UAE Banking Sector. Journal of Comparative International Management
Futures Vol. 8, No. 1, 3-19.
Baloglu, N. & Karadag, E. (2009). A theoretical analysis on spiritual leadership. Ankara:

Journal of Educational Administration Theory to Practice, 58, 165-190.
Bamburg, J., & Andrews, R. (1990). School goals, principals and achievement. School.
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2(3), 175–191.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.

Educational Psychologist, 28,117-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy the exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H.
Freeman.
Barling, J, Slater, F., & Kelloway, E. (2000). Transformational leadership and emotional
intelligence: An empirical investigation. Organizational Development Journal,
21(8), 405-413.
Barnett, H., Craven, R. & Marsh, A. (2005). What type of school leadership satisfies
teachers? A mixed method approach to teachers' perceptions of satisfaction,
Australian Association for Research in Education.
Barth, R. (1986). On Sheep and Goats and School Reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(4),
293–296.
Barth, R. S. (2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 6-11.
Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents and principal can
make the difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bartol, K., & Martin, D.C. (1994). Management, 2nd edition, published by McGraw- Hill
Inc.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire sampler

set (2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-
40. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(85)90028-2
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share

the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.librar
y.capella.ed u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9607211357&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational

impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational
leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1),
9-32.
Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 7(3), 18-
40.
doi:10.1177/107179190000700302
Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, & managerial
applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003).Predicting unit performance
by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207–218.
Bazemore, G. (1997). The ‘community’ in community justice: Issues, themes, and

questions for the new neighborhood sanctioning models. The Justice System
Journal 19(2): 193–227
Bell, M.R. (2013). Charismatic Leadership Case Study. Regent University School of
Business & Leadership ISSN 1930-806. Emerging Leadership Journeys,
Vol.6. 1, pp. 66-74. E-mail: editorelj@regent.edu.
Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. New York: Addison Wesley Publishing

Company.
Bennis, W. (1999). Executive Excellence. Old Dogs New Tricks. Provo.
Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York:
Harper & Row
Blanchard K. (May 2008) Leadership Excellence: 25, 5; 19.
Blase, J. & Blase, J. (1999).Effective instructional leadership. Teachers' perspectives on

how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of
Educational Administration38, www.emerald-library.com.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2001). Empowering teachers: What successful principals do, (2nd
Ed.)? Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful
Principals promote teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Bogardus, E.S. (1929). Measuring Social distance. Journal of Applied Sociology, 13,
110- 117.
Bolin, F.S. (1989). Empowering leadership. Teacher College Record, 91, 81-96.
Bollen, R. (1996). School effectiveness and school improvement: The intellectual and
policy context. In R. David, R. Bollen, B. Creemers, D. Hopkins, L. Stoll &
N. Lagerweij (Eds.), Making Good Schools: Linking school effectiveness
and school improvement (pp. 1-20). London: Routledge.
Bradshaw, L., & Mundia, L. (2006). Attitudes to and concerns about inclusive education:
Bruneian in-service and pre-service teachers. International Journal of
Special Education, 21(1), 35-41. doi: 10.1080/13598660903050328.
Bromely, H.R. (2007). “Are you a Transformational Leader”? Physician Executive. pp

54-58
Brown, K., & Anfara, V. A., Jr. (2002). From the desk of the middle school principal:
Leadership responsive to the needs of young adolescents. Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Press.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. Sage: London.
Bush, T. (2003). Theories of Educational Leadership and Management (3rd ed). London:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Callahan, C. (1999). Classrooms for learners, not winners and losers. High School
Casavant,M.C. & Cherkowaski (2001). Effective Leadership: Bring Mentoring and

Creativity to the Principal-ship. NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 85 No. 624, pp. 71-81.
Chandler, J. N. (1991). Management of distance education. New Delhi: Sterling

Publishers Private Limited.
Chandramohan, A. (2007). Human resource management. New Delhi: APH Publishing

Corporation.
Charlton, G. 2000. Human habits of highly effective organizations. (1st edition) Pretoria:
Van Schaik Publishers.
Chawla, S. and Renesch, J. eds. (1995). Learning Organizations: Developing Culture for
Tomorrow’s Workplace. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
Cheng, Y.C (1994). Principal’s leadership as a critical indicator of school performance:
Evidence from multi-levels of primary schools, School Effectiveness and
School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and
Practice, 5(3), pp: 299-317.
Choi, S. (2007). The effects of physical education lessons applied TPSR Model on the
development of sociality of elementary school students. Journal of Korea
Sport Research, 18(1), 537-548.
Clark, S., & Clark, D. (1990).Restructuring middle level schools: Strategies for using
Turning Points. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School
Principals.
Clark, W.K. (2007). “The Potency of Persuasion,” Fortune: 48.
Cohen, D. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier, Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 311-329.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld,
F. D., et al. (1979). Equality of educational opportunity. New York: Arno
Press.
Colton, D. L. (1985). Vision. National Forum, 65(2), 33–35.
Conger, J.A. (1999) Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations. An

insider’s perspective on developing streams of research. Leadership
quarterly Vol. 10 PP 439-52.
Conger, J. A. (2011). Charismatic leadership. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B.

Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership
Thousand Oaks. (pp. 86-102).
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic

leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review,
12(4), 637- 647. doi:10.5465/AMR.1987.4306715
Conger, J.A, (May, 1992). "Reflections on Leadership and Spirit", Conference on

Leadership and Spirit, Boston, pp 5-20.
Corcoran, T., & Wilson, B. (1989).Successful Secondary Schools. Lewes, UK: Falmer
Press.
Cousins, J.B. (1995).Using collaborative performance appraisal to enhance teacher's

professional growth: A review and test of what we know. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 199-222.
Covey, S.R. (1989).The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York: Simon and
Shuster.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting

Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
Traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cribbin, J. (1978). Effective Managerial Leadership. New York: Amacom, A

Division of American management Association, Inc.
Crum, K. S., & Sherman, W. H. (2008). Facilitating High Achievement: High School
Principals' Reflections on Their Successful Leadership Practices. Journal of
Educational Administration, 46(5), 562-580.
Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research, policy,
and practice at the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 54(2), 129-
151.
Daft, R. L. (2005). The leadership experience. Mason, Ohio: Thomson South-Western.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Berry B. (2006). Highly qualified teachers for all. Educational
Leadership, 64(3), 14-20.
Datnow, A. & Castellano, M. E. (2001). Managing and guiding school reform:

Leadership in Success for All Schools. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 37(2), 219-249.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership
(1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Dimmock, L. & Walker, A. (2005). Educational Leadership: Culture and Diversity.

British Library, ISBN 0761971696.
Donaldson, M.L. (2010). No more valentines. Educational Leadership, 67(8), 54-58.
Drago-Severson, E. (2007). Helping teachers learn: Principals as professional

development leaders. Teachers College Record, 109, 70-125.
Drath, W.H. & Palus, C.J. (1994). Making common sense: Leadership is meaning making
in community of practice. Green boro, NC: Centre for Creative Leadership.
Dufour, R. (2002). The learning principal. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 12-15.

Duke, D. L. (1987). School leadership and instructional improvement. New York:
Random House.
Ediger, Marlow (1988). The Elementary Curriculum, 2nd edition. Kirksville, Missouri:
Simpson Publishing Company, p 105.
Ediger, Marlow (1988). The elementary curriculums, 2nd edition. Kirksville, Missouri:
Simpson Publishing Company, 105.
Edmonds, R. (2007). Effective Schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership,
37(1), 15–18, 20–24. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.
doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3;
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and
performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Eres, F. (2011). Relationship between Teacher Motivation and Transformational

Leadership Characteristics of School Principals. International Journal of
Education, Vol.3, pp.1-11.
Esther, M. (2011). Creating Effective Leaders through Situational Leadership Approach. Applied
Sciences, JAMK University.
Faeth, A.M. (2004). Power, Authority and Influence: A Comparative Study of the
Behavioral Influence Tactics Used by Lay and Ordained Leaders in the
Episcopal Church. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Farooq, R. A. (1994). Education system in Pakistan. Islamabad: Asia Society for

Promotion of Innovation and Reform in Education.
Fiedler F. E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. ‘Mcgraw-Hill. New York.
Fook, Y.C. (2009). Leadership Characteristics of an Excellent Principal. International

Education Studies. Vol. 2, No.4. E-mail: yuenfook@salam.uitm.edu.
Francis, D. & Young, D. 1979). Improving Work Groups. London: University

Associates.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16–20.
Gastil, J. (1994) A Definition and Illustration of Democratic Leadership. Human

Relorions. Vol. 47. No. 8, 953-975. doi: 10.1177/001872679404700805
Geier, J. G. (1967). A trait approach to the study of leadership in small groups. Journal of
Communication, 17, 316–323.
Glasman, N. (1984). Student achievement and the school principal. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6(3), 283–296.
Glickman, C. (1991). Pretending not to know what we know. Educational

Leadership, 48(8), 4–10.
Goldberg, C, Riordan, CM. Zhang L. (2008). “Employee’s perception of their leaders: is

being similar always better”. Group Organ. Manage. 33(3): 330-55.
Golden, B. R. (1992). The past is the past or is it—the use of retrospective accounts as
indicators of past strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 848-860.
Goldring, E. B., & Pasternak, R. (1994). Principals’ coordinating strategies and school
effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 239-253.
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership That Gets Results. Harvard Business School Press, pp.
78-90.
Gonzales, L. D., and Behar-Horenstein, L. S. (2004). Sustaining teacher leadership in

enabling to inchoate cultures. Journal of School Leadership, 14(2).
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: A critical review. The

Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 153-170. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90014-X
Greenleaf, R., (1977), Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate
Power and Greatness, NJ: Paulist Press.
Griffith, J. (2005). Relation of Transformational Leadership to school staff job

satisfaction, staff turnover and school performance. J. Educ. Adm. pp.333-
356.
Grint, K. (2011). A history of leadership. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B.

Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership.
Thousand Oaks, (pp. 3-14).
Guskey, T.R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin.
Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (1996). Leadership: A communication perspective

(2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Hall,T.(2004). Differentiate destruction. [Online].Available:
http://www.cast.org/ncac/index.cfm?I=2876
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1986). Instructional leadership in effective schools.

Champaign –Urbama, IL: University of Illinois. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED309535)
Hallinger, P. (1992). School leadership development: Evaluating a decade of reform.

Education and Urban Society, 24(3), 300–316.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of

instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 33(3), 329–351.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy
that refused to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4:1–20.
Hallinger, Phillip (2005). “International Leadership and School Principal: A Passing

Fancy that Refuses to Fade Away.” Leadership and Policy in Schools,
Vol.4, No.3.1-20.
Hargreaves, D. (1999). ‘Helping practitioners explore their school’s culture’. In J. Prosser

(ed), school culture. London Paul Chapman Publishing, (pp. 48-65).
Hatter, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions
of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73, 695- 702.
Heck, R. H., Larsen, T. J., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1990). Instructional leadership and
school achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 26, 94-125
Heck, R. (1992). Principal’s instructional leadership and school performance:

Implications for policy development. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis.14 (2).21-34.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training &
Development Journal, 23(5), 26. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.lib
rary.capella.ed
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1981). So you want to know your leadership style?
Training & Development Journal, 35(6), 34. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.lib
rary.capella.ed
Hesham, A. (2010), Alqeyadah W Alaqat'ha Belredha Alwadhifi (Leadership and its
Relationship with Job Satisfaction), Amman, Dar Alyazori.
Holland, A., & Andre, T. (1987). Participation in extra-curricular activities in secondary

school: What is known, what needs to be known? Review of Educational
Research, 57(4), 437-466.
Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: What are they and why are they
important? http://www.sedl.or~channelissues/issues61 .html
House, R.J (1995), Leadership in the twenty first century. A speculative inquiry in
Howard A, (Ed) The changing nature of work. Jossey Bass San Francisco
C.A
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo
vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409–473.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership
process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management
Review, 30(1), 96-112. doi:10.5465/AMR.2005.15281435
Hunter-Boykin, H. S., and Evans, V. (1995). The relationship between high school
principals’ leadership and teachers' morale. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 22(2), 152-163. International Journal of Independent
Research and Studies – IJIRS ISSN: 2226-4817.
Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1990). Military executive leadership. In K. E. Clark and M.
B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership. West Orange, New Jersey:
Leadership Library of America, pp 281-295.
Iqbal, A. (2010). A comparative study of the impact of Principals’ Leadership Styles on

the Job Satisfaction of Teachers. Institute of education and research
University of the Punjab Lahore.
Jenkins, B. (2009). What it takes to be an instructional leader. Principal, 88(3), 34-37.
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Johnson, J. & Pickersgill, S. (1992). Personal and Interpersonal aspects of effective team-
oriented headship in Primary Schools, Educational Management and
Administration, 20 (4) 239- 48.
Johnson, T. L. (2007). The Impact of Principal Leadership Styles on Teacher Motivation

and Job Satisfaction. Pro Quest Dissertations and Theses.
Jolly, G.J (2007). “Leadership can be Taught: A Bold Approach for a complex World,,
Academy of Management Learning & Education”. P.152-168.
Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3 rded.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Jung, D. & Avolio, (2000-2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their
effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 185-
195.
Kantabutra, S. & Avery, G.C. (2002). Proposed Model for Investigating Relationships
Between Vision Components and Business Unit Performance. Journal of
the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, 8(2): 22-39.
Kaplan, L.S., & Owings, W.A., (2004). Introduction to special issue: Teacher
effectiveness. NASSP Bulletin, 88(638), 1-4.
Karunanayake, S. (2012). Shifting the Principal’s Role as Manager to that of an

