Leadership Style of The School Heads As Correlates To The Level of Efficiency of Management Practices: Inputs For Professional Development Plan

LEADERSHIP STYLE OF THE SCHOOL HEADS AS
CORRELATES TO THE LEVEL OF EFFICIENCY OF

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: INPUTS FOR
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL
Volume: 17
Issue 4
Pages: 393-406
Document ID: 2024PEMJ15
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10690023
Manuscript Accepted: 01-31-2024
Psych Educ, 2024, 17(4): 393-406, Document ID:2024PEMJ1573, doi:10.5281/zenodo.10690023, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
Leadership Style of the School Heads As Correlates to the Level of Efficiency of

Management Practices: Inputs For Professional Development Plan
Ginalyn T. Martir*
For affiliations and correspondence, see the last page.
Abstract
The study aimed to determine the leadership styles of the school heads as correlates to the level of efficiency of
management practices in different schools in Baras District, during the School Year 2021-2022. It can be noted from
the results that School Heads and teachers both agreed about the leadership style concerning Organizational
Commitment, especially, when the School Heads demonstrates their willingness to exert effort and pushing their limits
just to make the organization successful. The results also implied that the differences in most profile variables of
teachers are not factors that affect the consistencies of their responses pertaining to the level of efficiencies of School
Heads with respect to the different aspects. Further, the results emphasized that the leadership style, the level of
efficiency, and management practices of the School Heads are not associated with each other based on the different
aspects considered in the study. With that this professional development program aimed to improve the leadership,
efficiency, and management practices of school heads. Through this, school heads can shape a vision of success; guide
teaching and learning; and build capacity in teachers and other stakeholders to help in improving student outcomes
and provide high-quality educational opportunities for all learners.
Keywords: e-supplementary material, reading, students’ performance
Introduction
Effective leadership at all levels of the school system is at the heart of strategies for accelerating the achievement of quality education.
A school management system has become an essential need for every school to operate. No doubt. It holds so many crucial functions
to ensure that the school management runs smoothly. The teachers, staff, and other external parties can collaborate easily through a
centralized platform. It does not stop there (Fadiyah, 2022).
Every principal is a leader of a school, his/her decision is expected to be followed because it is for everyone’s benefit and for the
improvement of the school as a whole. The principal is the one guiding the people in the school where to go. A principal is also a
manager because he/she not only led but manage the whole organization so that whatever plans they have for the betterment of the
school, the stakeholders can attain it to reach the goals and visions sets with the support of every individual (Aguilar, 2011).
Because of the numerous challenges shaped by modern modes of technology, economic globalization, and social-political life, teaching
in the twenty-first century is more intricate than it has ever been. School leaders are expected to play many roles and carry out numerous
tasks and responsibilities related to teaching, curriculum changes, educational improvement, students' learning experiences,
professional growth, and interactions with parents and the community in an era of such rapid change.
Management functions of school administrators at the school level is a critical factor in determining successful management and teacher
satisfaction. Effective school management necessitates school administrators who can handle both external operations and interactions
with the school environment. This is due to the fact that leadership entails interpersonal influences exerted on others through the
communication process in order to achieve specific goals.
The present researcher observed that school principals are extremely preoccupied with carrying out their duties in every way that
quality education can be improved. Many responsibilities fall on their shoulders, including monitoring and evaluating teachers'
performance, participating in curriculum instruction, providing curriculum materials, developing effective communication channels to
disseminate important information and circulars, and even motivating teachers to foster a positive ethos, among other things.
With such a heavy burden on their shoulders, the researcher considered how school principals carry out all of their assigned duties.
That thought fueled the researcher's eagerness to conduct the current study. With the time-consuming and exhausting obligations and
responsibilities of school principals, it is appropriate to determine their managerial function practices. Based on the findings of the
study, the researcher will create a professional development program that will be proposed to improve their managerial qualities,
managerial function practices, as well as their managerial efficiency.
Research Questions
The study aimed to determine the leadership styles of the school heads as correlates to the level of efficiency of management practices
Ginalyn T. Martir 393/406

Research Article
in different schools in Baras District, during the School Year 2021-2022. Specifically, the study sought to answer the following
questions:
1. What is the demographic profile of the two groups of respondents in terms of the following:
1.1 Sex;
1.2 Age;
1.3 Position Title;
1.4 Length of Service; and
1.5 Highest Educational Attainment?
2. What is the assessment of the respondents on the leadership style of their School Head with respect to the following:
2.1 Organizational Commitment;
2.2 Visionary; and
2.3 Decision-Making?
3. Is there a significant difference in the assessment of the respondents on the leadership style of their School Head with respect to the
different aspects when they are grouped according to their profile?
4. What is the level of efficiency of the School Heads as assessed by the two groups of respondents with respect to the following:
4.1 Evaluation;
4.2 Communication; and
4.3 Demonstration?
5. Is there a significant difference in the level of efficiency of the School Heads as assessed by the two groups of respondents with
respect to the
following aspects in terms of their profile?
6. Is there a significant correlation between the leadership styles and level of efficiency of School Heads as assessed by the two groups
of respondents?
7. What is the assessment of the two groups of respondents on the management practices of the School Heads with respect to the
following:
7.1 Social and Cultural Environment;
7.2 Education Administration; and
7.3 Curriculum?
8. Is there a significant correlation among the leadership styles, level of efficiency, and management practices of School Heads?
9. Is there a significant difference between the assessment of the two groups of respondents on the management practices of the School
Heads with respect to the different aspects?
10. Based on the results of the study, what professional development program may be proposed to improve the leadership, efficiency,
and managerial function practices of School Heads in Baras District?
Literature Review
As the study aimed to determine the leadership styles of the school heads as correlates to the level of efficiency of management practices
in different schools in Baras District, during the School Year 2021-2022, the cited literature and studies in this chapter contributed to
find light with the variables related to it.
Hence, authors agreed that is important that we understand leadership and management as significant in educational institutions, as
both are demanded in schools and educational institutions and there is considerable and persuasive case study evidence that leaders
make a difference to schools (Alkarni, 2014; Robinson, 2014).
Similarly, good leadership generates and constantly refreshes the drive for the school to improve and every child and young person to
succeed. In highly effective schools, leaders at all levels play a role in the learning and well-being of learners and recognize this. To
support, Donnison (2014) emphasized that School leaders have an indirect, but powerful effect on pupil outcomes. Similarly, high-
performing teachers will claim to really enjoy teaching, which was effectively controlled by schools’ head teachers who perform their
administrative tasks efficiently (Amina, 2015).
However, according to Tobin (2014), today’s school administrators are confronted, on a daily basis. Strong leadership is the cornerstone
of all organizations that are able to achieve and maintain long term success. Few organizations are prepared for the challenge. Hence,
organizations must take pro-active approaches in the development and retention of leadership talent. They must find ways to prepare
their current employees for the leadership challenges of the future.
Egboka (2018), Emetarom (2017), Tigernix (2022), and American University (2022) all pointed out that in order to resolve issues
effective resource management is one of the most important things to be considered by school administrators. School administrators
not only need to make the most of potentially scarce resources, but also align their resource management strategy with the mission and
vision of the whole school community.