Academic Leader. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity,
Vol. 2, No.5.
Katz, D., Maccoby, N., Gurin. G., & Floor, L. (1951). Productivity, supervision, and
morale among railroad workers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,
Institute for Social Research.
Katzenbach, J.R. & Smith, D.K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams. New York: Harper
Business, p. 45.
Kellerman, R. (2003). Leadership style and its relation to employee Attitudes and
Behavior. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29 (2), 72-82.
Kelly, R. E. (1988). In Praise of Followers. Harvard Business Review, (pp.142-48).
Kevin S. Groves (2006), Leader emotional expressivity, visionary leadership and

organizational change. Leadership and organization development journal
Vol. 27 No. 7, PP 566 – 583.
Khanka, S. S. (2007). Organizational behavior: Text and cases. New Delhi: Chand and
company.
Klein, K. J., & House, R. J. (1995). On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of
analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 183-198.
Koeze, A.P. (2007). Differentiated Instruction: The Effect on Student Achievement in an

Elementary School. Eastern Michigan University.
Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (2007). The Leadership Challenge: How to get extra-
ordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Law, S. & Glover, D. (2000). Educational Leadership and Learning. Open University
press. Buckingham, Philadelphia.
Lawler, E. (1973). Motivation in work organization, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA.
Learning Forward, (2001). Learning Forward standards for staff development. Retrieved
from http://www.learningforward.org/standards
Lee, E.S. (2013). Professional Development and Teacher Perception of Efficacy for
Inclusion. East Tennessee State University.
Lee, W. (1991). Empowering music teachers: A catalyst for change. Music Educators
Journal, 78(1), 36-39.
Leithwood, K. (1992). Transformational leadership: where does it stand? The Education

Digest, 58, 17-20.
Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student

achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 529-561.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. & Steibach, R. (1990). Changing Leadership for Changing
Times. Buckingham: Open University, p.5.
Leithwood, K., Begley, P., & Cousins, B. (1990). The nature, causes and consequences of
principals’ practices: An agenda for future research. Journal of
Educational Administration, 28 (4), 5-31.
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How
leadership influences student achievement. Minneapolis, MN: Center for
Applied Research and Educational Improvement and Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education.
Leithwood, K. (2005). A review of transformational school literature research 1996-

2005.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Montreal, QC.
Leithwood, K. (2006). “Successful School Leadership, What It Is and How It Influences

Pupil Learning”. 22nd February 2013. Accessed from
https://www.education.gov.uk
Levine, D., & Lezotte, L. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of
research and practice. Madison, WI: NCESRD Publications.
Levitt, T. (1991). Thinking about Management. New York: Free Press.
Lewin, K., Lippit, R. and White, R.K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in
experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10,
271-301.
Lezotte, L.W. & Levine, D.U. (1990). Usually effective schools: A review and analysis
of research and practice. Madison, WI: National centre for Effective
Schools Research and Development.
Lezotte, L. W., & McKee, K. M. (2006). Stepping up: Leading the charge to improve our
schools. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products.
Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F. (2008). Transformational
leadership's role in promoting corporate entrepreneurship: Examining the
CEO-TMT interface. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 557-576.
Lohr, Sharon L. (1999). Sampling: Design and Analysis. Albany: Duxbury Press.
Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation
between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of
validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
402–410.
Lorsch, J. W. (2010). A contingency theory of leadership. In N. Nohria, & R. Khurana

(Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Press, (pp. 411-432).
Louis, S. K., Leithwood, K., Stephen, W., Anderson et al., (2010). Learning from
Leadership: Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning, Center
for Applied Research and Educational Improvement/University of
Minnesota and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of
Toronto. www.wallacefoundation.org.
Lumley, E. (2010). Exploring the relationship between anchors, job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Unpublished master’s dissertation, Department
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, UNISA, Pretoria, South
Africa.
Lurnden, L. (1998). Teacher Moral, Eugene, Oh: ERIC Clearing house on Educational
Management. Magazine, 7 (1), 22-28.
Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. 2000.Leadership.Cincinnati, Ohio: Thomson South-West.

Maher, R.E. (1987). The Training of Educational Administrators: Perception of Building
and Central Office Administrators: Dissertation Abstracts International, 48-
09 A, AAG 8725680.
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly,39(3), 370-97.
Martin, T.S. (2009). Relationship between the Leadership Styles of Principals and
School Culture. Electronic Theses & Dissertations. Georgia Southern
University. Paper :269. pp. 92-97
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.

Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McGregon Burns, J. (1992). Leadership. London, Harper and Row.
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. (2002a). Inclusion and school change: Teacher perceptions
regarding curricular and instructional adaptations. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 25(1), 41-54. doi:10.1177/088840640202500106.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research

and Development. 50, (3), 43-59.
Middlewood, D. &Cardno, C. (2001). Managing Teacher Appraisal and Performance: A

comparative approach. London: Routledge Falmer
Millett, A. (1998). Address by TTA Chief Executive, Corporate Plan Conference,

London.
Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs. San Francisco: Berret- Koehler.
Mirgatroyed, S. & Gray, H. (1984). Leadership and the Effective school. London:
Harling.
Mitchell, D. E. a. Tucker.S. (1992). Leadership as a Way of Thinking in Educational

Leadership. ASCD Educational Leadership 49, 5,p.30-35.
Mkhize, S.T. (2005). An evaluative study of the influence of the principal's leadership on
learner academic performance. University of Zululand (Durban).
Mohiyuddin, S.M. (1952). School Organization and Management. Published, Urdu
Bazzar Karachi, Pakistan.
Mondy, R. W., & Premeaux, S. R. (1995). Management (7th ed.). Englewood-Cliffs-New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall. p 347.
Moore, B.V. (1927). “The May Conference on Leadership”. Personal Journal 6, pp.124-
128.
Moore, M.H. (2000). Creating Public Value: Strategic management in government.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Morphet EL, Johns RL, Reller TL (1982). Educational organization and Administration,
Concepts, Practices and Issues. Englewood Cliff: Prentice – Hall Inc.
Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological

Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. J Mix
Method Res, 1, 48-76.
Morris, P. and Lo, M.L. (2000). Shaping the Curriculum: context and cultures. School
leadership and management, 20(2), 175-188.
Mosadeghrad, A.M., & Yarmohammadian, M.H. (2006). A study of relationship between

managers’ leadership and employees’ job satisfaction, Leadership in health
services, 19 (2), pp: xi-xviii.
Muhabat, K. & Syed, A. A. (2013). Teachers’ Turnover in Private Secondary Schools of

Karachi (Pakistan). Hamdard University Karachi.
Mumbe, O. G. (2005). Leadership and teacher job satisfaction of primary schools in

Busiasub district of Uganda: Unpublished Masters Dissertation. Kampala:
Makerere University.
Muijs, D. and Harris, A. (2006). Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in
the UK. Teaching and teacher education, 22 (961-972).
Murgatroyed, S. & Gray, H. (1984).Leadership and the Effective School. London:

Harling.
Murphy, J. (1990). Principal instructional leadership. In P. W. Thurston & L. S. Lotto

(Eds.), Recent advances in educational administration (Vol. IB, pp. 163–
200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1996).Restructuring for authentic student achievement. In

F. Newmann (ed.) Authentic Achievement: Restructuring schools for
intellectual quality (pp. 286–301). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Newstrom, W. (2007). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Northhouse,P.G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and Practice, Sage, Thousand Oak, CA.
Northouse, P.G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif:
Sage Publications.
Nsubuga, Y. K. K. (2008). Developing Teacher Leadership; A paper presented at the 5th

ACP Conference, Kampala, Uganda.
O’Dea. W.J. (1994). The effect of extra-curricular activities on academic achievement.

Drake University.
O'Day, J. (1996). Incentives and student performance. In S. Fuhrman & J. O'Day (Eds.),
Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work. San
Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Owens, R (2001). Organizational Behavior in Education: Instructional leadership and

School reform. Allyn and Bacon- Pearson.
Pakistan Ministry of Education (1998). National Education Policy: Iqra 1998-2010.

Islamabad Government of Pakistan.
Pelz, D. C. (1956). Some social factors related to performance in a research organization.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 310-325.
Peterson, K. D. (2002). The professional development of principals: Innovations and

opportunities. Educational Administration Quarterly.38 (2), 213-232.
Pielstick, C.D. (1998). The transforming leader: A meta-ethnographic analysis.

Community College Review, 26(3), 15-34.
Pigors, P. (1935). Leadership or domination. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
“Population explosion: Put an embargo on industrialization in Karachi”, (2013).

Retrieved 17 January 2014. http://tribune.com.pk
Potier, D. and Powell, G. (1992). Managing a Better School. Oxford: Heinemann

Educational Publishers.
Prestine, N., & Nelson, B. S. (2005). How do educational leaders promote successful
teaching and learning? In W. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda
for research in educational leadership. New York: Teachers College Press.
Rad, A.M.M., & Yarmohammadian, M.H. (2006). A study of relationship between
managers’ leadership style and employees’ job satisfaction. Leadership in
HealthServices, 19(2),xi–
xviii. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13660750610665008
Reeves, B.D. (2002). The Daily Disciplines of Leadership. How to improve student
achievement, staff motivation and personal organization. Published by
Jossey-Bass. Printed in the USA. ISB No-7879-6403-4 page No. 155-57.
Reeves, B.D. (2000 a). Accountability in action: A Blueprint for learning organizations.
Denver: Advanced learning Press.
Reeves, B.D. (2000b). Holistic Accountability: Serving students, schools and community.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Crown.
Reitzug, U.C. (1991). A Case Study of Empowering Principal Behavior. American

Educational Research Journal, 31, 283-307.
Richardson, D. & Egle, S. (1986). After the Vision: suggestion to corporate visionaries
and vision champion. In J.D. Adams (Ed.) Transforming Leadership
(pp.199- 225). Alexandra, VA: Miles River Press.
Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A. & Sanghi, S. (2007). Organizational Behavior. (12th ed.).
India: Pearson: Prentice Hall. p. 475.
Robert J. House, R.J. (1992). “Charismatic Leadership in Service-Producing

Organizations,” International Journal of Service and Industry Management
3(2), p. 8.
Robinson, J.V. (2006). Putting Education Back into Educational Leadership Faculty of
Education, the University of Auckland. Leading and Managing, Vol. 12,
No.1, pp. 62-75.
Rosen, L. (1997). School discipline, best practices for administrators. Thousand Oaks:
Corwin Press.
Rost, J. C. (2000). Leadership development in the new millennium. Journal of

Leadership Organizational Studies, 1(1), 91-110.doi:10.1177/
107179199300100109.
Rowne, D. E. (2005). Teacher perceptions of levels of professional contribution to the

school. College Student Journal, 43(3):852-859.
Roy, P. (2010). Using the SAI to build a school-based professional development plan.
Available from http://www.learningforward.org districtplan.pdf.
Rubin, R. S., Bartels, L. K., & Bommer, W. H. (2002). Are leaders smarter or do they
just seem that way? Exploring perceived intellectual competence and
leadership emergence. Social Behavior and Personality, 30, 105–118
Rug, L.J. (2005). Teacher satisfaction with principal transformational leader behavior.
Published doctoral dissertation, West Lafayette: Purdue University.
Sadeghi, A., & Pihie, Z. A. L. (2012). Transformational leadership and its predictive
effects on leadership effectiveness. International Journal of Business and
Social Science, 3(7), 186- 197.
Sammons, P., Taggart, B., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E. and Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2011). ‘The
influence of child, family, home factors and pre-school education on the
identification of special educational needs at age 10'. British Educational
Research Journal, 37 (3), 421–441.
Schleicher, A. (2011). Lessons from the world on effective teaching and learning
environments. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 202-221.
doi:10.1177/0022487110386966
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in

teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Sergivoanni, T.J. (1987). The Principal-ship: A Reflective Practice Perspective.

Massachusetts Allyn and Bacon.
Sergiovanni, T. (2007). Rethinking leadership: a collection of articles. (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1993). Moral leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sharma, S.R. (2006). Changing Direction in Educational Administration. ABD Publisher,

Jaipur- 302005 (Rajisthan) India.
Sheikh, A.G. (2001). Leadership Styles As Viewed by Secondary School Head Teachers
of Lahore City. Institute of Leadership and Management Lahore Affiliated
with Hamdard University, Karachi Pakistan. Master thesis in education
Studies of Management and Organization, 19(1), 6-27.
Shimada, K. (2010). Student achievement and social stratification: A case of primary

education in Kenya. Africa Educational Research Journal, 1, 92-109.
Shin, J., Heath, R. L., & Lee, J. (2011). A contingency explanation of public relations
practitioner leadership styles: Situation and culture. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 23(2), 167-190. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2010.505121
Siyez, D. M. (2009). High school teachers’ perceptions of and reactions towards the
unwanted student behaviors. Pamukkale University, Journal of Education
Faculty, 2009(1), 67-80.
Smirch, L. and Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership and the Management of Meaning. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18 (3), 257 –273.
Snowden, P.E. & Gorton, R.A. (1998). School Leadership and Administration: Important
concepts, case studies and simulations (5thed.) Boston, M.A: McGraw-Hill.
Starratt, R. (1995). Leaders with vision: The quest for school renewal. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Stein, M. K., & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423-448.
Stein, M., & Spillane, J. (2005). What can researchers on educational leadership learn
from research on teaching: Building a Bridge. In W. Firestone & C. Riehl
(Eds.), a new agenda for research in educational leadership (pp. 28-45).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Steers, R.M., Bigley, G.A. & Porter, L.W. (1996). Motivation and leadership at work.
Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Stoll, L. (1999). ‘School culture: black hole or fertile garden for school improvement’. In
J. Prosser (ed), school culture. London Paul Chapman Publishing, (pp 30-
47).
Subban, P., & Sharma, U. (2006). Primary school teachers’ perceptions of inclusive
education in Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Special
Education, 21(1), 42-52.
Suraya, H.W. (2012). Principal Leadership Styles in High-Academic Performance.
Tead, O. (1935). The Art of Leadership. New York: MacGraw Hill, p.20.
Terry, B. W. (2001). Conducting Educational Research. Florida: Harcourt Brace &

Company.
Terry, P. (1999). Empowering teachers as leaders. National Forum of Teacher. Education

Journal. Vol. 10E, No. 3.Retrieved on 12 April 2008.
Tomlinson, C. (2000). Reconcilable differences? Standards-based teaching and

differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58 (1), 1-7.
Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms
(2nded). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Valenzuela K. (2007) Leadership Definitions, Prentice hall. Vol. 1, No.2, 57-67. Email:
hanumsuraya@gmail.com
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Waldo, D. (2001). The enterprise of public administration. Novato, CA: Chandler &
Sharp.
Walker, A. G., Smither, J. W., & Waldman, D. (2008). A longitudinal examination of

concomitant changes in team leadership and customer satisfaction.
Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 547-577.
Watkins, P. (1986). A Critical Review of Leadership Concepts and Research: The

Implications for Educational Administration. Victoria: Deakin University
Press.
Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. A. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30
years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student
achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and
Learning.
Webster, M. (1985). Webster`s ninth new collegiate dictionary. Meriam - Webster Inc.
White. R. K..& Lippllt. R. (1969). Aulocmcy and & Monrrey. New york: Harper & Bros.
Wiles, J., & Bondi J. (1996). Supervision: A guide to practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Williams, M. (2007). Building Genuine Trust through Interpersonal Emotion

Management: “A Threat Regulation Model of Trust and Collaboration
Across Boundaries.” Academy of Management Review, 595-621.
Willner, A. R. (1984). The Spellbinders: Charismatic Political Leadership, New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press.
Winter, J.S., & Sweeney, J. (1994). Improving school climate: Administrators are key:
NASP Bulletin, Vol. 7, 65- 69. doi:10.1177/019263659407856414,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019263659407856414
Wolfe, P. (2001). Brain matters: Translating research into classroom practice.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Woodkcock, M. (1979). Team Development Manual. Aldershot: Gower
Woods, P. A. (2004). Democratic leadership: Drawing distinctions with distributed

leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), 3-26.
Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations.
In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 147–197). PaloAlto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Yukl, G. (2011). Contingency theories of effective leadership. In A. Bryman, D.

Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of leadership. Thousand Oaks, (pp. 286-298).
Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in organizations. (7th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Yukl, G. A. 1998. Leadership in organizations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, Gary (2002). Leadership in Organizations. Englewood, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Yunus, M. (2007). Creating a world without poverty: Social business and the future of
capitalism. New York: Public Affairs.
Yusuf, A.F. (2012). Influence of Principals’ Leadership Styles on Students Academic

Achievement in Secondary Schools. Journal of Innovative Research in
Management and Humanities. Printed in Nigeria, (pp. 113-121.)
INTERVIEW PORTFOLIO
APPENDIX – I
Interview No.1
Interview with Mrs. Saima Aamir, Principal, Shah Walayat secondary School, Ayesha
Manzil, Karachi.
Question 1.What do you think is more responsible for planning the teaching learning
process?
Answer 1. In my point of view, both the head and teacher are responsible for pedagogical
planning because they have to mutually decide the ways and methods which
are effective and fruitful.
Question 2. How do you think a principal can facilitate the professional development of
teachers?
Answer 2. Regular trainings should be given to the staff for imparting quality education
and better results. The role of the principal or head of the institution is
extremely vital in the professional growth of teachers.
Question 3. Which qualities are essential for a principal as head of the institution?
Answer 3. a) Ownership, b) decision-making powers, c) taking a stand where necessary,
and d) empowering the staff.
Question 4. Which style of leadership, autocratic/democratic do you think is more

practical for the principal?
Question 4. It least the principal should have adequate knowledge about both the
leadership styles because sometimes the principal has to be autocratic
especially in maintaining discipline in the organization. But when there is
need to solve other related issues, the teachers should be consulted
democratically.
Interview No.2
Interview with Mr. Fazal-Ur-Rehman Head Teacher, Bay View Missionary School
Clifton, Karachi.
Question 1. What do you think is more responsible for planning the teaching learning
process?
Answer 1. I think the role of a principal in a school is like a captain in the ship, who
sails the ship on a particular direction, therefore the principal alone should
guide, direct and facilitate the teachers for all kinds of teaching learning
process.
Question 2. How do you think a principal can facilitate the professional development
of teachers?
Answer 2. If the principal of a school wants to run the system in a positive direction
where everything should be done well, then he/she must invest on the
training purpose of teachers. Simply, the school grows when there are
trained and qualified teachers. Thus, the principal should focus on the
development of teachers.
Answer 3. The major quality of a principal is to set a clear vision for his school.
Secondly, the principal should be trustworthy and should trust on his/her
team. Thirdly, the principal should have the spirit of equality and therefore
avoid biasness.

Question 4. In my opinion, democratic style of leadership is more effective than
autocratic, because every member wants to take part in the decision-making
process.
Interview No.3
Interview with Mrs. Zerbina Shaheen, Principal, PAF School, Masroor Base Site Area,
Karachi.
Question 1. What do you think is more responsible for planning the teaching learning
process?
Answer 1. I think that the teachers are more responsible for the teaching learning process
because they have to deliver their lectures. The principal has to facilitate
them whenever his assistance is needed.
Question 2. How do you think a principal can facilitate the professional development of
teachers?
Answer 2. In fact, the principal can make the teachers professional if he/she is
professionally trained. The principal provides opportunities for workshops
and short courses for the staff.
Answer 3. A head of the institution should be well educated. He must have command on
various subjects. He should be vigilant and keep eyes on every aspect of the
school. He should be a problem solver.

Question 4. The principal should have both the styles. Sometimes he has to adopt
autocratic style, so that to apply the rules and regulation, while in other
occasions, he has to be democratic to know the opinion of others.
Interview No.4
Interview with Mrs. Shumaila Mufti, Principal, S.M. Public school, Block No.I5
Gulistan-e-Johar, Karachi.
Question No.1: Who do you think is more responsible for planning the teaching learning
process?
Answer No.1: Indeed, for the teaching learning process, the principal is more responsible
because he/she is the final authority to take the decision. Therefore, the
principal works side by side with teachers to plan out these activities.
Question No.2: How do you think a principal can facilitate the professional development
of teachers?
Answer No.2: The principal of a school is the only one who appraises the weaknesses
and strengths of teachers. Thus, if he/she feels that teachers are lacking in
any area, then the principal is managing training workshops and other
professional courses. That’s why the principal can be a good facilitator
for the professional development of teachers.
Question No.3: Which qualities are essential for a principal as head of the institution?
Answer No.3: The principal should have an outstanding character, as who can be a role
model for both teachers and students. Moreover, the principal should be
trained and highly qualified.
Question No.4: Which style of leadership, autocratic/democratic do you think is more

Answer No.4: In my opinion, democratic style of leadership is comparatively modern
and effective for the system. In such kind of leadership the employees
feel happy and relax.
Interview No.5
Interview with Mr. Tariq Mughal, Principal, of Gadap Public School, Gadap Town,
District Malir, Karachi.
process?
Answer No.1: The parents and community expect a lot from the school principal,
therefore he has to do planning for the teaching learning process. But
teachers’ opinions and expertise should not be ignored because they
have to teach whatever is decided.
of teachers?
Answer No.2: It is the fore most duty of the state to establish teacher training centers in
every part of the country. Secondly, untrained teachers should not be
appointed. Moreover, the principal has to arrange short courses in
vacations for his teachers.
Answer No.3: The principal should set example of punctuality and hard work for his
staff. He should be honest, trustworthy and should ensure justice and
equality in the organization.

Answer No.4: In my point of view, both styles of leadership should be adopted. The
principal should use an autocratic style of leadership for new teachers
and democratic style for senior people because they have ample
experience about the system.
Interview No.6
Interview with Mr. Sharf-Uz-Zaman Siddiqui, Principal, Muslim Secondary school Shah
Faisal Colony, Karachi.
process?
Answer No.1: I think that the head of the institution is responsible for the teaching
learning process because his/her decision is final and authentic.
of teachers?
Answer No.2: The principal can better evaluate the teacher’s skills and abilities. If he/she
understands that they need some short courses and training then the
principal arranges these types of workshops in free time. Similarly, the
teachers will professionally become perfect.
Answer No.3: The first quality of a principal is to complete his/her education which is
necessary for the post of principal. Secondly, the principal should be
honest and hardworking, who could be a role model for the whole staff.
Thirdly, the principal should empower the teachers to take positive steps
for the development of the institution.

Answer No.4: The principal should have spirit for the democratic style of leadership. He
should believe in team work and should play the role of a leader rather
than a boss.
Interview No.7
Interview with Mr. Ghazala, teacher, Government Saint Thresa School, Nazimabad No.
2, Karachi.
process?
Answer No.1: I think that both principal and teacher are responsible for the planning of
teaching learning process because they are accountable to complete the
syllabus and curriculum. The principal should guide the teachers
because he/she is more qualified and experienced. All the events should
be decided in the beginning of the session.
of teachers?
Answer No.2: In my opinion, the principal should arrange free of cost training sessions
inside the school for all teachers. He must not charge from the teachers
and when the teachers complete teaching training, certificates should be
awarded. The principal should increase in the salary of trained teachers.
Answer No.3: The principal should be polite and soft spoken. He should be good listener
and problem solver. He should not scold the teachers in front of
students.

Answer No.4: I think that democratic style of leadership is good for teachers and
students. The teachers feel themselves responsible when their opinions
are given importance in the decision making process.
Interview No.8
Interview with Ms. Sadia Bashiri, Head Teacher, the Genration School North Nazimabad
Karachi.
process?
Answer No.1: The academic body of school that is attached both with teachers and
administration, which is the best possible body that can plan effectively
for the academic process.
of teachers?
Answer No.2: In my opinion, the principal can take care that equal opportunities are
provided for professional growth especially through workshops to all.
Moreover, a principal can ensure that house trainings are planned
regularly and the appraisal process is fair...
Answer No.3: Having a vision, being a forward thinker, flexible, approachable, be
driven for growth and be able to motivate and drive others accordingly,
are a few must for a leader of an educational institute.

Answer No.4: Depending on the context a leader may have to make his/ her approach
autocratic or democratic. It is only a well-balanced of both that can make
a successful leader.
Interview No.9
Interview with Mr. Khalid, Head Teacher, Al-Khair Education Foundation, Gulshan-e-
Iqbal Block No. 8 Karachi.
process?
Answer No.1: Planning and responsibilities is the prominent feature of good teaching;
without proper planning nobody could get any particular goals and
targets. If teachers have good planning and fulfill their responsibilities in
proper manner, conclusion of these achievements we see goodness in
every field of education. Therefore, I think both the teachers and
principal are responsible for the planning of teaching and learning.
of teachers?
Answer No.2: Principal can facilitate teachers by his/her experiences; not every time
principal could facilitate but once in a week or once in a month, because
principal’s experiences could be effective for the teachers and these
experiences lead teachers towards professionalism.
Answer No.3: Any institution is the fountain head of knowledge, so the greatest quality
of a head of any institution is to acquire the current acquisition about
modern education and curriculum.

Answer No.4: Sometime autocratic style of leadership is good and sometime democratic
style gives good results, because sometime certain decisions are made by
the principal directly and sometime the principal takes decisions by the
members, therefore in my opinion, both the styles are better tools for the
principal.
Interview No.10
Interview with Mr. Abdul Samad, Headmaster, Government secondary school Shah
Faisal Colony, Karachi.
process?
Answer No.1: I think that the head of the institution is responsible for the teaching
learning process because his/her decision is final and authentic.
of teachers?
Answer No.2: The principal can better evaluate the teacher’s skills and abilities. If he/she
understands that they need some short courses and training then the
principal arranges these types of workshops in free time. Similarly, the
teachers will professionally become perfect.
Answer No.3: The first quality of a principal is to complete his/her education which is
necessary for the post of principal. Secondly, the principal should be
honest and hardworking, who could be a role model for the whole staff.
Thirdly, the principal should empower the teachers to take positive steps
for the development of the institution.

Answer No.4: The principal should have spirit for the democratic style of leadership. He
should believe in team work and should play the role of a leader rather
than a boss.
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX – II
Hamdard Institute of Education

Hamdard University, Karachi
Critical Analysis of Leadership Styles of the Principals in Secondary Schools of
Karachi
QUESTIONNAIRE
Section I: Particulars about the Respondents:

Instructions: Place a check mark (√) in the appropriate space against each item.
Designation and Residential Area:
1- Gender Male Female
2- Marital status Married Unmarried
3- Age Below 25 years

25 – 30 years
30 – 35 years
36 – 40 years
40 – 45 years
50 years and above
4- Years of Experience
Less than 3 years

3 – 9 years
10 – 19 years
20 years and above
5- Status of School Government

Private
6- Qualification
(a) Academic B.Sc./B.A/B.Com _M.Sc./ M.A/M.Com
(b) Professional B.Ed. M.Ed. / M.Phil. /Any other (Specify)

Section II Analysis of Leadership Styles of School Principal
DIRECTIONS
Several statements about Leadership Styles of School Principal are listed below. Against
each statement is a five point scale: Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Undecided (U),
Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree (SD).
Please place a check mark (√) on the point against each statement which represents your
position.
S.No Statement SA A U D SD
1 The vision of the principal for the school is very clear.
2 Attending professional development courses are very

necessary for principals.
3 Only work experience is sufficient for principals.
4 Providing training facilities is the responsibility of principal.
5 Teachers are appointed on merit basis in this school.
6 The morale of teachers is kept high in this school.
7 Good relationship between principal and teacher upgrades

the standard of the school.
8 There is designative distance between principal and teachers.
9 The school curriculum is related to the learners’ needs.
10 Strict measures are taken to ensure discipline.
11 Physical punishment is not allowed in the school.
12 The lesson of self-discipline is taught in this school.
13 The principal arranges field trips for recreational purpose

and other information.
14 The principal focuses on co-curricular activities.
S.No Statement SA A U D SD
15 Teachers are motivated through verbal appreciation and

certificates.
16 Teachers are terminated on the violation of any rule of the
school.
17 Workload and responsibilities are equally divided among the
staff.
18 Teamwork is the main feature of this school.
19 Unity of teachers is dangerous for the school administration.
20 The principal values the opinions of teachers in instructional

decisions.
21 Teachers support in the achievement of school’s mission.
22 Teachers are always willing to help the management when

there is a problem.
23 The principal and teachers work collaboratively for the
success of the students.
24 The principal empowers his staff to take constructive steps
for the improvement of the institution.
25 The principal makes major decisions by himself.
26 Teachers’ appraisal is very necessary for academic

excellence.
27 Teachers are rewarded on producing good results.
28 The mission of the school indicates a clear direction for

teachers.
29 Parent-teacher meetings are held frequently.
30 The decisions are translated into action in this school.