Research Article
While school administrators are responsible for setting a strategic vision for the school, they cannot do so without input from teacher.
Conversely, Paget (2019) emphasized that a successful school is about much more than teaching. While good teaching and learning
are crucial, the administration that underpins it is key to providing a well-rounded education that encompasses the whole child.
Having robust systems, policies and procedures in place ensures that teaching and learning flows as smoothly as possible. Foreign and
local authors all agreed that school leaders cannot remain static but must adapt and change their vision and processes as the world of
education embraces new challenges and fresh technologies.
Professional school principals play a strategic role in developing a comfortable and conducive school atmosphere for the learning and
teaching process through managerial processes, learning supervision, and entrepreneurship, and developing school systems that
encourage students and teachers to learn.
Hence, investment in the leadership capacity of school principals is essential to achieve school success. The forms of investment are
in-service education and training, including pre-service education as preparation and provisioning before taking on the principal
position.
Supervision requires the leader to oversee, assess, evaluate and direct employees to ensure an organization meets its goals. This
generally involves an administrator observing and evaluating lessons in a classroom, documenting the teachers' performance and
sharing suggestions for improvement.
In this context, the principal's strategic vision is important in identifying supporting factors in the implementation of programs carried
out to increase level of school, teachers, and students’ performance. Therefore, by adopting a special strategy, the principal will be able
to create and develop school culture. The characteristics of the school culture shaped by the principal will eventually increase the
quality of the school.
Methodology
Research Design
Descriptive research design was be used for this study. Descriptive research can be defined, based on Enago (2023), as a statement of
current events in which the researcher has no control over the variables. Furthermore, descriptive research can be defined as simply
attempting to determine, describe, or identify what is, whereas analytical research attempts to establish why something is the way it is
or how it came to be.
The descriptive research design assisted the researcher in achieving her research objectives by collecting important data to answer
research sub-problems and decide on the posted hypotheses using the researcher-created questionnaire-checklist.
Participants
The study considered the one hundred forty (140) sample size of teachers composed of twenty (20) each from the following public
elementary schools: Baras Elementary School; Evangelista Elementary School; Malalim Elementary School; Paenaan Elementary
School; Pinugay Elementary School; San Roque Elementary School; and Santiago Elementary School and the seven (7) or one hundred
percent (100%) of School Heads.
This sample was chosen thru purposive sampling since the teachers and school heads of the following schools have immense knowledge
and stand towards the variables of the study which will greatly affect the comprehensiveness and may give light on the premise of the
study in lieu of efficiency on the management practices of school heads and how leadership styles could influence it.
Instruments
The researcher used a researcher-made questionnaire checklist composed of four parts: the first part gathered the profile of the
respondents in terms of sex, age, position title, length of service, and highest educational attainment; the second part gathered data
about the assessment of the two groups of respondents about the leadership styles of School Heads with respect to Organizational
Commitment, Visionary, and Decision-Making; the third part gathered data about the assessment of the two groups of respondents
about the level of efficiency of the School Heads with respect to Evaluation, Communication, and Demonstration; and the fourth and
last part gathered data about the assessment of the two groups of respondents about the managerial practices of School Heads with
respect to Social and Cultural Environment, Education Administration, and Curriculum.
Procedure
The researcher obtained permission to conduct the study from the school of graduate studies at Greenville College, as well as an
introductory letter from DepEd Rizal’s District Superintendent. The administration and retrieval of the questionnaire-checklist
followed.

Research Article
The researcher used a descriptive research design to analyze the data. The responses' data were tabulated in the form of frequencies,
tables, and percentages, with appropriate interpretation, implications, and justifications. The quantitative data was generated using the
research instrument.
The quantitative data generated using the researcher-made questionnaire checklist. The responses coded using the 5-point Likert scale
with corresponding verbal interpretations to categorize the study's specific objectives. The researcher then analyzed the data using the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25. Following the completion of the data analyses, the findings were used to
generate results, conclusions, and recommendations.
Ethical Considerations
The researcher herself explained and gave the informed consent to each participant before the conduct of the study. She ensured them
that the information would be used with utmost confidentiality and within the purpose of the study only.
Results and Discussion

This section presents the findings according to the study's research questions.
Demographic Profile of the Respondents
Table 1. Frequency and percentage distribution of Profile of the School Head-Respondents
Indicators Frequency Percentage Rank
Sex
Male 2 28.57 2
Female 5 71.43 1
Total 7 100.0
Age
50 years old and above 2 28.57 2
45 to 49 years old 2 28.57 2
40 to 44 years old 2 28.57 2
35 to 39 years old 1 14.29 4
Total 7 100.0
Position Title
Principal I 2 28.57 2.5
Principal II 2 28.57 2.5
Principal III 3 42.86 1
Total 7 100.0
Length of Service
More than 15 years 3 42.86 1.5
10 to 14 years 3 42.86 1.5
5 to 9 years 1 14.29 3
Total 7 100.00
Highest Educational Attainment
Doctor’s Degree 2 28.57 2.5
Units in Doctor’s Degree 3 42.86 1
Master’s Degree Holder 2 28.57 2.5
Total 7 100.00
On the profile of the School Heads in terms of the different profile variables, it showed that the majority of the students are male with
a frequency of 88 or 58.67 percent, while there are 62 or 41.33 percent female. Majority of the School Heads are female with a frequency
of 5 or 71.43 percent, and the remainder of 2 or 28.57 percent are male. In terms of age, those School Heads with 50 years old and
above, between 45 to 49 years old, and between 40 to 44 years old shared the second. On rank, since all have frequencies of 2 or 28.57
percent, while there is only 1 or 14.29 percent who is between 35 to 39 years old. As to the position title, most of the School Heads are
Principal III with a frequency of 3 or 42.86 percent, while Principal I and Principal II tied at 2 or 28.57 percent. When it comes to the
length of service, those School Heads with length of service of either more than 15 years and between 10 to 14 years shared the 1.5
rank since both have frequencies of 3 or 42.86 percent, while there is sole or 14.29 percent with 5 to 9 years length of service. For the
highest educational attainment, there are 3 or 42.86 percent with units in Doctor’s degree, while there are 2 or 28.57 percent either with
Doctor’s degree or Master’s degree.
Regarding the profile of the teacher-respondents, with regards to sex, the table showed that majority of teacher-respondents are female,
with a frequency of 101 or 72.14, while there are only 39 or 27.86 percent male teachers. For their age, first in rank were those
respondents within the age bracket of 40 to 44 years of age with a frequency of 47 or 33.57 percent, followed by 35 to 39 years old

Research Article
with 31 or 22.14 percent, next is 45 to 49 years old with 22 or 15.71 percent. Fourth in rank are those within the age bracket of 30 to
34 years old with 21 or 15 percent, followed by those 50 years old and above with a frequency of 11 or 7.86 percent, and lastly, those
25 to 29 years old respondents with the lowest frequency of 8 or 5.71 percent. When it comes to position title, 61 out of 140 or 43.57
percent of the respondents are Teacher I, followed by Teacher III with 42 or 30 percent, then Teachers II comes next with 32 or 22.86
percent, while there are only 5 or 3.57 percent Master Teacher I.
Table 2. Frequency and percentage distribution of Profile of the Teacher-Respondents
Indicators Frequency Percentage Rank
Sex
Male 39 27.86 2
Female 101 72.14 1
Total 140 100.0
50 years old and above 11 7.86 5
45 to 49 years old 22 15.71 3
40 to 44 years old 47 33.57 1
35 to 39 years old 31 22.14 2
30 to 34 years old 21 15.00 4
25 to 29 years old 8 5.71 6
Total 140 100.0
Position Title
Master Teacher I 5 3.57 4
Teacher I 61 43.57 1
Teacher II 32 22.86 3
Teacher III 42 30.00 2
Total 140 100.0
Length of Service Frequency Percentage Rank
More than 15 years 22 15.71 3
10 to 14 years 56 40.00 1
5 to 9 years 41 29.29 2
1 to 4 years 21 15.00 4
Total 140 100.00
Units in Doctor’s Degree 4 2.86 4
Master’s Degree Holder 23 16.43 3
Units in Master’s Degree 34 24.28 2
Bachelor’s Degree Holder 79 56.43 1
Total 140 100.00
For the length of service, the respondents are dominated by those with 10 to 14 years length of service with 56 or 40 percent, followed
by those with 5 to 9 years length of service with 41 or 29.29 percent. Third in rank are those with more than 15 years length of service
with 22 or 15.71 percent, while the rest of 21 or 15 percent have 1 to 4 years of length of service. When it comes to their highest
educational attainment, no. 1 in ranks is those Bachelor’s degree holders with 79 or 56.43 percent, followed by those with units in
Master’s degree with 34 or 24.28 percent, then followed by those with Master’s degree with 23 or 16.43 percent, while the fewest have
units in Doctor’s degree with only 4 or 2.86 percent.
Assessment of the respondents on the leadership style of their School Head
Table 4 presented the assessment of the respondents on the leadership style of their School Head with respect to Organizational
Commitment. It displayed that in overall, data showed a composite mean of 4.41 and interpreted as Strongly Agree.
It can also be unveiled that the School Heads “Strongly Agree” on their leadership style with respect to Organizational Commitment
with an overall mean of 4.69, while the teachers “Agree” on this aspect with an overall mean of 4.14.
Table 3. Assessment of Two Groups of Respondents on the Leadership Style of School Heads with Respect to Organizational
Commitment
School Heads Teachers Overall
Indicators
Mean VI Mean VI Mean VI Rank
Leads the organization with vision of what may be able to accomplish in working
4.43 SA 4.07 A 4.25 SA 2
together to change practices/programs.
Believes and accepts the organization’s goals and values. 4.71 SA 3.94 A 4.33 SA 5
Holds high performance expectation. 4.71 SA 3.96 A 4.34 SA 4