RAW DATA YIELDED FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX –III
Table 4.2.1
HYPOTHESIS No. 1
Male Principals (Group 1) Female2Principals (Group 2) 2
𝑿1 𝐗2 𝑿1 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗 𝐗2 𝐗
1 1 2 2
103 10609 94 8836 103 10609 120 14400
126 15876 101 10201 126 15876 117 13689
133 17689 123 15129 133 17689 119 14161
130 16900 115 13225 118 13924 88 7744
126 15876 109 11881 123 15129 120 14400
136 18496 136 18496 129 16641
116 13456 129 16641 96 9216
94 8836 125 15625 103 10609
112 12544 142 20166 131 17161
124 15376 115 13225 134 17956
115 13225 130 16900 106 11236
120 14400 129 16641 96 9216
128 16384 123 15129 124 15376
126 15876 125 15625 125 15625
127 16129 123 15129 92 8464
109 11881 122 14884 119 14161
119 14161 127 16129 94 8836
110 12100 142 20166 115 13225
131 17161 114 12996 120 14400
118 13924 114 12996
107 11449 128 16384
136 18496 103 10609
113 12769 117 13689
107 11449 125 15625
126 15876 129 16641
111 12321 132 17426
135 18225 135 18225
121 14641 127 16129
105 11025 128 16384
96 9216 125 15625
95 9025 134 17956
110 12100 118 13924
130 16900 135 18225
127 16129 97 9409
135 18225 131 17161
129 16641 125 15625
118 13924 97 9409
110 12100 139 19321
Table 4.2.2
HYPOTHESIS No. 2
Government School Principals (Group 1) Private School Principals (Group 2)

𝑿1 𝐗12 𝑿1 𝐗12 𝐗2 𝐗22 𝐗2 𝐗22
103 10609 106 11236 133 17689 134 17956
126 15876 96 9216 130 16900 118 13924
118 13924 124 15376 126 15876 135 18225
94 8836 125 15625 124 15376 131 17161
112 12544 92 8464 133 17689 110 12100
125 15625 115 13225 131 17161 125 15625
127 16129 123 15129 136 18496 127 16129
142 20164 123 15129 120 14400
119 14161 136 18496 129 16641
110 12100 116 13456 118 13924
131 17161 129 16641 131 17161
118 13924 124 15376 134 17956
114 12996 115 13225 123 15129
128 16384 120 14400 119 14161
107 11449 142 20164 94 8836
136 18496 115 13225 115 13225
113 12769 130 16900 109 11881
103 10609 128 16384
117 13689 129 16641
129 16641 123 15129
97 9409 126 15876
105 11025 125 15625
96 9216 123 15129
95 9025 122 14884
97 9409 127 16129
130 16900 109 11881
139 19321 114 12996
120 14400 125 15625
117 13689 107 11449
135 18225 126 15876
119 14161 132 17424
88 7744 111 12321
129 16641 135 18225
110 12100 127 16129
96 9216 128 16384
103 10609 135 18225
94 8836 125 15625
101 10201 121 14641
Table 4.2.3
HYPOTHESIS No. 3
Trained Principals (Group 1) Untrained Principals (Group 2)

𝑿1 𝑿1 𝐗2 𝐗22 𝐗2 𝐗22
𝐗12 𝐗12
133 17689 111 12321 103 10609
131 17161 135 18225 126 15876
118 13924 127 16129 130 16900
136 18496 128 16384 126 15876
136 18496 135 18225 124 15376
94 8836 125 15625 133 17689
129 16641 121 14641 116 13456
112 12544 134 17956 123 15129
128 16384 118 13924 124 15376
125 15625 135 18225 115 13225
120 14400 97 9409 130 16900
142 20164 105 11025 127 16129
115 13225 96 9216 109 11881
128 16384 95 9025 142 20164
129 166441 131 17161 131 17161
123 15129 110 12100 94 8836
126 15876 125 15625 101 10201
125 15625 97 9409 131 17161
123 15129 130 16900 134 17956
122 14884 139 19321 106 11236
127 16129 120 14400 96 9216
114 12996 127 16129 125 15625
119 14161 88 7744 123 15129
110 12100 120 14400 119 14161
131 17161 129 16641 94 8836
118 13924 129 16641 115 13225
114 12996 118 13924 115 13225
128 16384 110 12100 109 1188
107 11449 96 9216 117 13689
136 18496 103 10609 135 18225
113 12769 124 15376 119 14161
103 10609
117 13689
125 15625
107 11449
126 15876
129 166441
132 17424
Table 4.2.4
HYPOTHESIS No. 4
More Experienced Principals (Group 1) Less than 10 Years Principals (Group 2)

𝑿1 𝐗12 𝑿1 𝐗12 𝐗2 𝐗22 𝐗2 𝐗22
103 10609 117 13689 133 17689 96 9216
126 15876 125 15625 124 15376 92 8464
130 16900 107 11449 133 17689
126 15876 126 15876 136 18496
130 16900 129 16641 115 13225
131 17161 125 15625 130 16900
118 13924 121 14641 127 16129
136 18496 134 17956 131 17161
116 13456 118 13924 132 17424
94 8836 135 18225 111 12321
128 16384 97 9409 135 18225
129 16641 105 11025 127 16129
112 12544 96 9216 128 16384
125 15625 95 9025 130 16900
124 15376 131 17161 139 19321
120 14400 110 12100 120 14400
142 20164 125 15625 127 16129
115 13225 97 9409 117 13689
128 16384 110 12100 135 18225
129 16641 96 9216 119 14161
123 15129 103 10609 88 7744
126 15876 94 8836 120 14400
125 15625 129 16641
123 15129 129 16641
122 14884 118 13924
127 16129 110 12100
109 11881 124 15376
142 20164 125 15625
114 12996 123 15129
119 14161 119 14161
110 12100 94 8836
114 12996 115 13225
118 13924 115 13225
128 16384 109 11881
107 11449 101 10201
136 18496 123 15129
113 12769 134 17956
103 10609 106 11236
Table 4.2.5
HYPOTHESIS No. 5
Above 40 Years Principals (Group 1) Less than 40 Years Principals (Group 2)

𝑿1 𝐗12 𝑿1 𝐗12 𝐗2 𝐗22 𝐗2 𝐗22
103 10609 107 11449 133 17689 115 13225
126 15876 126 15876 124 15376 109 11881
130 16900 129 16641 133 17689
126 15876 135 18225 136 18496
131 17161 125 15625 115 13225
118 13924 121 14641 130 16900
136 18496 134 17956 126 15876
116 13456 118 13924 123 15129
123 15129 135 18225 122 14884
94 8836 97 9409 127 16129
129 16641 105 11025 131 17161
112 12544 96 9216 132 17424
128 16384 95 9025 111 12321
125 15625 97 9409 135 18225
124 15376 88 7744 127 16129
120 14400 110 12100 128 16384
142 20166 96 9216 131 17161
115 13225 103 10609 110 12100
128 16384 94 8836 125 15625
129 16641 101 10201 130 16900
123 15129 106 11236 139 19321
125 15625 96 9216 120 14400
127 16129 92 8464 127 16129
109 11881 117 13689
142 20164 135 18225
114 12996 119 14161
119 14161 125 15625
110 12100 129 16641
131 17161 129 16641
118 13924 118 13924
114 12996 131 17161
128 16384 134 17956
107 11449 124 15376
136 18496 125 15625
113 12769 123 15129
103 10609 119 14161
117 13689 94 8836
125 15625 115 13225
Table 4.2.6
HYPOTHESIS No. 6
Married Principals (Group 1) Unmarried Principals (Group 2)

𝑿1 𝐗12 𝑿1 𝐗12 𝐗2 𝐗22
126 15876 117 13689 103 10609
133 17689 107 11449 118 13924
130 16900 126 16900 130 16900
126 14876 129 14876 123 15129
124 15376 132 17424 122 14884
133 17689 111 12321 125 15625
131 17161 135 18225 128 16384
136 18496 127 16129 134 17956
116 13456 135 18225 118 13924
123 15129 125 15625 110 12100
136 18496 121 14641 130 16900
94 8836 135 18225 127 16129
129 16641 97 9409 117 13689
112 12544 105 11025 129 14876
128 16384 96 9216 134 17956
125 15625 95 9025 124 15376
124 15376 131 17161 123 15129
115 13225 125 15625 119 14161
120 14400 97 9409 94 8836
142 20164 139 19321 115 13225
115 13225 120 14400
128 16384 135 18225
129 16641 119 14161
123 15129 88 7744
126 15876 120 14400
125 15625 129 14876
127 16129 118 13924
127 16129 110 12100
109 11881 96 9216
142 20164 103 10609
114 12996 94 8836
119 14161 101 10201
110 12100 131 17161
131 17161 106 11236
118 13924 96 9216
114 12996 125 15625
128 16384 92 8464
107 11449 109 11881
136 18496 115 13225
113 12769 103 10609
HYPOTHESIS No. 1
Application of ‘t’ Test for Testing the Null Hypothesis
Group 1 (Male Principals) 2 Group 2 (Female Principals)

𝐗1 𝐗 𝐗2 𝐗2
1 2
103 10609 103 10609
126 15876 126 15876
133 17689 133 17689
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
123 15129 94 8836
115 13225 115 13225
109 11881 120 14400
ΣX = 5056 6872
N = 43 57
Σ𝑋2 = 600682 838258
x,¯ = 117.6 120.6
S = 12.14 13.20
Step1: Find the means of the two groups.
x,¯ ΣX 5056
= 1 == = 117.6
1 43
𝑁1
x,¯ 2 6872
ΣX2
= 𝑁2
= = = 120.6
57
Step 2: Find the standard deviation of the two groups.
√ Σ X2 (5056)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 600682 − 2
1 − N1 43
S1 = N1 = 12.14
− 1
43 − 1
=
√ Σ X2 (6872)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 838258 − 2
1 − N1 57
S2 = N1 − 1 = 13.20
57 − 1
=
Step 3: Find the standard error between the means.
S1 12.14 12.14
SE = = = = 1.85
x,¯ 1 √N1 √43 6.55
S2 13.20
SE = = 13.20
= = 1.75
x,¯ 2 √N2 √57 7.55
Step 4: Find the standard error of the difference between the two means.
SE = √(SE )2 + (SE )2 = √(1.85)2 + (1.75)2 = 2.54

x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2 x,¯ 1 x,¯
2
Step 5: Find the degree of freedom.
df= (𝑁1− 1) + (𝑁2− 1) = ( 43 – 1) + (57 – 1) = 98
Step 6: Find t
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 117.6−120.6 3

t=
2 = = (ignoring the sign) = 1.18
𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯ 2.54 2.54
1 2
Step 7
style of male and female school principals in the effectiveness of school organization
as viewed by the principals.
It is very clear from the citation of the table that both male and female principals are
greatly concerned about the effectiveness of school organization.

HYPOTHESIS No. 2
Application of t Test for Testing the Null Hypothesis
Group1 Group 2
(Government School Principals) (Private School Principals)
𝐗1 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2
1 2
103 10609 133 17689
126 15876 130 16900
118 13924 126 15876
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
92 8464 94 8836
115 13225 115 13225
123 15129 109 11881
ΣX = 5124 6963
N = 45 55
ΣX2 = 592484 870131
x,¯ = 113.9 126.6
S = 14.32 14.51
x,¯ 1 5124
ΣX1 == = 113.9
= N1 45
x,¯ 2 6963
ΣX2 = = = 126.6
= N2 55
√ Σ X2 (5124)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 592484 − 2
1 − N1 45
S1 = N1 − 1 = 14.32
45 − 1
=
√ Σ X2 (6963)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 870131 − 2
1 − N1 55
S2 = N1 − 1 = 14.51
55 − 1
=
S1 14.32 14.32
SE = = = = 2.13
x,¯ 1 √N √45 6.7
1
S2 14.51
SE = = = 14.51 = 1.96
x,¯ 2 √N2 √55 7.4
SE = 2 2 2
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2 √(SEx,¯ ) + (SEx,¯ ) = √(2.13) + (1.96) = 2.89
1
2
Step 5: Find the degree of freedom
df= (N1− 1) + (N2− 1) = ( 45 – 1) + (55 – 1) = 98
Step 6: Find t
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 113.9−126.6

t=
2 = = 4.39 (ignoring the sign)
SE
x,¯ − x,¯ 2.89
1 2
7 Conclusion
α = 0.05 is less than the computed value of t = 4.39. Hence, the null hypothesis is
rejected and it is stated that there is a significant difference between the leadership
style of government and private school principals in the effectiveness of school
It is found from the citation of the table that private school principals are greatly
concerned about the effectiveness of school organization.

HYPOTHESIS No. 3
Group1 Group 2
(Trained Principals) (Untrained Principals)2
𝐗1 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗
1 2
133 17689 103 10609
131 17161 126 15876
118 13924 130 16900
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
96 9216 117 13689
103 10609 135 18225
124 15376 119 14161
ΣX = 8309 3692
N = 69 31
ΣX2 = 1310757 433817
x,¯ = 120.4 119

S = 67.53 14
x,¯ 1 8309
ΣX1 == = 120.4
= N1 69
x,¯ 2 3692
ΣX2 = = = 119
= N2 31
√ Σ X2 (8309)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 1310757 − 2
1 − N1 69
S1 = N1 = 67.53
− 1
69 − 1
=
√ Σ X2 (3692)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 433817 − 2
1 − N1 31
S2 = N1 − 1 (ignoring the sign) =14
31 − 1
=
S1 67.53 67.53
SE = = = = 8.13
x,¯ 1 √N √69 8.3
1
S2 14 14
SE = = = = 2.5
x,¯ 2 √N2 √31 5.56
SE = 2 2 2 2
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2 √(SEx,¯ ) + (SEx,¯ ) = √(8.13) + (2.5) = 8.5
1
2
df= (N1− 1) + (N2− 1) = ( 69 – 1) + (31 – 1) = 98
Step 6: Find t
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 120.4−119 1.4

t=
2 = = = 0.16
SE
x,¯ − x,¯ 8.5 8.5
1 2
7 Conclusion
style of trained and untrained school principals in the effectiveness of school
It is found from the citation of the table that both trained and untrained school
principals are greatly concerned about the effectiveness of school organization.

HYPOTHESIS No. 4
Group1 Group 2
(10 years and above Experience) (Less than 10 years’ Experience)
𝐗1 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2
1 2
103 10609 133 17689
126 15876 124 15376
130 16900 133 17689
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
97 9409 92 8464
110 12100 103 10609
96 9216 94 8836
ΣX = 6920 5016
N = 58 42
ΣX2 = 834056 606528
x,¯ = 119.3 119.4
S = 12.15 13.5

x,¯ 1 6920
ΣX1 == = 119.3
= N1 58
5016
x,¯ 2 ΣX2 = = = 119.4
= N2 42
√ Σ X2 (6920)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 834056 − 2
1 − N1 58
S1 = N1 = 12.15
− 1
58 − 1
=
√ Σ X2
1 −
(ΣX1) 2 N1 (5016)
√ 606528 − 42
2
S2 = N1 − 1 = 13.5
42 − 1
=
S1 12.15 12.15
SE = = = = 1.6
x,¯ 1 √N √58 7.6
1
S2 13.5
SE = = = 13.5 =2
x,¯ 2 √N2 √42 6.5
SE = 2 2 2 2
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2 √(SEx,¯ ) + (SEx,¯ ) = √(1.6) + (2) = 6.56
1
2
df= (N1− 1) + (N2− 1) = ( 58 – 1) + (42 – 1) = 98
Step 6: Find t
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 119.3−119.4 0.1
t=
2 = = = 0.01
SE
x,¯ − x,¯ 6.56 6.56
1 2
Step 7 Conclusion
style of more experienced and less experienced school principals in the effectiveness
of school organization as viewed by the principals.
It is categorically clear from the citation of the table that both experienced and less
experienced principals are greatly concerned about the effectiveness of school

organization.
HYPOTHESIS No. 5
Group 1 (Above 40 Years Principals) Group 2 (Less than 40 Years Principals)

𝐗1 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2
1 2
103 10609 133 17689
126 15876 124 15376
130 16900 133 17689
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
106 11236 115 13225
96 9216 115 13225
92 8464 109 11881
ΣX = 7029 4867
N = 60 40
Σ𝑋2 = 843204 608929
x,¯ = 117.15 121.67
S = 18.29 20.7
x,¯ 1 7029
ΣX1
= 𝑁1
== = 117.15
60
x,¯ 2 4867
=
ΣX2 = = = 121.67
𝑁2 40
√ Σ X2 (7029)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 843204 − 2
1 − N1 60
S1 = N1 − 1 = 18.29
60 − 1
=
√ Σ X2 (4867)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 608929 − 2
1 − N1
40
S2 = N1 − 1 = 20.7
40 − 1
=
S1 18.29 18.29
SE = = = = 2.37
x,¯ 1 √N √60 7.7
1
S2 20.7 20.7
SE = = = = 3.3
x,¯ 2 √N2 √40 6.3
SE = √(SE )2 + (SE )2 = √(2.37)2 + (3.3 )2 = 16.49

x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2 x,¯ 1 x,¯
2
df= (𝑁1− 1) + (𝑁2− 1) = ( 60 – 1) + (40 – 1) = 98
Step 6: Find t
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 117.15−121.67 4.52

t=
2 = = = 0.27 (ignoring the sign)
𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯ 16.49 16.49
1 2
Step 7
style of older and younger school principals in the effectiveness of school
It is very clear from the citation of the table that both older and younger principals
are greatly concerned about the effectiveness of school organization.

HYPOTHESIS No. 6
Group1 (Married Principals)2 Group 2 (Unmarried Principals)

1 2
126 15876 103 10609
133 17689 118 13924
130 16900 130 16900
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
109 11881 109 11881
115 13225 115 13225
03 10609 103 10609
ΣX = 9539 2423
N = 80 20
Σ𝑋2 = 1147987 293712
x,¯ = 119.23 121.15
S = 11.57 2.95
x,¯ 1 9539
ΣX1
= 𝑁1
== = 11.23
80
x,¯ 2 2423
=
ΣX2 = = = 121.15
𝑁2 20
√ Σ X2 (9539)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 1147987 − 2
1 − N1 80
S1 = N1 = 11.57
− 1
80 − 1
=
N1
√ Σ X2
(ΣX1) 2
1 −
(2423)
√ 293712 − 2 20
S2 = N1 − 1 = 2.95
20 − 1
=
S1 11.57 11.57
SE = = = = 1.29
x,¯ 1 √N √80 8.94
1
2.95 2.95
SE = = = 0.65
x,¯ 2 S2 √20 4.5
= √N2
SE = √(SE )2 + (SE )2 = √(1.29)2 + (.65)2 = 2.08

x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2 x,¯ 1 x,¯
2
df= (𝑁1− 1) + (𝑁2− 1) = ( 80 – 1) + (20 – 1) = 98
Step 6: Find t
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 119.23−121.15

t=
2 = = 0.92 (ignoring the sign)
𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯ 2.08
1 2
Step 7
style of married and unmarried school principals in the effectiveness of school
It is very clear from the citation of the table that both married and unmarried
principals are greatly concerned about the effectiveness of school organization.