Research Article
Demonstrates willingness to put in a great sense of effort beyond the normally expected
4.86 SA 4.50 SA 4.68 SA 1
in order to make the organization successful.
Helps understand the relationship between school's vision and school sponsoring body
4.71 SA 4.21 SA 4.46 SA 3
or education department.
Composite Mean 4.69 SA 4.14 A 4.41 SA
It can be noted from the results that School Heads and teachers both agreed about the leadership style concerning Organizational
Commitment, especially, when the School Heads demonstrates their willingness to exert effort and pushing their limits just to make
the organization successful.
Relative to this, Nzoka (2014) stated that school heads of successful schools are dynamic and well-educated individuals with a strong
commitment to the school and the profession of education. It showed that definitely school heads ‘make a difference’ in the school.
Table 4. Assessment of Two Groups of Respondents on the Leadership Style of School Heads with Respect to Visionary
Indicators
Identifies new opportunities and inspires others through his/her vision in the future. 4.71 SA 3.79 A 4.25 SA 4
Provides an appropriate model of behavior that serves as an example for others to
5.00 SA 3.77 A 4.39 SA 1
follow.
Fosters acceptance of group goals aimed at creating cooperation among followers. 4.57 SA 3.74 A 4.16 SA 5
Talks optimistically about the future. 4.71 SA 3.89 A 4.30 SA 3
Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission. 4.71 SA 3.90 A 4.31 SA 2
Composite Mean 4.77 SA 3.82 A 4.28 SA
Table 4 presented the assessment of the respondents on the leadership style of their School Head with respect to being Visionary. It
can be gleaned that in overall, it provided a composite mean of 4.28 and interpreted as Strongly Agree.
It also revealed that School Heads “Strongly Agree” of them being Visionary as their leadership style, garnering an overall mean of
4.77. Meanwhile, teachers “Agree” to this leadership styles of their School Heads with an overall mean of 3.82.
The results inferred that the School Heads firmly believed that they are truly a visionary as the type of leadership they have, which the
teacher-respondents agreed upon.
Similarly, according to Tobin (2014), today’s school administrators are confronted with challenges on a daily basis it even includes
handling irate parents, and even to supporting overwhelmed teachers. How they react to these issues, to a great extent, determines their
success or failure as school administrators.
Table 5. Assessment of Two Groups of Respondents on the Leadership Style of School Heads with Respect to Decision-Making
Indicators
Demonstrates confidence with the ability in doing the job. 4.43 SA 3.69 A 4.06 A 4
Takes opinion into consideration when initiating actions that affect work. 4.86 SA 3.74 A 4.30 SA 1
Manifests openness, fairness and honesty in dealings with staff and students. 4.71 SA 3.68 A 4.20 SA 2
Demonstrates willingness to change own practices in light of new understandings. 4.57 SA 3.65 A 4.11 A 3
Ensures that teachers have adequate involvement in decision making related to programs
4.57 SA 3.45 A 4.01 A 5
and instruction.
Composite Mean 4.63 SA 3.64 A 4.14 A
Table 5 presented the assessment of the respondents on the leadership style of their School Head with respect to Decision-Making. It
was shown that in overall, it achieved a composite mean of 4.14 and interpreted as Agree.
Also it showed that, again, the School Heads “Strongly Agree” on their leadership style with respect to Decision-Making which
garnered an overall mean of 4.63, while teachers “Agree” on it garnering their overall mean of 3.64.
The results implied that both groups of respondents showed the same perspective about the decision-making of the School Heads as
part of their leadership style, which they both favored the involvement of teachers in making decisions.
Relative to this, Khalif (2014) stated that time management; leadership practices decision-making, interpersonal practices,
communication practices, delegation and school administration structure are vital for successful school management and leadership.
School heads with effective management practices are very essential if educational goals and objectives are to be realized.
Significant difference in the assessment of the respondents on the leadership style of their School Head
Table 6. Significant Difference in the Assessment of School Heads on their Leadership Style
Variations F P value Decision VI

Research Article
Sex
Organizational Commitment 1.633 0.257 Accept Ho NS
Being Visionary 1.015 0.360 Accept Ho NS
Decision-Making 1.169 0.329 Accept Ho NS
Age
Position Title
Length of Service
It can be observed from the table that the assessment of the School Heads on their leadership style showed no significant difference
with respect to the different aspects. All significant values are higher than the 0.05 level of significance which all accepted the null
hypothesis of the study and were all interpreted as Not Significant.
The results only tell that the responses of the School Heads about their assessment on their leadership style are consistent with each
other regardless of the differences of their profile variables. This could mean that regardless of their personal life and professional
profile, school heads should work diligently for the benefit of the school.
Similarly, Alkarni (2014) stated that it is important that we understand leadership and management as significant in educational
institutions, as both are demanded in schools and educational institutions.
Table 7. Significant Difference in the Assessment of Teachers on the Leadership Style of School Heads
Variations F P Value Decision VI
Sex
Age
Position Title
Length of Service
Data indicated that the assessment of teachers about the leadership styles of School Heads showed no significant differences with
respect to the different aspects when they were grouped according to their profile. All significant values are outside the rejection area
at the 0.05 level of significance and failed to reject the null hypothesis of the study.
The results denoted that the differences in profile variables of teachers did not affect the consistencies of the assessment of teachers
about the leadership style of School Heads concerning the different aspects.
To add, Donnison (2014) emphasized that School leaders have an indirect, but powerful effect on pupil outcomes. The key tasks of