Table 4.2.7
HYPOTHESIS No. 1
Group 1 (Male Teachers) Group 2 (Female Teachers)
𝑿1 𝐗12 𝑿1 𝐗12 𝐗2 𝐗22 𝐗2 𝐗22
116 13456 108 11664 113 12769 121 14641
106 11236 91 8281 118 13924 118 13924
129 16641 123 15129 136 18496 124 15376
121 14641 125 15625 137 18769 117 13689
104 10816 118 13924 108 11664 118 13924
121 14641 124 15376 109 11881 118 13924
119 14161 99 9801 122 14884 112 12544
100 10000 111 12321 127 16129 119 14161
122 14884 128 16384 128 16384 121 14641
121 14641 130 16900 118 13924 109 11881
125 15625 124 15376 114 12996 126 15876
119 14161 113 12769 127 16129 119 14161
113 12769 113 12769 121 14641 118 13924
123 15129 121 14641 125 15625 112 12544
106 11236 113 12769 123 15129 116 13456
131 17161 130 16900 122 14884 126 15876
111 12321 127 16129 118 13924 107 11449
117 13689 103 10609 117 13689 120 14400
105 11025 91 8281 118 13924 137 18769
131 17161 130 16900 119 14161 125 15625
119 14161 110 12100 118 13924 135 18225
130 16900 104 10816 114 12996 116 13456
125 15625 121 14641 119 14161 116 13456
120 14400 113 12769 119 14161 111 12321
126 15876 121 14641 115 13225 124 15376
131 17161 111 12321 111 12321 105 11025
113 12769 131 17161 115 13225 107 11449
124 15376 111 12321 117 13689 112 12544
110 12100 130 16900 119 14161 133 17689
113 12769 114 12996 125 15625 116 13456
128 16384 85 7225 128 16384 119 14161
133 17689 112 12544 108 11664 126 15876
124 15376 124 15376 136 18496 134 17956
117 13689 107 11449 116 13456 138 19044
115 13225 94 8836 118 13924 102 10404
117 13689 124 15376 125 15625 109 11881
110 12100 121 14641 134 17956 134 17956
119 14161 107 11449 123 15129 114 12996
𝑿1 𝐗12 𝑿1 𝐗12 𝐗2 𝐗22 𝐗2 𝐗22
131 17161 93 8649 118 13924 130 16900
119 14161 101 10201 126 15876 118 13924
117 13689 90 8100 130 16900 117 13689
125 15625 106 11236 130 16900 113 12769
109 11881 111 12321 113 12769 130 16900
129 16641 121 14641 121 14641 123 15129
113 12769 95 9025 130 16900 119 14161
124 15376 103 10609 118 13924 125 15625
114 12996 112 12544 120 14400 124 15376
115 13225 108 11664 99 9801 125 15625
125 15625 123 15129 114 12996 106 11236
85 7225 111 12321 130 16900 125 15625
131 17161 102 10404 119 14161 115 13225
128 16384 114 12996 117 13689 117 13689
118 13924 125 15625 120 14400 126 15876
121 14641 114 12996 116 13456 108 11664
116 13456 105 11025 128 16384 125 15625
119 14161 122 14884 124 15376 133 17689
130 16900 110 12100 112 12544 121 14641
117 13689 125 15625 118 13924
121 14641 111 12321 116 13456
77 5929 124 15376 136 18496
102 10404 117 13689 125 15625
122 14884 119 14161 140 19600
120 14400 132 17424 112 12544
131 17161 133 17689 115 13225
90 8100 124 15376 116 13456
80 6400 128 16384 136 18496
117 13689 113 12769 133 17689
111 12321 129 16641 122 14884
95 9025 112 12544 125 15625
114 12996 124 15376 124 15376
105 11025 125 15625 110 12100
94 8836 121 14641 114 12996
82 6724 128 16384 125 15625
106 11236 121 14641 131 17161
93 8649 118 13924 120 14400
101 10201 130 16900 123 15129
110 12100 125 15625 125 15625
96 9216 128 16384 110 12100
112 12544 112 12544 130 16900
123 15129 123 15129 111 12321
130 16900 131 17161 132 17424
Table 4.2.8
HYPOTHESIS No. 2
Group 1 (Government Teachers) Group 2 (Private Teachers)
𝑿1 𝐗12 𝑿1 𝐗12 𝐗2 𝐗22 𝐗2 𝐗22
130 16900 107 11449 95 9025 124 15376
118 13924 125 15625 116 13456 118 13924
137 18769 110 12100 116 13456 131 17161
118 13924 126 15876 136 18496 112 12544
121 14641 133 17689 108 11664 124 15376
121 14641 138 19044 127 16129 119 14161
122 14884 102 10404 109 11881 103 10609
118 13924 117 13689 122 14884 121 14641
118 13924 113 12769 127 16129 126 15876
122 14884 119 14161 118 13924 119 14161
121 14641 130 16900 129 16641 118 13924
125 15625 118 13924 114 12996 112 12544
119 14161 99 9801 127 16129 116 13456
113 12769 114 12996 104 10816 126 15876
118 13924 125 15625 125 15625 194 37636
123 15129 124 15376 123 15129 82 6724
131 17161 111 12321 119 14161 120 14400
114 12996 130 16900 122 14884 137 18769
119 14161 116 13456 117 13689 135 18225
119 14161 116 13456 100 10000 116 13456
115 13225 113 12769 119 14161 116 13456
115 13225 125 15625 113 12769 111 12321
117 13689 119 14161 106 11236 106 11236
111 12321 124 15376 115 13225 141 19881
128 16384 117 13689 117 13689 124 15376
108 11664 121 14641 111 12321 110 12100
131 17161 113 12769 119 14161 105 11025
119 14161 124 15376 125 15625 113 12769
130 16900 112 12544 114 12996 133 17689
125 15625 103 10609 127 16129 112 12544
126 15876 114 12996 105 11025 133 17689
136 18496 121 14641 126 15876 116 13456
116 13456 104 10816 136 18496 134 17956
125 15625 141 19881 126 15876 109 11881
123 15129 113 12769 118 13924 132 17424
117 13689 121 14641 105 11025 134 17956
118 13924 111 12321 134 17956 114 12996
113 12769 131 17161 121 14641 118 13924
118 13924 121 14641 118 13924 131 17161
𝑿1 𝐗2 𝑿1 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2
1 1 2 2
111 12321 117 13689 126 15876 120 14400
130 16900 125 15625 130 16900 129 16641
128 16384 99 9801 129 16641 128 16384
125 15625 120 14400 130 16900 115 13225
114 12996 131 17161 115 13225 126 15876
133 17689 90 8100 117 13689 135 18225
134 17956 116 13456 101 10201 121 14641
85 7225 80 6400 121 14641 112 12544
135 18225 117 13689 110 12100 124 15376
117 13689 115 13225 108 11664 120 14400
107 11449 111 12321 120 14400 124 15376
130 16900 108 11664 123 15129 118 13924
140 19600 120 14400 130 16900 115 13225
124 15376 123 15129 131 17161
94 8836 118 13924 127 16129
121 14641 99 9801 129 16641
107 11449 117 13689 140 19600
122 14884 120 14400 129 16641
117 13689 128 16384 132 17424
109 11881 124 15376 119 14161
129 16641 124 15376 126 15876
124 15376 112 12544 127 16129
114 12996 113 12769 131 17161
130 16900 119 14161 125 15625
114 12996 132 17424 119 14161
115 13225 130 16900 111 12321
125 15625 127 16129 91 8281
85 7225 123 15129 125 15625
131 17161 128 16384 118 13924
128 16384 115 13225 119 14161
129 16641 129 16641 129 16641
113 12769 125 15625 118 13924
129 16641 141 19881 130 16900
112 12544 131 17161 135 18225
124 15376 135 18225 119 14161
125 15625 116 13456 124 15376
121 14641 119 14161 121 14641
121 14641 110 12100 121 14641
111 12321 122 14884 125 15625
117 13689 123 15129 124 15376
113 12769 122 14884 126 15876
119 14161 140 19600 102 10404
123 15129 121 14641 122 14884
124 15376 126 15876
Table 4.2.9
HYPOTHESIS No. 3
Group 1 (Trained Teachers) Group 2 (Untrained Teachers)
𝑿1 𝐗12 𝑿1 𝐗12 𝐗2 𝐗22 𝐗2 𝐗22
130 16900 126 15876 108 11664 102 10404
127 16129 131 17161 95 9025 109 11881
118 13924 118 13924 116 13456 132 17424
121 14641 125 15625 116 13456 134 17956
127 16129 105 11025 136 18496 114 12996
121 14641 134 17956 108 11664 118 13924
121 14641 123 15129 109 11881 132 17424
118 13924 121 14641 122 14884 126 15876
119 14161 118 13924 127 16129 130 16900
122 14884 124 15376 118 13924 129 16641
121 14641 117 13689 129 16641 130 16900
125 15625 118 13924 114 12996 115 13225
119 14161 118 13924 104 10816 113 12769
113 12769 112 12544 125 15625 114 12996
118 13924 113 12769 123 15129 101 10201
123 15129 124 15376 119 14161 120 14400
106 11236 119 14161 122 14884 120 14400
131 17161 121 14641 117 13689 128 16384
114 12996 119 14161 100 10000 119 14161
119 14161 118 13924 119 14161 132 17424
115 13225 112 12544 109 11881 130 16900
115 13225 116 13456 94 8836 91 8281
117 13689 126 15876 120 14400 126 15876
111 12321 107 11449 116 13456 129 16641
119 14161 137 18769 106 11236 128 16384
125 15625 135 18225 105 11025 115 13225
114 12996 125 15625 93 8649 126 15876
127 16129 116 13456 113 12769 135 18225
105 11025 111 12321 112 12544 121 14641
128 16384 124 15376 133 17689 112 12544
108 11664 110 12100 128 16384 124 15376
131 17161 107 11449 116 13456 120 14400
119 14161 133 17689 125 15625 108 11664
130 16900 117 13689 119 14161 115 13225
125 15625 121 14641 126 15876 132 17424
126 15876 110 12100 134 17956 119 14161
136 18496 119 14161 138 19044 104 10816
116 13456 130 16900 102 10404 106 11236
𝑿1 𝐗2 𝑿1 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2
1 1 2 2
126 15876 103 10609 131 17161
130 16900 129 16641 125 15625
121 14641 125 15625 119 14161
119 14161 141 19881 111 12321
130 16900 114 12996 91 8281
108 11664 121 14641 117 13689
118 13924 116 13456 109 11881
114 12996 110 12100 111 12321
130 16900 104 10816 118 13924
125 15625 122 14884 85 7225
123 15129 121 14641 119 14161
118 13924 122 14884 124 15376
124 15376 121 14641 77 5929
99 9801 141 19881 106 11236
119 14161 113 12769 122 14884
117 13689 121 14641 134 17956
111 12321 111 12321 115 13225
130 16900 131 17161 123 15129
124 15376 121 14641
116 13456 111 12321
116 13456 130 16900
131 17161 128 16384
124 15376 125 15625
112 12544 114 12996
113 12769 120 14400
125 15625 133 17689
119 14161 134 17956
124 15376 135 18225
117 13689 117 13689
121 14641 107 11449
113 12769 127 16129
130 16900 140 19600
127 16129 99 9801
123 15129 121 14641
124 15376 107 11449
128 16384 122 14884
115 13225 109 11881
112 12544 129 16641
𝑿1 𝐗2 𝑿1 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2
1 1 2 2
113 12769 115 13225
124 15376 122 14884
115 13225 111 12321
125 15625 108 11664
131 17161 140 19600
128 16384
129 16641
118 13924
113 12769
129 16641
112 12544
119 14161
121 14641
111 12321
117 13689
113 12769
116 13456
119 14161
130 16900
130 16900
123 15129
124 15376
121 14641
117 13689
121 14641
125 15625
128 16384
118 13924
102 10404
103 10609
99 9801
120 14400
134 17956
131 17161
104 10816
90 8100
116 13456
117 13689
Table 4.2.10
HYPOTHESIS No. 4
Group 1 (Experienced Teachers) Group 2 (Less Experienced Teachers)
𝑿1 𝐗12 𝑿1 𝐗12 𝐗2 𝐗22 𝐗2 𝐗22
130 16900 116 13456 109 11881 102 10404
118 13924 126 15876 122 14884 109 11881
95 9025 118 13924 127 16129 132 17424
106 11236 125 15625 118 13924 134 17956
116 13456 105 11025 129 16641 114 12996
136 18496 134 17956 121 14641 118 13924
108 11664 123 15129 114 12996 131 17161
127 16129 121 14641 127 16129 126 15876
118 13924 118 13924 121 14641 130 16900
118 13924 124 15376 104 10816 129 16641
122 14884 117 13689 125 15625 130 16900
121 14641 118 13924 123 15129 115 13225
125 15625 118 13924 121 14641 113 12769
119 14161 131 17161 119 14161 117 13689
113 12769 107 11449 122 14884 101 10201
118 13924 137 18769 112 12544 121 14641
123 15129 125 15625 113 12769 110 12100
106 11236 110 12100 124 15376 108 11664
131 17161 93 8649 119 14161 120 14400
114 12996 113 12769 109 11881 99 9801
119 14161 112 12544 121 14641 114 12996
119 14161 133 17689 126 15876 130 16900
115 13225 128 16384 119 14161 123 15129
115 13225 116 13456 118 13924 118 13924
117 13689 119 14161 112 12544 119 14161
111 12321 126 15876 116 13456 117 13689
119 14161 117 13689 126 15876 102 10404
125 15625 101 10201 94 8836 128 16384
114 12996 119 14161 82 6724 119 14161
127 16129 130 16900 120 14400 122 14884
105 11025 118 13924 135 18225 130 16900
128 16384 91 8281 116 13456 91 8281
108 11664 125 15625 116 13456 110 12100
131 17161 124 15376 111 12321 104 10816
119 14161 99 9801 106 11236 122 14884
130 16900 130 16900 103 10609 122 14884
125 15625 116 13456 105 11025 121 14641
126 15876 116 13456 107 11449 129 16641
136 18496 113 12769 138 19044 128 16384
119 14161 119 14161 134 17956 126 15876
𝑿1 𝐗2 𝑿1 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2
1 1 2 2
124 15376 121 14641 121 14641 107 11449
112 12544 111 12321 112 12544 130 16900
113 12769 118 13924 124 15376 115 13225
125 15625 117 13689 117 13689 131 17161
119 14161 108 11664 127 16129
124 15376 129 16641 140 19600
117 13689 119 14161 124 15376
121 14641 104 10816 106 11236
113 12769 94 8836 121 14641
127 16129 120 14400 107 11449
123 15129 127 16129 117 13689
124 15376 131 17161 122 14884
128 16384 125 15625 125 15625
112 12544 119 14161 109 11881
115 13225 111 12321 129 16641
103 10609 119 14161 113 12769
129 16641 124 15376 124 15376
125 15625 111 12321 114 12996
141 19881 121 14641 115 13225
130 16900 125 15625 125 15625
114 12996 124 15376 118 13924
121 14641 77 5929 131 17161
166 27556 102 10404 128 16384
103 10609 122 14884 129 16641
121 14641 106 11236 118 13924
131 17161 99 9801 113 12769
121 14641 120 14400 129 16641
111 12321 100 10000 112 12544
131 17161 134 17956 124 15376
113 12769 125 15625 125 15625
121 14641 104 10816 121 14641
111 12321 90 8100 119 14161
130 16900 115 13225 124 15376
126 15876 80 6400 96 9216
128 16384 111 12321 108 11664
125 15625 108 11664 114 12996
114 12996 117 13689 118 13924
120 14400 122 14884 119 14161
133 17689 104 10816 121 14641
130 16900 116 13456 130 16900
123 15129 131 17161 103 10609
117 13689 106 11236 117 13689
121 14641 85 7225 112 12544
125 15625 107 11449 116 13456
Table 4.2.11
HYPOTHESIS No. 5
Group 1 (Older Teachers) Group 2 (Younger Teachers)
𝑿1 𝐗12 𝑿1 𝐗12 𝐗2 𝐗22 𝐗2 𝐗22
130 16900 125 15625 136 18496 118 13924
118 13924 116 13456 137 18769 118 13924
95 9025 110 12100 108 11664 131 17161
116 13456 93 8649 127 16129 118 13924
116 13456 113 12769 109 11881 124 15376
122 14884 112 12544 122 14884 119 14161
121 14641 123 15129 127 16129 109 11881
125 15625 128 16384 118 13924 121 14641
119 14161 119 14161 118 13924 126 15876
113 12769 117 13689 129 16641 119 14161
118 13924 101 10201 121 14641 118 13924
123 15129 119 14161 114 12996 112 12544
106 11236 130 16900 127 16129 116 13456
131 17161 118 13924 121 14641 126 15876
114 12996 91 8281 104 10816 94 8836
119 14161 125 15625 125 15625 82 6724
119 14161 124 15376 123 15129 135 18225
115 13225 99 9801 121 14641 116 13456
115 13225 111 12321 119 14161 116 13456
117 13689 130 16900 122 14884 111 12321
111 12321 116 13456 118 13924 106 11236
119 14161 116 13456 118 13924 124 15376
125 15625 124 15376 117 13689 110 12100
114 12996 113 12769 100 10000 107 11449
127 16129 125 15625 119 14161 116 13456
105 11025 119 14161 125 15625 126 15876
128 16384 124 15376 136 18496 134 17956
108 11664 117 13689 116 13456 132 17424
131 17161 121 14641 126 15876 138 19044
119 14161 113 12769 118 13924 102 10404
130 16900 127 16129 125 15625 109 11881
126 15876 123 15129 105 11025 132 17424
123 15129 124 15376 134 17956 134 17956
118 13924 115 13225 121 14641 114 12996
112 12544 103 10609 118 13924 118 13924
113 12769 121 14641 124 15376 131 17161
107 11449 113 12769 118 13924 126 15876
137 18769 121 14641 117 13689 130 16900
124 15376 113 12769 108 11664 111 12321
𝑿1 𝐗2 𝑿1 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2
1 1 2 2
111 12321 120 14400 129 16641 124 15376
131 17161 134 17956 130 16900 120 14400
121 14641 131 17161 115 13225 135 18225
111 12321 125 15625 113 12769 124 15376
130 16900 124 15376 117 13689 117 13689
126 15876 90 8100 121 14641 108 11664
128 16384 116 13456 110 12100 127 16129
125 15625 80 6400 108 11664 129 16641
114 12996 117 13689 120 14400 132 17424
115 13225 115 13225 99 9801 119 14161
133 17689 115 13225 114 12996 104 10816
85 7225 126 15876 130 16900 126 15876
107 11449 123 15129 127 16129
130 16900 118 13924 131 17161
115 13225 119 14161 125 15625
131 17161 117 13689 119 14161
140 19600 120 14400 111 12321
124 15376 128 16384 122 14884
99 9801 124 15376 125 15625
106 11236 113 12769 118 13924
107 11449 112 12544 113 12769
91 8281 121 14641 125 15625
117 13689 119 14161 121 14641
109 11881 130 16900 119 14161
129 16641 124 15376 121 14641
113 12769 128 16384 111 12321
121 14641 129 16641 118 13924
114 12996 141 19881 117 13689
115 13225 114 12996 113 12769
125 15625 121 14641 116 13456
85 7225 91 8281 125 15625
131 17161 110 12100 124 15376
128 16384 104 10816 77 5929
129 16641 122 14884 102 10404
118 13924 122 14884 122 14884
129 16641 121 14641 106 11236
112 12544 141 19881 103 10609
124 15376 120 14400 99 9801
119 14161 129 16641 134 17956
130 16900 128 16384 131 17161
130 16900 126 15876 125 15625
123 15129 135 18225 124 15376
117 13689 121 14641 90 8100
121 14641 112 12544 116 13456
Table 4.2.12
HYPOTHESIS No. 6
Group 1 (Married Teachers) Group 1 (Unmarried Teachers)
𝑿1 𝐗12 𝑿1 𝐗12 𝐗2 𝐗22 𝐗2 𝐗22
113 12769 108 11664 137 18769 130 16900
118 13924 131 17161 129 16641 129 16641
95 9025 119 14161 121 14641 115 13225
106 11236 130 16900 114 12996 113 12769
116 13456 126 15876 127 16129 117 13689
136 18496 136 18496 121 14641 130 16900
137 18769 116 13456 104 10816 120 14400
108 11664 118 13924 125 15625 99 9801
127 16129 125 15625 123 15129 114 12996
109 11881 105 11025 121 14641 130 16900
122 14884 134 17956 119 14161 125 15625
127 16129 123 15129 122 14884 123 15129
109 11881 121 14641 118 13924 117 13689
118 13924 117 13689 121 14641 120 14400
117 13689 118 13924 111 12321 128 16384
100 10000 118 13924 119 14161 116 13456
119 14161 131 17161 127 16129 112 12544
122 14884 112 12544 125 15625 119 14161
125 15625 113 12769 126 15876 132 17424
119 14161 124 15376 124 15376 130 16900
113 12769 119 14161 119 14161 128 16384
118 13924 103 10609 118 13924 112 12544
123 15129 121 14641 112 12544 129 16641
106 11236 126 15876 116 13456 91 8281
131 17161 126 15876 126 15876 110 12100
111 12321 94 8836 132 17424 104 10816
119 14161 82 6724 132 17424 122 14884
115 13225 107 11449 102 10404 131 17161
119 14161 120 14400 109 11881 129 16641
115 13225 137 18769 132 17424 128 16384
117 13689 135 18225 134 17956 133 17689
111 12321 125 15625 114 12996 121 14641
114 12996 116 13456 118 13924 112 12544
125 15625 116 13456 118 13924 124 15376
114 12996 111 12321 131 17161 120 14400
125 15625 106 11236 114 12996 135 18225
105 11025 124 15376 118 13924 124 15376
128 16384 110 12100 131 17161 117 13689
123 15129 115 13225 126 15876 108 11664
120 14400 112 12544 132 17424 129 16641
𝑿1 𝐗2 𝑿1 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2
1 1 2 2
124 15376 124 15376 126 15876 113 12769
110 12100 112 12544 127 16129 130 16900
105 11025 115 13225 137 18769 123 15129
107 11449 112 12544 125 15625 119 14161
93 8649 141 19881 119 14161 125 15625
113 12769 130 16900 122 14884 124 15376
112 12544 99 9801 125 15625 125 15625
133 17689 114 12996 113 12769 106 11236
128 16384 121 14641 121 14641
116 13456 116 13456 123 15129
138 19044 130 16900 124 15376
117 13689 121 14641 77 5929
130 16900 122 14884 102 10404
101 10201 141 19881 122 14884
121 14641 113 12769 106 11236
110 12100 121 14641 103 10609
119 14161 111 12321 134 17956
108 11664 121 14641 125 15625
118 13924 111 12321 104 10816
91 8281 130 16900 115 13225
124 15376 126 15876 126 15876
99 9801 118 13924 119 14161
119 14161 125 15625 103 10609
111 12321 114 12996 121 14641
130 16900 115 13225 126 15876
124 15376 116 13456 126 15876
116 13456 134 17956 94 8836
113 12769 85 7225 82 6724
124 15376 135 18225 107 11449
113 12769 107 11449 120 14400
125 15625 130 16900 137 18769
115 13225 115 13225 135 18225
124 15376 131 17161 125 15625
117 13689 127 16129 116 13456
121 14641 140 19600 116 13456
113 12769 124 15376 111 12321
127 16129 99 9801 106 11236
123 15129 107 11449 124 15376
91 8281 114 12996 110 12100
117 13689 115 13225 115 13225
109 11881 125 15625 112 12544
129 16641 118 13924 123 15129
113 12769 85 7225 124 15376
124 15376 131 17161 111 12321
HYPOTHESIS No. 1
Group 1 (Male Teachers) 2 Group 2 (Female Teachers)