Research Article
school teachers include leading the development of the school’s curriculum goals, communicating with staff, parents and the wider
community, and managing the school’s data and development which can all be carried out regardless of their gender, sex, or personal
profile as long as they have commitment to be the best and to give the best for all.
Level of efficiency of the School Heads as assessed by the two groups of respondents
The next table revealed that the School Heads and teachers assessed that the School Heads are “Very Highly Efficient” with respect to
Evaluation, with respective overall means of 4.54 and 4.39. The results denoted that School Heads showcased coherence when it comes
to evaluating the skills and also the teaching strategies of teachers and in upskilling them.
Table 8. Assessment of Two Groups of Respondents on the Level of Efficiency of the School Heads with Respect to Evaluation
Indicators
Conduct of evaluation throughout the year. 4.29 VHE 4.54 VHE 4.42 VHE 3.5
Informing teachers about the skill or know-how as the objective for evaluation. 4.71 VHE 4.12 HE 4.42 VHE 3.5
Conduct of evaluation criteria which are explicit and visible. 4.57 VHE 4.16 HE 4.37 VHE 5
Determining what percentage or which specific tasks of teaching strategy need to
4.57 VHE 4.72 VHE 4.65 VHE 1
be accomplished.
Providing teachers with opportunities for self-evaluation. 4.57 VHE 4.42 VHE 4.50 VHE 2
Composite Mean 4.54 VHE 4.39 VHE 4.47 VHE
To add, Donnison (2014) also claimed that school administrators should also be actively engaged in the school, implementing
instructional leadership and encouraging a focus on effective teaching and learning. Hence, the development of pedagogical leadership
relies on effective modeling and shared approaches to planning, teaching, assessment, evaluation, support and intervention. Therefore,
one must have strong practice-based element.
Table 9. Assessment of Two Groups of Respondents on the Level of Efficiency of the School Heads with Respect to Communication
Indicators
Giving constructive comments on teacher’s scheme of work. 4.57 VHE 4.06 HE 4.32 VHE 2.5
Communicating with encouragement and stimulation. 4.29 VHE 4.09 HE 4.19 HE 5
Supporting and showing inspiration among teachers to learn. 4.57 VHE 3.87 HE 4.22 VHE 4
Creating possibility for dialogue. 4.29 VHE 4.41 VHE 4.35 VHE 1
Being approachable and respectful. 4.43 VHE 4.20 VHE 4.32 VHE 2.5
Composite Mean 4.43 VHE 4.20 VHE 4.28 VHE
The data on the table showed that the two groups of respondents assessed the School Heads as “Very Highly Efficient” when it comes
to Communication. The School Heads themselves garnered an overall mean of 4.43 while 4.20 for the teachers.
It can be deduced from the results that teachers observed the efficiency of School Heads in making dialogues with them and being easy
to approach which conforms to the School Heads most favored item which states them showing inspiration, encouragement, and
stimulation.
In relation, according to Egboka (2018), management practices should aim at creating a satisfactory working atmosphere for staff to
effectively discharge their duties in a professional manner. Management support practices and communications are geared towards
providing a friendly climate for workers productivity.
Table 10. Assessment of Two Groups of Respondents on the Level of Efficiency of the School Heads with Respect to Demonstration
Indicators
Demonstrating approach by personalizing teacher development. 4.57 VHE 3.78 HE 4.18 HE 4
Creating an institutional culture that puts learning first. 4.57 VHE 3.61 HE 4.09 HE 1
Prioritizing the personalizing of learning for teachers in terms of tasks and 4.43 VHE 3.71 HE 4.07 HE 2
skills.
Demonstrating leadership focused on teaching and learning and the 4.29 VHE 3.66 HE 3.98 HE 3
professional development of teachers.
Demonstrating understanding of specific best practices. 4.71 VHE 3.64 HE 4.18 HE 5
Composite Mean 4.51 VHE 3.68 HE 4.10 HE
It can be observed from the table that the School Heads assessed themselves as “Very Highly Efficient” in Demonstration, with an
overall mean of 4.51, while teachers assessed them as “Highly Efficient” with 3.68.
The results mean that, teachers appreciate the efficiency of School Heads in demonstrating teacher development and best practices.
School Heads also demonstrated prioritization of learning and skills.

Research Article
Furthermore, Nadarasa and Thuraisingam (2014) explained that a leader is recognized as a person who sets direction and influences
people to follow that direction. Some early researchers attempted to define effective leadership styles and to relate them with various
aspects of organizational outcomes.
Significant difference in the level of efficiency of the School Heads as assessed by the two groups of respondents
Table 11. Significant Difference in the Level of Efficiency of School Heads as Assessed by the School Heads in Terms of Profile
Sex
Evaluation 0.826 0.365 Accept Ho NS
Communication 0.164 0.686 Accept Ho NS
Demonstration 0.090 0.765 Accept Ho NS
Age
Position Title
Length of Service
All significant values were higher than the 0.05 level of significance and failed to reject the null hypothesis of the study. Meanwhile,
the level of efficiency in Evaluation of the School Heads in terms of their age did not produce any data since no standard deviation
found on their assessment. It can be deduced from the results that the differences in profile of the School Heads did not affect the
consistencies of their assessments about their efficiency concerning the different aspects.
Regardless of any factors involved, based on American University (2022), effective management is one of the most important
responsibilities of school administrators. After public schools receive funding from state and federal governments, they must allocate
those resources to fund programs and other school necessities.
Based on the data from the next table, the assessment of teachers on the level of efficiency of School Heads registered no significant
differences with respect to the different aspects when they were grouped according to sex, age, and length of service. All significant
values are outside the rejection area at the 0.05 level of significance and failed to reject the null hypothesis of the study.
Table 12. Significant Difference in the Level of Efficiency of School Heads as Assessed by the Teachers in Terms of Profile
Sex
Age
Position Title
Length of Service