1 2
116 13456 113 12769
106 11236 118 13924
129 16641 136 18496
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
105 11025 130 16900
122 14884 111 12321
110 12100 132 17424
ΣX = 15370 19601
N = 138 162
Σ𝑋2 = 1820624 2381903
x,¯ = 111.37 121

S = 28.17 8.06
x,¯ ΣX1 15370

1
= 𝑁1 == = 11.37
138
x,¯ ΣX 19601
= 2 = = = 121
2 162
𝑁2
√ Σ X2 (15370)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 1820624 − 2
1 − N1 138
S1 = N1 − 1 = 28.17
138 − 1
=
√ Σ X2
1 −
(ΣX1) 2 N1 (19601)
√ 2381903 − 162
2
S2 = N1 − 1 = 8.06
162 − 1
=
S1 28.17 28.17
SE = = = = 2.39
x,¯ 1 √N1 √138 11.74
S2 8.06
SE = = 8.06
= = 0.63
x,¯ 2 √N2 √162 12.72
SE = √(SE )2 + (SE )2 = √(2.39)2 + (0.63)2 = 2.46

x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2 x,¯ 1 x,¯
2
df= (𝑁1− 1) + (𝑁2− 1) = ( 138 – 1) + (162 – 1) = 298
Step 6: Find t
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 111.37−121 9.63

t=
𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯ 2.46 2.46
1 2
Step 7
style of male and female secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness
of school organization as viewed by the teachers.
After the citation of the table, it is found that female principals have more leadership
styles as compared to male principals.

HYPOTHESIS No. 2
Group 1 (Government Teachers) Group 2 (Private Teachers)

𝐗1 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2
1 2
130 16900 124 15376
118 13924 118 13924
137 18769 131 17161
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
111 12321 126 15876
108 11664 102 10404
120 14400 122 14884
ΣX = 16047 20008
N = 136 164
Σ𝑋2 = 1921871 2447054
x,¯ = 117.99 122

S = 14.51 6.14
x,¯ 1 16047
ΣX1
= 𝑁1
== = 117.99
136
x,¯ ΣX 20008
= 2 = = = 122
2 164
𝑁2
√ Σ X2 (16047)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 1921871 − 2
1 − N1 136
S1 = N1 = 14.51
− 1
136 − 1
=
√ Σ X2 (20008)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 2447054 − 2
1 − N1 164
S2 = N1 − 1 = 6.14
164 − 1
=
S1 14.51 14.51
SE = = = = 1.24
x,¯ 1 √N1 √136 11.66
S2 6.14 6.14
SE = = =
= 0.47
x,¯ 2 √N2 √164 12.80
SE = √(SE )2 + (SE )2 = √(1.24)2 + (0.47)2 = 1.75

x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2 x,¯ 1 x,¯
2
df= (𝑁1− 1) + (𝑁2− 1) = ( 136 – 1) + (164 – 1) = 298
Step 6: Find t
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 117.99 −122 4.01

t=
𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯ 1.75 1.75
1 2
Step 7
styles of secondary school principals of Karachi in the effectiveness of school
leadership styles as compared to government principals.

HYPOTHESIS No. 3
Group 1 (Trained Teachers)2 Group 2 (Untrained Teachers)

1 2
130 16900 108 11664
127 16129 95 9025
118 13924 116 13456
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
122 14884 134 17956
109 11881 115 13225
140 19600 123 15129
ΣX = 23413 11012
N = 194 106
Σ𝑋2 = 2825887 1303738
x,¯ = 120.86 103.88

S = 1.19 39
x,¯ 1 23413
ΣX1
= 𝑁1
= = 120.68
194
x,¯ ΣX 11012
2
= = 103.38
= 106
2 𝑁2
√ Σ X2 (23413)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 2825887 − 2
1 − N1 194
S1 = N1 − 1 = 1.19
194 − 1
=
√ Σ X2 (11012)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 1303738 − 2
1 − N1 106
S2 = N1
= 39
− 1 106 − 1
=
S1 1.19 1.19
SE = = = = 0.08
x,¯ 1 √N √194 13.92
1
39 39
SE = = = 3.79
x,¯ 2 S2
10.29
= √N2 √106
SE = √(SE )2 + (SE )2 = √(0.08)2 + (3.79)2 = 3.85

x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2 x,¯ 1 x,¯
2
df= (𝑁1− 1) + (𝑁2− 1) = ( 194 – 1) + (106 – 1) = 298
Step 6: Find t
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 119.96 −103.88 16.08

t=
2 = = = 4.17
𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯ 3.85 3.85
1 2
Step 7
styles of trained and untrained secondary school principals of Karachi in the
After the citation of the table, it is found that trained school principals have more
leadership styles as compared to untrained principals.

HYPOTHESIS No. 4
Group 1 (Experienced Teachers) Group 2 (Less Experienced Teachers)

𝐗1 𝐗2 𝐗2 𝐗2
1 2
130 16900 109 11881
118 13924 122 14884
95 9025 127 16129
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
111 12321 117 13689
118 13924 112 12544
117 13689 116 13456
ΣX = 15580 19897
N = 130 170
Σ𝑋2 = 1879656 2350491
x,¯ = 117.04 119.84

S = 9.82 11.33
x,¯ 1 15580
ΣX1
= 𝑁1
== = 119.84
130
x,¯ 2 19897
=
ΣX2 = = = 117.04
𝑁2 170
√ Σ X2 (15580)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 1879656 − 2
1 − N1 130
S1 = N1 − 1 = 9.82
130 − 1
=
√ Σ X2 (19897)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 2350491 − 2
1 − N1 170
S2 = N1 − 1 = 11.33
170 − 1
=
S1 9.82 9.82
SE = = = = 0.861
x,¯ 1 √N1 √130 11.40
S2 11.33 11.33
SE = = =
= 0.869
x,¯ 2 √N2 √170 13.03
SE = √(SE )2 + (SE )2 = √(0.861)2 + (0.869)2 =

x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 2 x,¯ 1 x,¯
2
1.49
df= (𝑁1− 1) + (𝑁2− 1) = ( 130 – 1) + (170 – 1) = 298
Step 6: Find t
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 117.04 −119.84 2.8

t=
𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯ 1.49 1.49
1 2
Step 7
styles of experienced and less experienced secondary school principals of Karachi in
the effectiveness of school organization as viewed by the teachers.
After the citation of the table, it is found that experienced and less experienced
school principals have equal leadership styles.
HYPOTHESIS No. 5
Group 1 (Older Teachers) 2 Group 2 (Younger Teachers)

1 2
130 16900 136 18496
118 13924 137 18769
95 9025 108 11664
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
115 13225 124 15376
115 13225 90 8100
126 15876 116 13456
ΣX = 13793 19804
N = 134 166
Σ𝑋2 = 1876827 2380672
x,¯ = 102.93 119.30

S = 58.62 10.45
x,¯ 1 13793
ΣX1
= 𝑁1
== = 102.93
134
x,¯ 2 19804
=
ΣX2 = = = 119.30
𝑁2 166
√ Σ X2 (13793)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 1876827 − 2
1 − N1 134
S1 = N1 = 58.62
− 1
134 − 1
=
1 √ Σ X2
(ΣX1) 2 N1
−
√ (19804)
2380672 − 2
S2 = N1 − 1
166
= 10.45
166 − 1
=
S1 58.62 58.62
SE = = = = 5.06
x,¯ 1 √N1 √134 11.57
S2 10.45 10.45
SE = = =
= 0.81
x,¯ 2 √N2 √166 12.88
SE = √(SE )2 + (SE )2 = √(5.06)2 + (0.81)2 = 5.12

x,¯ 1 − x,¯ x,¯ x,¯2
1 2
df= (𝑁1− 1) + (𝑁2− 1) = ( 134 – 1) + (166 – 1) = 298
Step 6: Find t
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 102.93 −119.30 16.37

t=
𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯ 5.12 5.12
1 2
Step 7
styles of older and younger secondary school principals of Karachi in the

After the citation of the table, it is found that young school principals have more
leadership styles as compared to aged principals.
HYPOTHESIS No. 6
Group 1 (Married Teachers)2 Group 2 (Unmarried Teachers)

1 2
113 12769 137 18769
118 13924 129 16641
95 9025 121 14641
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
118 13924 123 15129
85 7225 124 15376
131 17161 111 12321
ΣX = 19781 15798
N = 168 132
Σ𝑋2 = 2349083 1905096
x,¯ = 117.74 119.68

S = 10.93 10.47
x,¯ 1 19781
ΣX1
= 𝑁1
== = 117.74
168
x,¯ 2 15798
=
ΣX2 = = = 119.68
𝑁2 132
√ Σ X2 (19781)
(ΣX1) 2 √ 2349083 − 2
1 − N1 168
S1 = N1
=
− 1
10.93
168 − 1 N1
(ΣX1) 2
√ Σ X2
1 − √ 1905096 −
(15798)
2
132
S2 = N1 − 1 = 10.47
132 − 1
=
S1 10.93 10.93
SE = = = = 0.84
x,¯ 1 √N1 √168 12.96
S2 10.47
SE
10.47 = = =
= 0.91
x,¯ 2 √N2 √132 11.48
SE = √(SE )2 + (SE )2 = √(0.84)2 + (0.91)2 = 1.53

x,¯ 1 − x,¯ x,¯ x,¯2
1 2
df= (𝑁1− 1) + (𝑁2− 1) = ( 168 – 1) + (132 – 1) = 298
Step 6: Find t
x,¯ 1 − x,¯ 117.74 −119.68 1.94

t=
𝑆𝐸
x,¯ − x,¯ 1.53 1.53
1 2
Step 7
styles of married and unmarried secondary school principals of Karachi in the

After the citation of the table, it is found that married and unmarried school
APPENDIX – IV
Table 4.3.1
Application of chi square (𝑥 ) for testing the significance level of item No.1
2
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Total

Step 1 fo 70 20 10 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe 36.67 –13.33 –23.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 1344.68 177.68 544.28 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 1344.68 177.68 544.28 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 40.34 5.33 16.33 62

=∑ fe
Step 7 Find the degree of freedom

df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.2
2

Step 1 fo 50 35 15 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe 16.67 1.67 −18.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 277.88 2.78 335.98 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 277.88 2.78 335.98 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 8.33 0.08 10.08 18.49

=∑ fe

df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.3
2

Step 1 fo 16 15 69 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe −17.33 −18.33 35.67 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 300.32 335.98 1272.34 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 300.32 335.98 1272.34 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 9.01 10.08 38.17 57.26

=∑ fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.4
2

Step 1 fo 38 47 15 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe 4.67 13.67 −18.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 21.80 186.86 335.98 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 21.80 186.86 335.98 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 0.65 5.60 10.08 16.33

=∑ fe

df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.5
2

Step 1 fo 50 21 29 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe 16.67 −12.33 −4.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 277.88 152.02 18.74 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 277.88 152.02 18.74 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 8.33 4.56 0.56 13.45

=∑ fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.6
2

Step 1 fo 45 43 12 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe 11.67 9.67 −21.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 136.18 93.50 454.96 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 136.18 93.50 454.96 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 4.08 2.80 13.65 20.53

=∑ fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.7
2

Step 1 fo 49 44 7 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe 15.67 10.67 –26.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 245.54 113.84 693.26 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 245.54 113.84 693.26 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 7.36 3.41 20.80 31.62

=∑ fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.8
2

Step 1 fo 28 40 32 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe –5.33 6.67 –1.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 28.40 44.48 1.76 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 28.40 44.48 1.76 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 0.85 1.33 0.05 2.23

=∑ fe
255
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.9
2

Step 1 fo 36 50 14 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe 2.67 16.67 –19.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 7.12 277.88 373.64 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 7.12 277.88 373.64 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 0.21 8.33 11.21 19.75

=∑ fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.10
2

Step 1 fo 48 38 14 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe 14.67 4.67 –19.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 215.20 21.80 373.64 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 215.20 21.80 373.64 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 6.45 0.65 11.21 18.31