Research Article

Decision-Making 1.136 0.271 Accept H o NS
Therefore, the results implied that the differences in the majority of profile variables of teachers are not factors that affect the
consistencies of their responses pertaining to the level of efficiencies of School Heads with respect to the different aspects.
As Konyak (2021) pointed out that school governance has an important role in ensuring that schools in particular perform well and
continually seek to improve overall quality of education and also aims to transform the education system in the state.
Significant correlation between the leadership styles and level of efficiency of School Heads as assessed by the two groups of
respondents
Table 13. Significant Correlation between the Leadership Style and the Level of Efficiency of School Heads as Assessed by the School
Heads
Variations r value P value Decision VI
Organizational Commitment
Being Visionary
Demonstration -0.493 0.261 Accept Ho NS
Decision-Making
Communication -0.117 0.803 Accept Ho NS
Demonstration -0.834 0.020 Reject Ho S
The table revealed that the assessment of School Heads on their leadership style concerning the different aspects showed no significant
correlation on their level of efficiency with respect to Evaluation, Communication, and Demonstration as all significant values are
higher than the 0.05 level of significance which failed to reject the null hypothesis of the study.
No significant correlation also found on their leadership style with respect to Decision making and their level of efficiencies in
Evaluation and Communication. However, significant correlation is registered with respect to Demonstration which yielded a
significant value of 0.020 and rejected the null hypothesis of the study.
The results confirmed that the assessments of the School Heads of their leadership styles in the most of its aspects have no statistical
association on their level of efficiencies.
Table 14. Significant Correlation between the Leadership Style and the Level of Efficiency of School Heads as Assessed by the
Teachers
Variations r value P value Decision VI
Organizational ‘Commitment
Demonstration 0.169 0.046 Reject Ho S
Being Visionary
Communication -0.070 0.409 Accept Ho NS
Demonstration -0.083 0.332 Accept Ho NS
Decision-Making
Evaluation 0.231 0.006 Reject Ho S
The table presented that the assessment of teachers about the leadership style of School Heads with respect to Organization
Commitment showed no significant correlation on their level of efficiencies with respect to Evaluation and Communication,
Meanwhile, their assessment showed significant correlation on the level of efficiency of School Heads concerning Demonstration
rejected the null hypothesis of the study.
No significant correlation found on their assessment on the leadership styles of School Heads and their level of efficiency with respect
to the different aspects.

Research Article
Moreover, the assessment of teachers on the leadership styles of School Heads showed no significant correlation on their level of
efficiencies with respect to Communication and Demonstration. But significant correlation occurs with respect to Evaluation.
The results simply tell that the assessments of teachers about the leadership of their School Heads in Organizational Commitment and
Decision-Making are positively connected to their assessment on the level of efficiencies of the School Heads concerning
Demonstration and Evaluation.
Assessment of the two groups of respondents on the management practices of the School Heads
Table 15. Assessment of the Two Groups of Respondents on the Management Practices of School Heads with Respect to Social and
Cultural Environment
Indicators
Consider school policy that focus attention on environmental issues associated with
4.43 VHP 3.65 HP 4.04 HP 3.5
school activities and services.
Commitment to addressing environmental issues and continuously improving
4.43 VHP 3.64 VHP 4.04 HP 3.5
environmental performance.
Train and motivate members of staff to carry out tasks in an environmentally
4.43 VHP 3.71 VHP 4.07 HP 5
responsible manner.
Adopt waste management best practices. 4.29 VHP 3.66 VHP 3.98 HP 3
Establishes community linkages. 4.71 VHP 3.67 VHP 4.19 HP 1
Composite Mean 4.46 VHP 3.67 VHP 4.06 HP
It showcased that the School Heads assessed their management practices as “Outstanding” with respect to Social and Cultural
Environment, while teachers assessed it as “Very Satisfactory” with overall means of 4.46 and 3.67, respectively.
The results signified that School Heads are showing their superb management practices and their display of importance about the
social and cultural responsibilities of educational institutions.
On a similar finding, Edmund and Lyamtane (2018) indicates that, relationship between the school heads, teachers, staff, parents and
student should also be established. Furthermore, results also showed that principal always encourage staff involvement in development
programs which may enhance relationship with the community.
Table 16. Assessment of the Two Groups of Respondents on the Management Practices of School Heads with Respect to Educational
Administration
Indicators
Restructuring the strategies and programs consistently so it leads to the achievement of
4.57 VHP 3.74 HP 4.16 HP 3
the vision and mission of the school.
Determine strategies and methods of learning. 4.43 VHP 3.87 HP 4.15 HP 4
Setting the learning environment. 4.43 VHP 3.79 HP 4.11 HP 5
Providing information for decision making in the program implementation. 4.57 VHP 3.77 HP 4.17 HP 2
Work with the teachers and non-teaching staff towards improving their work
4.71 VHP 3.84 HP 4.28 VHP 1
environments.
Composite Mean 4.54 VHP 3.80 HP 4.17 HP
The table revealed that the School Heads and teachers garnered overall means of 4.54 and 3.80 on their assessment about the
management practices of School Heads with respect to Education Administration, with verbal interpretation of “Outstanding” and
“Very Satisfactory” respectively.
The results only tell that, teachers witnessed the very satisfactory management practice of School Heads as administrator particularly
when it comes to improving the work environments and leading the methods of learning.
Adding to this, according to Ajani (2020), is important to understand how to improve the standard of education and management
practices on school climate. Relatively little previous research has investigated the mechanisms by which a principal’s management
practices pose an effect on the school climate.
Table 17. Assessment of the Two Groups of Respondents on the Management Practices of School Heads with Respect to Curriculum
Indicators
Preparation of plans and learning programs. 4.43 VHP 3.76 HP 4.10 HP 5

Research Article
The implementation of current curriculum consists of core competencies, basic