=∑ fe
256
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.11
2

Step 1 fo 36 34 30 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe 2.67 0.67 –3.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 7.12 0.44 11.08 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 7.12 0.44 11.08 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 0.21 0.01 0.33 0.55

=∑ fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.12
2

Step 1 fo 35 40 25 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe 1.67 6.67 –8.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 2.78 44.48 69.38 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 2.78 44.48 69.38 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 0.08 1.33 2.08 3.49

=∑ fe
257
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.13
2

Step 1 fo 30 50 20 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe –3.33 16.67 –13.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 11.08 277.78 177.68 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 11.08 277.78 177.68 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 0.33 8.33 5.33 13.99

=∑ fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.14
2

Step 1 fo 30 53 17 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe –3.33 19.67 –16.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 11.08 386.90 266.66 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 11.08 386.90 266.66 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 0.33 11.60 8 19.93

=∑ fe
258
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.15
2

Step 1 fo 32 47 21 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe –1.33 13.67 –12.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 1.76 186.86 152.02 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 1.76 186.86 152.02 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 0.05 5.60 4.56 10.21

=∑ fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.16
2

Step 1 fo 41 39 20 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe 7.67 5.67 –13.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 58.82 32.14 177.68 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 58.82 32.14 177.68 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 1.76 0.96 5.33 8.05

=∑ fe
259
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.17
2

Step 1 fo 22 40 38 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe –11.33 6.67 4.67 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 128.36 44.48 21.80 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 128.36 44.48 21.80 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 3.85 1.33 0.65 5.83

=∑ fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.18
2

Step 1 fo 32 40 28 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe –1.33 6.67 –5.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 1.76 44.48 28.40 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 1.76 44.48 28.40 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.19
2

Step 1 fo 46 44 10 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe 12.67 10.67 –23.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 160.52 113.84 544.28 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 160.52 113.84 544.28 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 4.81 3.41 16.33 24.55

=∑ fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.20
2

Step 1 fo 34 44 22 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe 0.67 10.67 –11.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 0.44 113.84 128.36 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 0.44 113.84 128.36 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.21
2

Step 1 fo 30 34 36 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe –3.33 0.67 2.67 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 11.08 0.44 7.12 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 11.08 0.44 7.12 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 0.33 0.01 0.21 0.55

=∑ fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.22
2

Step 1 fo 31 54 15 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe –2.33 20.67 −18.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 5.42 427.24 335.98 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 5.42 427.24 335.98 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.23
2

Step 1 fo 29 55 16 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe –4.33 21.67 −17.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 18.74 469.58 300.32 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 18.74 469.58 300.32 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 0.56 14.08 9.01 23.74

=∑ fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.24
2

Step 1 fo 26 40 34 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe –7.33 6.67 0.67 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 53.72 44.48 0.44 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 53.72 44.48 0.44 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 1.61 1.33 0.01 2.95

=∑ fe
263
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.25
2

Step 1 fo 47 34 19 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe 13.67 0.67 –14.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 186.86 0.44 205.34 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 186.86 0.44 205.34 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 5.60 0.01 6.16 11.77

=∑ fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.26
2

Step 1 fo 44 43 13 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe 10.67 9.67 –20.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 113.84 93.50 413.30 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 113.84 93.50 413.30 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 3.41 2.80 12.40 18.61

=∑ fe
264
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.27
2

Step 1 fo 23 50 27 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe –10.33 16.67 –6.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 106.70 277.88 40.06 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 106.70 277.88 40.06 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 3.20 8.33 1.20 12.73

=∑ fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.28
2

Step 1 fo 31 42 27 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe – 2.33 8.67 –6.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 5.42 75.16 40.06 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 5.42 75.16 40.06 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 0.16 2.25 1.20 3.61

=∑ fe
265
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.29
2

Step 1 fo 21 55 24 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe –12.33 21.67 –9.33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 152.02 469.58 87.04 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 152.02 469.58 87.04 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 4.56 14.08 2.61 21.25

=∑ fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.30
2

Step 1 fo 17 43 40 100
Step 2 fe 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Step 3 fo – fe –16.33 9.67 6.67 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 266.66 93.50 44.48 -
Step 5 ( fo − fe)2 266.66 93.50 44.48 -
fe 33.33 33.33 33.33
Step 6 𝑥 2 (fo−fe) 2 8 2.80 1.33 12.13

=∑ fe
266
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.31
2
Step 1 fo 178 98 24 300
Step 2 fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe 78 -2 -76 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 6084 4 5776 -
Step 5 ( fo − 6084 4 5776 -
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
60.84 0.04 57.76 118.64
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.32
2
Step 1 fo 149 134 17 300
Step 2 fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe 49 34 -83 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 2401 1156 6889 -
Step 5 ( fo − 2401 1156 6889 -
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
24.01 11.56 68.89 104.46
fe
267
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.33
2
Step 1 fo 106 140 54 300
Step 2 fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe 6 40 -46 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 36 1600 2116 -
Step 5 ( fo − 36 1600 2116 -
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
0.36 16 21.16 37.52
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.34
2
Step 1 fo 47 111 142 300
Step 2 fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe -53 11 42 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 2809 121 1764 -
Step 5 ( fo − 2809 121 1764 -
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
fe
268
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
28.09 1.21 17.64 46.94
fe
268
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.35
2
Step 1 fo 67 138 95 300
Step 2 fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe -33 38 -5 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 1089 1444 25 -
Step 5 ( fo − 1089 1444 25 -
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
10.89 14.44 0.25 25.58
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.36
2
Step 1 fo 149 124 27 300
Step 2 fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe 49 24 -73
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 2401 576 5329
Step 5 ( fo − 2401 576 5329
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
fe
269
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
24.01 5.76 53.29 83.06
fe
270
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.37
2
Step 1 Fo 120 127 53 300
Step 2 Fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe 20 27 -47
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 400 729 2209
Step 5 ( fo − 400 729 2209
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
4 7.29 22.09 33.38
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.38
2
Step 1 Fo 132 112 56 300
Step 2 Fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe 32 12 -44 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 1024 144 1936 -
Step 5 ( fo − 1024 144 1936 -
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
10.24 1.44 19.36 31.04
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.39
2
Step 1 Fo 84 111 105 300
Step 2 Fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe -16 11 5 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 256 121 25 -
Step 5 ( fo − 256 121 25 -
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
2.56 1.21 0.25 4.02
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.40
2
Step 1 Fo 50 67 183 300
Step 2 Fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe -50 -33 83 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 2500 1089 6889 -
Step 5 ( fo − 2500 1089 6889 -
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
25 10.89 68.89 104.78
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.41
2
Step 1 Fo 97 134 69 300
Step 2 Fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe -3 34 -31
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 9 1156 961
Step 5 ( fo − 9 1156 961
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
0.09 11.56 9.61 21.26
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.42
2
Step 1 Fo 130 132 38 300
Step 2 Fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe 30 32 -62 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 900 1024 3844 -
Step 5 ( fo − 900 1024 3844
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
272
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2 9 10.24 38.44 57.68
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.43
2
Step 1 Fo 99 143 58 300
Step 2 Fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe -1 43 -42 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 1 1849 1764 -
Step 5 ( fo − 1 1849 1764
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
1 18.49 17.64 37.13
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.44
2
Step 1 Fo 97 106 97 300
Step 2 Fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe -3 6 -3 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 9 36 9 -
Step 5 ( fo − 9 36 9 -
fe)2 100 100 100
273
fe
274
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
0.09 0.36 0.09 0.54
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.45
2
Step 1 Fo 138 122 40 300
Step 2 Fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe 38 22 -60 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 1444 484 3600 -
Step 5 ( fo − 1444 484 3600 -
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
14.44 4.84 36 55.28
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.46
2
Step 1 Fo 102 150 48 300
Step 2 Fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe 2 50 -52 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 4 2500 2704 -
Step 5 ( fo − 4 2500 2704 -
fe)2
fe 100 100 100
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
0.04 25 27.04 52.08
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.47
2
Step 1 Fo 104 142 54 300
Step 2 Fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe 4 42 -46 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 16 1764 2116 -
Step 5 ( fo − 16 1764 2116 -
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
0.16 17.64 21.16 38.96
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.48
2
Step 1 Fo 80 135 85 300
Step 2 Fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe -20 35 -15 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 400 1225 225 -
Step 5 ( fo − 400 1225 225 -
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
4 12.25 2.25 18.5
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.49
2
Step 1 Fo 81 128 91 300
Step 2 Fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe -19 28 -9 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 361 784 81 -
Step 5 ( fo − 361 784 81 -
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
3.61 7.84 0.81 12.26
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.50
2
Step 1 Fo 76 131 93 300
Step 2 Fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe -24 31 -7 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 576 961 49 -
Step 5 ( fo − 576 961 49 -
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
5.76 9.61 0.49 15.86
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.51
2
Step 1 Fo 92 122 86 300
Step 2 Fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe -8 22 -14
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 64 484 196
Step 5 ( fo − 64 484 196
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
0.64 4.84 1.96 7.44
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.52
2
Step 1 fo 88 121 91 300
Step 2 fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe -12 21 -9
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 144 441 81
Step 5 ( fo − 144 441 81
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
1.44 4.41 0.81 6.66
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.53
2
Step 1 fo 69 99 132 300
Step 2 fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe -31 -1 32
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 961 1 1024
Step 5 ( fo − 961 1 1024
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
6.61 0.01 10.24 16.68
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.54
2
Step 1 fo 84 117 99 300
Step 2 fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe -16 17 -1
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 256 289 1
Step 5 ( fo − 256 289 1
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
2.56 2.89 0.01 5.46
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.55
2
Step 1 fo 97 136 67 300
Step 2 fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe -3 36 -33 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 9 1296 1089 -
Step 5 ( fo − 9 1296 1089 -
fe)2 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
0.09 12.96 10.89 23.94
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.56
Application of chi square (𝑥 2) for testing the significance level of item No.26
Step 1 fo 99 133 68 300
Step 2 fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe -1 33 -32 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 1 1089 1024 -
Step 5 ( fo − 1 1089 1024 -
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
0.01 10.89 10.24 21.14
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.57
2
Step 1 fo 92 125 83 300
Step 2 fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe -8 25 -17 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 64 625 289 -
Step 5 ( fo − 64 625 289 -
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
0.64 6.25 2.89 9.78
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.58
Application of chi square (𝑥 2) for testing the significance level of item No.28
Step 1 fo 86 121 93 300
Step 2 fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe -14 21 -7 -
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 196 441 49 -
Step 5 ( fo − 196 441 49 -
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
1.96 4.41 0.49 6.86
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.59
2
Step 1 fo 112 121 67 300
Step 2 fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe 12 21 -33
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 144 441 1089
Step 5 ( fo − 144 441 1089
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
1.44 4.41 10.89 16.74
fe
df = k – 1
df = 3 – 1= 2
Table 4.3.60
2
Step 1 fo 181 79 40 300
Step 2 fe 100 100 100 300
Step 3 fo – fe 81 21 -60
Step 4 (fo – fe)2 6561 441 3600
Step 5 ( fo − 6561 441 3600
fe)2 100 100 100
fe
Step 6 𝑥 2 =∑
(fo−fe) 2
65.61 4.41 36 106.02
fe
df = k – 1

Muhabat Khan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Muhabat Khan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LEADERSHIP STYLE OF THE

PRINCIPALS IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS OF KARACHI

In the Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Of

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) Education

Under the Supervision of

Dr. KAMAL HAIDER

Hamdard Institute of Education and Social Sciences

This work is dedicated to my parents who forced and encouraged me to continue my

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LEADERSHIP STYLE OF THE PRINCIPALS

IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS OF KARACHI

based on the demographic variables consisted on sex, status of schools, professional

instruments, a self-made questionnaire of 30 items and an interview protocol of 4 broad

questions were used.

effectiveness of school organization than the government school principals. Though, in

principals in the effectiveness of school organization.

several solid recommendations were made.

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Education, under my supervision. The Research Dissertation

(HIESS), Hamdard University Karachi, Pakistan.

DR. KAMAL HAIDER

have helped me in the completion of my dissertation.

support and understanding that he rendered throughout this journey.

support, sacrifice and unconditional love have helped me in this labour.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Section I: Formation of the Sample 79

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND

Appendix I Interview Protocol 196

4.1.1 Classification of Secondary School Principals of Karachi by 79

(As viewed by the Teachers)

Application of ‘t’ Test for Testing the Null Hypothesis 1 240

(As viewed by the Principals)

The role of education is immensely important in the development of a society. Chandler

(1991) concluded that education is considered as an instrument for human resource

development, which would ultimately contribute to economic, individual and scientific

which is comparatively lower than its neighboring countries.

issues are pointed out below:

 Lack of leadership skills among the principals

 Political based selection of the principals

 Lack of training facilities for principals and teachers

 Too much workload and low paid teachers

 Teachers’ turnover due to rigid administration

 Diverse systems of education, like English-medium, Urdu-medium and Cambridge (O’

 Unfair means in examinations

 Traditional and memory based system of examinations

achievement level of students and performance of teachers. A principal is often judged

enterprise, and school management is a cooperative responsibility, where every

guidance and supervision of an effective leader. Such a leader is a principal.

competent teachers in a school without a good principal. Though, in such circumstances

competent leadership. In many researches, a principal has just been described as an

cannot be a good leader but simply a dictator.

contribution of principal has been a significant in creating a favorable environment for

(1990) concluded that leadership can be defined as an influence relationship, in such a

and responsibility should be assigned according to their strengths and capabilities.

Arnold (2007) strongly determined that leadership depicts a unique character,

understanding, attitude and interaction which can be linked to administrative position in

essential issue in the world of education.

insight is promoting leadership quality among the teachers and students.

least understood phenomena. Daft (2005) concluded that it is extremely difficult to

encourages them in tough times.

aspect of leadership is influencing people to be united around a common vision.

acknowledged and effectively ‘granted’ by other people in the organization.

autocratic or authoritarian style, laissez-faire or delegative style and democratic or