4.43 VHP 3.94 HP 4.19 HP 2.5
competencies, and contents of learning, subjects, and learning loads.
Assess the extent of the strengths and weaknesses of the curriculum developed in
4.57 VHP 3.91 HP 4.24 VHP 1
the form of formative and summative assessment.
Conduct evaluation focuses on approach system and objectives, the actual
4.57 VHP 3.72 HP 4.15 HP 4
condition, problems, and opportunities.
Conduct evaluation focuses on the capabilities of the system, strategies for
4.43 VHP 3.94 HP 4.19 HP 2.5
achieving the objectives, implementation of design and cost benefit.
Composite Mean 4.49 VHP 3.85 HP 4.17 HP
It can be noticed from the table that, once again, the School Heads assessed their management practice with respect to Curriculum as
“Outstanding” with an overall mean of 4.49, while teachers assessed their management practice as “Very Satisfactory” with an overall
mean of 3.85.
The results indicated that the School Heads still showcased exceptional management practice when it comes to Curriculum, especially,
in assessing its flaws and in improving it, and in continuously doing evaluations for the improvement of the education
system. Teachers also noticed this management practice of their School Heads.
In response, Guiab (2014) recommended that school heads should endeavor to upgrade themselves in the profession by finishing their
doctorate degrees, (2) School heads should plan and initiate resource generating activities to increase finances of the school thus, more
programs and projects would be implemented, and (3) Continuous attendance to leadership seminars and trainings should be aimed
by school heads to improve further their management skills and competence for better curriculum and policy implementation.
Significant correlation among the leadership styles, level of efficiency, and management practices of School Heads
Table 18. Significant Correlation among Leadership Style, Efficiency, and Management Practices of School Heads
Organizational Being Decision
Variations Evaluation Communication Demonstration
Commitment Visionary Making
Pearson
0.679 0.708 0.132 1 -0.110 -0.130
Correlation
Evaluation Sig. (2-tailed) 0.093 0.075 0.777 0.814 0.782
N 7 7 7 7 7 7
Pearson
0.623 0.275 -0.117 -0.110 1 0.194
Correlation
Communication Sig. (2-tailed) 0.135 0.551 0.803 0.814 0.677
N 7 7 7 7 7 7
Pearson
0.035 -0.493 -.834* -0.130 0.194 1
Correlation
Demonstration Sig. (2-tailed) 0.940 0.261 0.020 0.782 0.677
N 7 7 7 7 7 7
Pearson
-0.163 -0.380 -0.032 -0.520 0.211 0.075
Social and Cultural Correlation
Environment Sig. (2-tailed) 0.727 0.400 0.946 0.231 0.649 0.874
N 7 7 7 7 7 7
Pearson
-0.015 0.135 -0.296 0.135 0.020 0.547
Education Correlation
Administration Sig. (2-tailed) 0.974 0.772 0.520 0.772 0.966 0.204
N 7 7 7 7 7 7
Pearson
-0.651 -0.366 0.396 -0.301 -0.546 -0.398
Correlation
Curriculum Sig. (2-tailed) 0.113 0.419 0.380 0.512 0.205 0.377
N 7 7 7 7 7 7
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
It can be seen from the table that the leadership, level of efficiency, and management practices of the School Heads showed no
significant correlations with one another, except their level of efficiency with respect to
Demonstration and their leadership style in Decision-Making which garner a significant value of 0.020 and a high negative correlation
value of -.834 which is significant at the 0.05 level of significance.

Research Article
The results emphasized that the leadership style, the level of efficiency, and management practices of the School Heads are not
associated with each other based on the different aspects considered in the study. This further means that, there are other aspects that
might contribute to the correlation to the three variables which are not included in this study.
Furthermore, based on Retallick (2015),2 there are number of characteristics of management of successful schools. First, shared
responsibility and accountability for the management of the school was evident in all three schools.
Significant difference between the assessments of the two groups of respondents on the management practices of the School
Heads
Table 19. Significant Difference between the Assessments of School Heads and Teachers on the Management Practices
School Heads/Teachers t value P value Decision VI
Social and Cultural Environment 1.590 0.163 Accepted Ho NS
Education Administration 2.551 0.043 Accepted Ho NS
Curriculum 2.184 0.072 Accepted Ho NS
The table displayed that the assessment of the two groups of respondents on the management practices of School Heads showed no
significant difference with respect to the different aspects. All significant values exceeded the 0.05 level of significance and failed to
reject the null hypothesis of the study.
Data suggested that the two groups of respondents agreed with each other and showed consistencies of their assessments about the
management practices of School Heads.
In relation, the study of Lazaro (2014) explained that leadership as an organizational quality, according to includes teachers’
participation in instructional, professional, and organizational development, whereby leadership “must affect more than individuals’
actions; it must influence the system in which actions occur”.
Proposed Professional Development Program
School heads who are strong, effective, responsive leaders help to inspire and enhance the abilities of their teachers and other school
staff to do excellent work. In short, through their actions, they can be powerful multipliers of effective teaching and leadership practices
in schools.
With that this professional development program aimed to improve the leadership, efficiency, and management practices of school
heads. Through this, school heads can shape a vision of success; guide teaching and learning; and build capacity in teachers and other
stakeholders to help in improving student outcomes and provide high-quality educational opportunities for all learners. Here, school
leaders can have the leverage of an extensive set of technical and adaptive skills that may enable and accelerate teacher and student
learning as well as better school climate.
Conclusion
Based from the findings the following were being concluded:
(1)According to the data gathered, it can be said that the study was female dominated since most of the respondents from two groups
fall on such category. Likewise, they are middle-aged and has been in the institution for quite some time. They are also keen when it
comes to professional development as majority are pursuing postgraduate studies. For position, most are in the base of the current rank
they are into such as Teacher I and Principal I. (2)It can be noted from the results that School Heads and teachers both agreed about
the leadership style concerning Organizational Commitment, especially, when the School Heads demonstrates their willingness to exert
effort and pushing their limits just to make the organization successful. (3) The results only tell that the responses of the School Heads
about their assessment on their leadership style are consistent with each other regardless of the differences of their profile variables.
(4) The results claimed that School Heads showcased coherence when it comes to evaluating the skills and also the teaching strategies
of teachers and in upskilling them. (5) It can be deduced from the results that the differences in profile of the School Heads did not
affect the consistencies of their assessments about their efficiency concerning the different aspects. (6) The results confirmed that, the
assessments of the School Heads of their leadership styles in the most of its aspects have no statistical association on their level of
efficiencies. (7) The results denoted that School Heads are showing their superb management practices and their display of importance
about the social and cultural responsibilities of educational institutions. (8) The results emphasized that the leadership style, the level
of efficiency, and management practices of the School Heads are not associated with each other based on the different aspects
considered in the study. (9) The results emphasized that the leadership style, the level of efficiency, and management practices of the
School Heads are not associated with each other based on the different aspects considered in the study. (10) With that this professional
development program aimed to improve the leadership, efficiency, and management practices of school heads. Through this, school
heads can shape a vision of success; guide teaching and learning; and build capacity in teachers and other stakeholders to help in
improving student outcomes and provide high-quality educational opportunities for all learners.

Research Article
References
Aguilar, Sally (2011). A School Principal as a Leader and a Manager. Retrieved from http://olga-
schooleadership.blogspot.com/2011/01/principal-as-leader-and-
manager.html#:~:text=A%20principal%20is%20also%20a,the%20support%20of%20every%20individual.
Ajani, Taiwo Azeez (2020). The Impact of the Management Practices of Principals on the School Climate in Public Schools. Published
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pretoria.
Alkarni, Anthony C. (2014). Problems which May Challenge the Ability of Secondary Head Teachers in the City of Tabuk to Lead
Their Schools Professionally. Arecls Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 55 – 74.
American University (2022, July 21). Effective Resource Management in Education: How School Administrators Can Improve Student
Learning. Retrieved from https://soeonline.american.edu/blog/effective-resource-management.
Amina, Jangu A. (2015). An Evaluation of Head teachers Performance in Supervision of Instruction and Involvement of Staff in
Decision-Making in the School. International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies, Volume 2, Issue 7, Ghana, Africa,
PP. 129-142.
Donnison, Andrew (2014). Effective School. Goldwin Publication, Inc. New York.
Edmund, Samwel and Lyamtane, Eugene (2018). Effectiveness of the Heads of Schools in Managing Financial Resources in Public
Secondary Schools in Moshi Municipality. Published Research Study, Mwenge Catholic University, Tanzania, pp. 56-59.
Egboka, Patience Ndidi (2018). Principals’ Application of Management Support Practices for Enhancing Teachers Job Performance in
Secondary Schools in Enugu State, Nigeria. International Journal of Research, Vol. 5, No. 17.
Fadiyah, Syifa (2022). 10 Reasons Why School Management System is Important. Retrieved from
https://www.hashmicro.com/blog/the-importance-of-school-management-system/.
Guiab, Marissa R. (2014). Demographic Profile of Public-School Heads and School Related Problems. Unpublished Master’s Thesis,
Philippine Normal University.
Khalif, Hussein A. (2014). Teachers’ Perception of Public Primary School Head Teachers Administrative Practices in Ijara District.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nairobi.
Konyak, Pangkhao (2021). Educational Vision: Best Practices in School Governance and Management. Retrieved from
https://morungexpress.com/educational-vision-best-practices-in-school-governance-and-management.
Nadarasa, Thusyanthini and Thuraisnigam, Ravivathani (2014). The Influence of Principals’ Leadership Styles on School Teachers’
Job Satisfaction – Study of Secondary in Jaffna District. University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka, pp. 66-67.
Nzoka, Jackline Tabitha and Orodho, John Aluko (2014). School Management and Students’ Academic Performance: How Effective
are Strategies being Employed by School Managers in Secondary Schools in Embu North District, Embu County, Kenya? Published
Research Paper, Kenyatta University, Kenya, pp. 78-83.
Paget, Vincent (2019, June 4). 3 Reasons Why School Administration Is Important for Student Education. Retrieved from
https://www.orah.com/blog/3-reasons-why-school-administration-is-important-for-student-education.
Retallick, John (2005). Managing School Success: A Case Study from Pakistan. Published Doctoral Dissertation, Aga Khan University,
Pakistan, pp. 103-108.
Robinson, V. M. J. (2014). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why. Winmalee, NSW: Australian
Council for Educational Leaders: (Monograph 41, ACEL Monograph Series Editor David Gurr) 28 pages. Reprinted in SPANZ: The
Journal of the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand.
Tigerniz (2022). Learn the 15 Reasons Why School Management Systems are Important? Retrieved from
https://www.tigernix.com/blog/15-reasons-school-management-systems-important.
Tobin, James (2014). Management and Leadership Issues for School Building Leaders. NCPEA International Journal of Educational
Leadership Preparation, Vol. 9, No. 1.
Affiliations and Corresponding Information
Ginalyn T. Martir
Pinugay Elementary School
Department of Education – Philippines

Leadership Style of The School Heads As Correlates To The Level of Efficiency of Management Practices: Inputs For Professional Development Plan

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

Leadership Style of The School Heads As Correlates To The Level of Efficiency of Management Practices: Inputs For Professional Development Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEADERSHIP STYLE OF THE SCHOOL HEADS AS

CORRELATES TO THE LEVEL OF EFFICIENCY OF

PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

Leadership Style of the School Heads As Correlates to the Level of Efficiency of

Keywords: e-supplementary material, reading, students’ performance

Ginalyn T. Martir 393/406

Ginalyn T. Martir 394/406

Ginalyn T. Martir 395/406

Results and Discussion

Ginalyn T. Martir 396/406

Ginalyn T. Martir 397/406

Ginalyn T. Martir 398/406

Ginalyn T. Martir 399/406

Ginalyn T. Martir 400/406

Ginalyn T. Martir 401/406

Being Visionary 1.719 0.166 Accept Ho NS

Ginalyn T. Martir 402/406

Ginalyn T. Martir 403/406

The implementation of current curriculum consists of core competencies, basic

Ginalyn T. Martir 404/406

Ginalyn T. Martir 405/406

Ginalyn T. Martir 406/406

You might also like